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
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
February 25, 2016
.
"I AM NOT A SUPERPREDATOR": Black Lives Matter Activist INTERRUPTS Hillary Clinton
Hillary calling young black children "superpredators" in the 90s:
.
February 25, 2016
The REAL REASON Bernie Sanders Is NOT Advertising In The South
The fact that Bernie Sanders has chosen to focus his Super Tuesday advertising spending in Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Oklahoma has been a subject of much discussion today. Hillary supporters seem to be celebrating in every thread, claiming that Sanders has “given up on the South (including Texas)”. Meanwhile, others have offered strategic rationalizations.
While I urge everyone to read MattTX’s diary, there is another, simpler reason that can help us understand Sanders’ strategic investment. States are awarded delegates according to a formula that favors states that have voted Democratic in recent elections. The justification for this is that states with more Democratic voters should have more say. As a result, red states actually end up with significantly fewer delegates per capita (The formula is also based on electoral votes, not population, so larger states like Texas are further penalized) Thus:
Texas: 8.7 delegates per 1 million residents
Oklahoma: 9.7 delegates per 1 million residents
Georgia: 10.0 delegates per 1 million residents
Tennessee: 10.1 delegates per 1 million residents
Arkansas: 10.7 delegates per 1 million residents
South Carolina: 10.8 delegates per 1 million residents
Alabama: 10.8 delegates per 1 million residents
Virginia: 11.4 delegates per 1 million residents
Colorado: 12.0 delegates per 1 million residents
Massachusetts: 13.4 delegates per 1 million residents
Minnesota: 14.0 delegates per 1 million residents
Vermont: 24.0 delegates per 1 million residents
Since TV advertising reaches (nearly) everyone indiscriminately, it is thus a poorer investment in red states compared to blue states. It makes perfect sense for a campaign with limited resources to spend in those blue states, where advertising is more likely to reach Democrats, not Republicans. Sanders has simply chosen the top three states (CO, MA, MN), apparently assuming VT was a lock (although will be interesting to see if he can keep Clinton below 15%). He has then chosen to make a strategic play for OK, hoping that he can win five states, and thus alter the media narrative. It would be wrong to conclude from advertising alone that Sanders has “given up on the South” — as a simple glance at his campaign office map would demonstrate:
Finally, it is important to stress again that, despite its impressive fundraising, the Sanders campaign does have limited resources. If you would like to see Bernie on the air in more states, please consider donating $27 to the cause!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/02/25/1490675/-The-real-reason-Bernie-Sanders-is-not-advertising-in-the-South
While I urge everyone to read MattTX’s diary, there is another, simpler reason that can help us understand Sanders’ strategic investment. States are awarded delegates according to a formula that favors states that have voted Democratic in recent elections. The justification for this is that states with more Democratic voters should have more say. As a result, red states actually end up with significantly fewer delegates per capita (The formula is also based on electoral votes, not population, so larger states like Texas are further penalized) Thus:
Texas: 8.7 delegates per 1 million residents
Oklahoma: 9.7 delegates per 1 million residents
Georgia: 10.0 delegates per 1 million residents
Tennessee: 10.1 delegates per 1 million residents
Arkansas: 10.7 delegates per 1 million residents
South Carolina: 10.8 delegates per 1 million residents
Alabama: 10.8 delegates per 1 million residents
Virginia: 11.4 delegates per 1 million residents
Colorado: 12.0 delegates per 1 million residents
Massachusetts: 13.4 delegates per 1 million residents
Minnesota: 14.0 delegates per 1 million residents
Vermont: 24.0 delegates per 1 million residents
Since TV advertising reaches (nearly) everyone indiscriminately, it is thus a poorer investment in red states compared to blue states. It makes perfect sense for a campaign with limited resources to spend in those blue states, where advertising is more likely to reach Democrats, not Republicans. Sanders has simply chosen the top three states (CO, MA, MN), apparently assuming VT was a lock (although will be interesting to see if he can keep Clinton below 15%). He has then chosen to make a strategic play for OK, hoping that he can win five states, and thus alter the media narrative. It would be wrong to conclude from advertising alone that Sanders has “given up on the South” — as a simple glance at his campaign office map would demonstrate:
Finally, it is important to stress again that, despite its impressive fundraising, the Sanders campaign does have limited resources. If you would like to see Bernie on the air in more states, please consider donating $27 to the cause!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/02/25/1490675/-The-real-reason-Bernie-Sanders-is-not-advertising-in-the-South
February 25, 2016
PRESS RELEASE
Oklahoma is OK for Bernie
FEBRUARY 24, 2016
TULSA, Okla. – A crowd of nearly 6,900 Bernie Sanders supporters cheered at a raucous rally days ahead of Super Tuesday when Oklahoma voters go to the polls along with Democrats in 10 other states. He spoke outside afterward to some of the 2,000 more who couldn’t get inside the Cox Business Center hall.
In the unexpectedly tight contest, a recent Public Policy Polling survey had Hillary Clinton up by only 2 percentage points over Sanders. Both campaigns are on the television airwaves with ads and have sent experienced campaign staff to the state.
“You are going to have the opportunity to make history and to help lead this country in a political revolution. We can win here in Oklahoma and a victory here is the path to victory nationally,” Sanders said at the high-decibel conclusion of a long speech on how to change the country’s rigged economy propped up by a corrupt campaign finance system.
Before the rally, Sanders made an impromptu stop at The Woody Guthrie Center, a museum dedicated to the life and legacy of the American folk musician and singer-songwriter.
“Woody Guthrie is one of the greatest musicians and songwriters in American history,” Sanders said after touring the museum and archives. “His songs spoke to the reality of working-class people and it is incredible how much his music lives on in this country and throughout the world. In fact, on a number of occasions we have used his iconic song – This Land is Your Land – as part of our campaign. I was excited to visit this beautiful museum dedicated to a man who was raised in Oklahoma.”
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/oklahoma-is-ok-for-bernie/
OKLAHOMA Is OK For Bernie Sanders
PRESS RELEASE
Oklahoma is OK for Bernie
FEBRUARY 24, 2016
TULSA, Okla. – A crowd of nearly 6,900 Bernie Sanders supporters cheered at a raucous rally days ahead of Super Tuesday when Oklahoma voters go to the polls along with Democrats in 10 other states. He spoke outside afterward to some of the 2,000 more who couldn’t get inside the Cox Business Center hall.
In the unexpectedly tight contest, a recent Public Policy Polling survey had Hillary Clinton up by only 2 percentage points over Sanders. Both campaigns are on the television airwaves with ads and have sent experienced campaign staff to the state.
“You are going to have the opportunity to make history and to help lead this country in a political revolution. We can win here in Oklahoma and a victory here is the path to victory nationally,” Sanders said at the high-decibel conclusion of a long speech on how to change the country’s rigged economy propped up by a corrupt campaign finance system.
Before the rally, Sanders made an impromptu stop at The Woody Guthrie Center, a museum dedicated to the life and legacy of the American folk musician and singer-songwriter.
“Woody Guthrie is one of the greatest musicians and songwriters in American history,” Sanders said after touring the museum and archives. “His songs spoke to the reality of working-class people and it is incredible how much his music lives on in this country and throughout the world. In fact, on a number of occasions we have used his iconic song – This Land is Your Land – as part of our campaign. I was excited to visit this beautiful museum dedicated to a man who was raised in Oklahoma.”
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/oklahoma-is-ok-for-bernie/
February 25, 2016
New OH Poll: Bernie Sanders +1, Beats Trump
Not seeing this picked up anywhere else.
A new OH Poll by BW Community Research Institute (BW-CRI) has Sanders-Clinton at 45-44 .
I can’t find any poll ratings for BW-CRI so take this with a grain of salt.
Needless to say, this is a good poll for Sanders and not too great for Clinton. For Sanders to win the nomination battle, he needs to either keep his loss in OH as close as possible or win outright.
Nate Silver reckons OH being Clinton 2+ reflects a tied race nationally.
GE Matchups:
Against likely Rep Nominee Trump:
Sanders-Trump: 43-38: +5
Clinton-Trump: 37-39: -2
They both get crushed by Kasich (Sanders -17, Clinton -21). But Kasich will almost certainly wont be the nominee, maybe VP.
At some point you just have to concede Sanders is the more “electable” candidate
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/02/24/1490605/-New-OH-Poll-Sanders-1-Beats-Trump
A new OH Poll by BW Community Research Institute (BW-CRI) has Sanders-Clinton at 45-44 .
I can’t find any poll ratings for BW-CRI so take this with a grain of salt.
Needless to say, this is a good poll for Sanders and not too great for Clinton. For Sanders to win the nomination battle, he needs to either keep his loss in OH as close as possible or win outright.
Nate Silver reckons OH being Clinton 2+ reflects a tied race nationally.
GE Matchups:
Against likely Rep Nominee Trump:
Sanders-Trump: 43-38: +5
Clinton-Trump: 37-39: -2
They both get crushed by Kasich (Sanders -17, Clinton -21). But Kasich will almost certainly wont be the nominee, maybe VP.
At some point you just have to concede Sanders is the more “electable” candidate
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/02/24/1490605/-New-OH-Poll-Sanders-1-Beats-Trump
February 25, 2016
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb19thWeb/08633FEB19/DOC_0C05782734/C05782734.pdf
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb19thWeb/08633FEB19/DOC_0C05782734/C05782734.pdf
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/02/24/documents-show-clinton-lobbied-congress-for-trade-agreements-she-publicly-and-personally-opposed/
Documents Show Hillary Clinton LOBBIED CONGRESS For Trade Agreements She Publicly/Personally Opposed
On February 19, the State Department released another batch of emails from Hillary Clinton’s years as Secretary of State. Among the documents released are emails showing that Clinton lobbied Congress in support of three U.S. trade agreements in October of 2011. The emails show that Clinton personally contacted members of Congress, urging them to vote in favor of the Columbia Trade Promotion Agreement (CTPA), which was bitterly opposed by organized labor, in both the United States and Colombia, as well as human rights organizations around the world. At the same time, Clinton also lobbied Congress in support of free trade agreements with Korea and Panama.
During her 2008 presidential campaign, Clinton publicly decried the trade agreements, calling the agreement with Korea “inherently unfair,” and saying “I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.” But the newly published emails show that, as Secretary of State, Clinton phoned members of Congress, specifically asking them to vote in favor of the agreements. On October 8, 2011, Clinton received the following email from her aide, Huma Abedin.
During her 2008 presidential campaign, Clinton publicly decried the trade agreements, calling the agreement with Korea “inherently unfair,” and saying “I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.” But the newly published emails show that, as Secretary of State, Clinton phoned members of Congress, specifically asking them to vote in favor of the agreements. On October 8, 2011, Clinton received the following email from her aide, Huma Abedin.
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb19thWeb/08633FEB19/DOC_0C05782734/C05782734.pdf
In response, Clinton stated that she had contacted members of Congress to urge them to support the trade agreements.
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb19thWeb/08633FEB19/DOC_0C05782734/C05782734.pdf
~snip~
While there could be a number of reasonable explanations as to why Secretary Clinton changed her positions regarding the trade agreements with Korea and Colombia, the newly released emails are likely to work against her, when it comes to garnering support from organized labor. As reported by International Business Times here, Bill Clinton’s partnership with Canadian financier Frank Giustra, and a subsequent joint venture launched by Giustra and former President Clinton in Colombia, are likely to become major issues for the Clinton campaign in the coming months.
Clinton’s rival for the democratic party’s nomination, Bernie Sanders, voted against both the Columbia and Panama free trade agreements. The record shows that Senator Sanders did not vote on the trade agreement with Korea. As voters weigh their options ahead of the 2016 election, Secretary Clinton is likely to face tough questions regarding her support for the Korean and Colombian trade agreements. How she answers those questions will play a major role in whether or not she can win the support of organized labor.
While there could be a number of reasonable explanations as to why Secretary Clinton changed her positions regarding the trade agreements with Korea and Colombia, the newly released emails are likely to work against her, when it comes to garnering support from organized labor. As reported by International Business Times here, Bill Clinton’s partnership with Canadian financier Frank Giustra, and a subsequent joint venture launched by Giustra and former President Clinton in Colombia, are likely to become major issues for the Clinton campaign in the coming months.
Clinton’s rival for the democratic party’s nomination, Bernie Sanders, voted against both the Columbia and Panama free trade agreements. The record shows that Senator Sanders did not vote on the trade agreement with Korea. As voters weigh their options ahead of the 2016 election, Secretary Clinton is likely to face tough questions regarding her support for the Korean and Colombian trade agreements. How she answers those questions will play a major role in whether or not she can win the support of organized labor.
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/02/24/documents-show-clinton-lobbied-congress-for-trade-agreements-she-publicly-and-personally-opposed/
February 24, 2016
Many Democrats will tell you that there has rarely, if ever, been a more menacing or evil presidential candidate than Donald Trump. “Trump is the most dangerous major candidate for president in memory,” pronounced Vox‘s Ezra Klein two weeks ago. With a consensus now emerging that the real estate mogul is the likely GOP nominee, it would stand to reason that the most important factor for many Democrats in choosing their own nominee is electability: meaning, who has the best chance of defeating the GOP Satan in the general election? In light of that, can Democrats really afford to take such a risky gamble by nominating Hillary Clinton? In virtually every poll, her rival, Bernie Sanders, does better, often much better, in head-to-head match-ups against every possible GOP candidate. Here, for instance, is a compilation of how Clinton does against Ted Cruz in recent polls: she trails the Texas Senator in all but one poll, and in the one poll she leads, it is by a paltry 2 points:
Then there’s the data about how each candidate is perceived. Put simply, Hillary Clinton is an extremely unpopular political figure. By contrast, even after enduring months of attacks from the Clinton camp and its large number of media surrogates, Sanders remains a popular figure.
A Gallup poll released this week reported that “29% of Americans offer a positive observation about Clinton while 51% express something negative.” As Gallup rather starkly put it: “Unfortunately for Clinton, the negative associations currently outnumber the positive ones by a sizable margin, and even among Democrats, the negatives are fairly high.” Sanders is, of course, a more unknown quantity, but “the public’s comments about Sanders can be summarized as 26% positive and 20% negative, with the rest categorized as neutral, other or no opinion.” In fact, the more the public gets to see of both candidates, the more popular Sanders becomes, and the more unpopular Clinton becomes. Here’s Quinnipiac explaining that dynamic in one graph just a few days ago:
cont'
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/24/with-trump-looming-should-dems-take-a-huge-electability-gamble-by-nominating-hillary-clinton/
With Donald Trump Looming Should Dems Take a HUGE Electability GAMBLE by Nominating Hillary Clinton?
Many Democrats will tell you that there has rarely, if ever, been a more menacing or evil presidential candidate than Donald Trump. “Trump is the most dangerous major candidate for president in memory,” pronounced Vox‘s Ezra Klein two weeks ago. With a consensus now emerging that the real estate mogul is the likely GOP nominee, it would stand to reason that the most important factor for many Democrats in choosing their own nominee is electability: meaning, who has the best chance of defeating the GOP Satan in the general election? In light of that, can Democrats really afford to take such a risky gamble by nominating Hillary Clinton? In virtually every poll, her rival, Bernie Sanders, does better, often much better, in head-to-head match-ups against every possible GOP candidate. Here, for instance, is a compilation of how Clinton does against Ted Cruz in recent polls: she trails the Texas Senator in all but one poll, and in the one poll she leads, it is by a paltry 2 points:
By stark contrast, Sanders leads Cruz in every poll, including by substantial margins in some:
A similar story is seen in their match-ups against Trump. Although they both end up ahead in most polls, Sanders’ margin over Trump is generally very comfortable, while Clinton’s is smaller. Clinton’s average lead over Trump is just 2.8%, while Sanders’ lead is a full 6 points:
Then there’s the data about how each candidate is perceived. Put simply, Hillary Clinton is an extremely unpopular political figure. By contrast, even after enduring months of attacks from the Clinton camp and its large number of media surrogates, Sanders remains a popular figure.
A Gallup poll released this week reported that “29% of Americans offer a positive observation about Clinton while 51% express something negative.” As Gallup rather starkly put it: “Unfortunately for Clinton, the negative associations currently outnumber the positive ones by a sizable margin, and even among Democrats, the negatives are fairly high.” Sanders is, of course, a more unknown quantity, but “the public’s comments about Sanders can be summarized as 26% positive and 20% negative, with the rest categorized as neutral, other or no opinion.” In fact, the more the public gets to see of both candidates, the more popular Sanders becomes, and the more unpopular Clinton becomes. Here’s Quinnipiac explaining that dynamic in one graph just a few days ago:
cont'
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/24/with-trump-looming-should-dems-take-a-huge-electability-gamble-by-nominating-hillary-clinton/
February 24, 2016
PRESS RELEASE
Momentum Swings to Sanders
FEBRUARY 24, 2016
KANSAS CITY, Mo. – Telling a packed convention center crowd here on Wednesday that “we are gaining momentum,” Bernie Sanders cited huge turnouts at his rallies and three new national polls putting him ahead of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party presidential nomination contest.
“We started this campaign 9 1/2 months ago and we were at 3 percent. In the last week there have been three national polls that have us in the lead,” Sanders told the crowd of some 7,100 supporters who came out for the weekday afternoon rally. “We are gaining momentum every single day.”
A Reuters/Ispos tracking poll released on Wednesday put Sanders ahead by six points, 42 percent to 36 percent. It was the latest voter survey showing the race taking a turn in Sanders’ favor. Within the past week, a Fox News poll had the U.S. senator from Vermont overtaking the former secretary of state 47 percent to 44 percent. A McLaughlin & Associates poll on Feb. 17 had Sanders edging Clinton 42.6 percent to 42.5 percent.
“The reason we have so much momentum, the reason we are doing so well, is that … the American people in Kansas, in Missouri and all over this country are sick and tired of establishment politics,” Sanders told the crowd at the Kansas City Convention Center. “And they know that Washington is too busy representing the interests of wealthy campaign contributors to worry about the middle class.”
Sanders’ fast-growing national appeal also is reflected in state polls. For example, he’s up by 7 points in a Public Policy Polling survey in Massachusetts, where Sanders leads 49 percent to 42 percent. In Vermont, where Sanders will watch returns from his hometown next Tuesday, Sanders was ahead 86 percent to 10 percent.
“In state after state … the gap is narrowing or we are now forging ahead,” Sanders told the Kansas City crowd. “If we stand together we can win this nomination.”
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/momentum-swings-to-sanders/
Momentum SWINGS To Bernie Sanders
PRESS RELEASE
Momentum Swings to Sanders
FEBRUARY 24, 2016
KANSAS CITY, Mo. – Telling a packed convention center crowd here on Wednesday that “we are gaining momentum,” Bernie Sanders cited huge turnouts at his rallies and three new national polls putting him ahead of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party presidential nomination contest.
“We started this campaign 9 1/2 months ago and we were at 3 percent. In the last week there have been three national polls that have us in the lead,” Sanders told the crowd of some 7,100 supporters who came out for the weekday afternoon rally. “We are gaining momentum every single day.”
A Reuters/Ispos tracking poll released on Wednesday put Sanders ahead by six points, 42 percent to 36 percent. It was the latest voter survey showing the race taking a turn in Sanders’ favor. Within the past week, a Fox News poll had the U.S. senator from Vermont overtaking the former secretary of state 47 percent to 44 percent. A McLaughlin & Associates poll on Feb. 17 had Sanders edging Clinton 42.6 percent to 42.5 percent.
“The reason we have so much momentum, the reason we are doing so well, is that … the American people in Kansas, in Missouri and all over this country are sick and tired of establishment politics,” Sanders told the crowd at the Kansas City Convention Center. “And they know that Washington is too busy representing the interests of wealthy campaign contributors to worry about the middle class.”
Sanders’ fast-growing national appeal also is reflected in state polls. For example, he’s up by 7 points in a Public Policy Polling survey in Massachusetts, where Sanders leads 49 percent to 42 percent. In Vermont, where Sanders will watch returns from his hometown next Tuesday, Sanders was ahead 86 percent to 10 percent.
“In state after state … the gap is narrowing or we are now forging ahead,” Sanders told the Kansas City crowd. “If we stand together we can win this nomination.”
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/momentum-swings-to-sanders/
February 24, 2016
For example, did you know Hillary Clinton may have helped the Senate reject the public option during the ACA debate? Read this FOIA-released email exchange between Neera Tanden ("a former Obama administration senior adviser"
and Hillary Clinton from 2010 and decide for yourself (h/t Stuart Zechman):
It almost reads like Tanden was working for Clinton as well, but I could be wrong. The key sentences are: "The one question I wanted to ask you is about your idea on using FEHBP as a kind of public option. I know you gave that to Rahm [Emanuel] last August, and then mysteriously, it was in the Senate Finance package like a month later." FEHBP is the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. It was dangled in front of us as a substitute for a while. Here's what the people at the Kaiser Health Network had to say at the time (my emphasis):
If I read this right, it doesn't look good for Clinton, especially in light of this, from Politico very recently:
"Clinton supported the public option ... during the drafting of the Affordable Care Act" — except that, apparently, she didn't. Just the opposite in fact. She appears to be the source of the bait-and-switch that Rahm Emanuel passed to those "moderate Senate Democrats" who tanked it. I'd love to hear the explanation of that one. Maybe some reporter would do something like was done in the clip at the top. By the way, the Washington Post, which has spotted the same email, has spun its contents this way (h/t Lee Fang): -
cont'
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com
Did Hillary Clinton HELP KILL the Public Option?
Did Hillary Clinton Help Rahm Emanuel Kill the Public Option?For example, did you know Hillary Clinton may have helped the Senate reject the public option during the ACA debate? Read this FOIA-released email exchange between Neera Tanden ("a former Obama administration senior adviser"
and Hillary Clinton from 2010 and decide for yourself (h/t Stuart Zechman):
It almost reads like Tanden was working for Clinton as well, but I could be wrong. The key sentences are: "The one question I wanted to ask you is about your idea on using FEHBP as a kind of public option. I know you gave that to Rahm [Emanuel] last August, and then mysteriously, it was in the Senate Finance package like a month later." FEHBP is the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. It was dangled in front of us as a substitute for a while. Here's what the people at the Kaiser Health Network had to say at the time (my emphasis):
10 Experts Weigh In On Plan To Replace Public Option In Health Bill
By KHN Staff December 14, 2009
Can a spinoff of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program which is the health insurance coverage for eight million federal workers and their families, as well as members of Congress, help some of the country’s uninsured? Many Senate Democrats are betting it would and have proposed that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which manages the FEHBP, oversee national health plans as part a Senate health bill compromise reached late Tuesday to replace the public option.
Although the specifics of the proposed spinoff have not yet been released and could change, it would likely include at least two national plans from private insurers. These plans would be administered by OPM....
http://khn.org/news/fehbp-health-insurance-public-option-opm/
By KHN Staff December 14, 2009
Can a spinoff of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program which is the health insurance coverage for eight million federal workers and their families, as well as members of Congress, help some of the country’s uninsured? Many Senate Democrats are betting it would and have proposed that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which manages the FEHBP, oversee national health plans as part a Senate health bill compromise reached late Tuesday to replace the public option.
Although the specifics of the proposed spinoff have not yet been released and could change, it would likely include at least two national plans from private insurers. These plans would be administered by OPM....
http://khn.org/news/fehbp-health-insurance-public-option-opm/
If I read this right, it doesn't look good for Clinton, especially in light of this, from Politico very recently:
Clinton revives support for health care 'public option' Hillary Clinton wants to bring back the public option, offering a competing vision to Bernie Sanders’ support for a more progressive health care system. Clinton's campaign has updated its website to note her continued support for the government-run health plan that was dropped from Obamacare during the law's drafting. The idea was popular among progressives who prefer a single-payer plan -- like the one Bernie Sanders is touting.
Clinton supported the public option in her 2008 presidential campaign, and during the drafting of the Affordable Care Act a year later, Congress debated allowing a government-run plan to compete with private insurers. However, the public option was eliminated from the legislation because of objections from moderate Senate Democrats who opposed a greater government role in providing health care.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-health-care-bernie-sanders-219643
Clinton supported the public option in her 2008 presidential campaign, and during the drafting of the Affordable Care Act a year later, Congress debated allowing a government-run plan to compete with private insurers. However, the public option was eliminated from the legislation because of objections from moderate Senate Democrats who opposed a greater government role in providing health care.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-health-care-bernie-sanders-219643
"Clinton supported the public option ... during the drafting of the Affordable Care Act" — except that, apparently, she didn't. Just the opposite in fact. She appears to be the source of the bait-and-switch that Rahm Emanuel passed to those "moderate Senate Democrats" who tanked it. I'd love to hear the explanation of that one. Maybe some reporter would do something like was done in the clip at the top. By the way, the Washington Post, which has spotted the same email, has spun its contents this way (h/t Lee Fang): -
cont'
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com
February 24, 2016
Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski hosted a “Town Hall” last week, with Donald Trump. Scarborough is best known in recent months for being best buds with Donald Trump, which should be completely unsurprising, given how lame Joe Scarborough is. The “Town Hall” meeting with Trump was going to be a celebration of people who spend most of their time looking into mirrors, talking near one another. In the final segment, Mika Brzezinski must have went “off script,” because she threw what can only be called the biggest softball—that turned into a curveball—in the history of softballs.
Donald quickly goes into the “one thing” Bernie “knows”—which is that China is ripping us off. It’s the first 48 seconds of the video below. It is amazing and awesome and delicious.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/02/24/1490333/-Donald-Trump-gets-Berned
Donald Trump Gets BERNED!
Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski hosted a “Town Hall” last week, with Donald Trump. Scarborough is best known in recent months for being best buds with Donald Trump, which should be completely unsurprising, given how lame Joe Scarborough is. The “Town Hall” meeting with Trump was going to be a celebration of people who spend most of their time looking into mirrors, talking near one another. In the final segment, Mika Brzezinski must have went “off script,” because she threw what can only be called the biggest softball—that turned into a curveball—in the history of softballs.
Brzezinski: We have a few final moments with Mr. Trump. I wanted to describe a candidate to you. The candidate’s considered a political outsider by all the pundits, he’s tapping into the anger if the voters, delivers a populist message. He believes everyone in the country should have health care. He advocates for hedge fund managers to pay higher taxes. He’s drawing thousands of people at his rallies and bringing in a lot of new voters to the political process, and he’s not beholden to any super PAC—who am I describing?
Trump: Or any special interests or any donors, you’re describing Donald Trump.
Brzezinski: Actually, I was describing Bernie Sanders.
Trump: Or any special interests or any donors, you’re describing Donald Trump.
Brzezinski: Actually, I was describing Bernie Sanders.
Donald quickly goes into the “one thing” Bernie “knows”—which is that China is ripping us off. It’s the first 48 seconds of the video below. It is amazing and awesome and delicious.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/02/24/1490333/-Donald-Trump-gets-Berned
February 24, 2016
Hillary Clinton told her BET interviewer Jeff Johnson that her path forward will give people a chance to “vet” her, hold her “accountable” and that she “wants that” and that she “actually requests it.” Well, the people do want to vet you Hillary by holding you accountable and are quite excited that you want the same, in fact, you actually requested it…..so,..
In the spirit of you requesting that we “vet” you and “hold you accountable”……THE PEOPLE WANT YOU TO RELEASE YOUR SPEECH TRANSCRIPTS because, as you clearly stated, “..people don’t trust our politics……and in a democracy like ours, truth is the glue that holds it all together…”
Do you believe in your own statement and if so, when will you release your transcripts?
Hillary Clinton: "Vet Me, Hold Me Accountable,..I WANT THAT,..I Actually Request It"
BET News Special: The Candidates Talk Black
Hillary Clinton interviewed by Jeff Johnson
Feb. 21, 2016
“…People don’t trust our government,..people don’t trust our politics,…they don’t trust our economy,…practically every institution has fallen in trust by the american people and in a democracy like ours, truth is the glue that holds it all together. I am trying to present a path forward that is going to give people a chance to vet me, hold me accountable,..I want that,..I actually request it…”
http://www.bet.com/video/news/politics/2016/candidates-talk-black-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-full-show.html
Hillary Clinton interviewed by Jeff Johnson
Feb. 21, 2016
“…People don’t trust our government,..people don’t trust our politics,…they don’t trust our economy,…practically every institution has fallen in trust by the american people and in a democracy like ours, truth is the glue that holds it all together. I am trying to present a path forward that is going to give people a chance to vet me, hold me accountable,..I want that,..I actually request it…”
http://www.bet.com/video/news/politics/2016/candidates-talk-black-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-full-show.html
Hillary Clinton told her BET interviewer Jeff Johnson that her path forward will give people a chance to “vet” her, hold her “accountable” and that she “wants that” and that she “actually requests it.” Well, the people do want to vet you Hillary by holding you accountable and are quite excited that you want the same, in fact, you actually requested it…..so,..
In the spirit of you requesting that we “vet” you and “hold you accountable”……THE PEOPLE WANT YOU TO RELEASE YOUR SPEECH TRANSCRIPTS because, as you clearly stated, “..people don’t trust our politics……and in a democracy like ours, truth is the glue that holds it all together…”
Do you believe in your own statement and if so, when will you release your transcripts?
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
