Her SisterHer Sister's Journal
By Peter Daou
March 31, 2016
Last July, HillaryMen warned that insidious process stories in mainstream publications constituted a risk to Hillarys 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 Hillarys 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:
Heres 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.
How exactly does that support the headline Clinton Moves Goalposts Again? It doesnt say she moved the goalposts twice. The subheader only shows one projection change. So the accurate title would be Clinton Moves Goalposts.
But why even frame this piece so negatively? Moving the goalposts is a term typically reserved for someone who is losing and making excuses for their loss. Hillary is clearly on track to win the nomination.
If anything, Bernie Sanders has gone from revolution and momentum to trying to flip superdelegates. If anyone has moved goalposts, its the Sanders campaign. But I cant seem to find a headline about Bernie moving the goalposts again.
The reflexive media urge to paint everything as bad news for Hillary continues unabated. It is best illustrated by the pervasive myth of her so-called enthusiasm gap, a demonstrably false frame that has been repeated incessantly and now passes for truth.
The damage done to Hillarys image by these types of stories is hard to measure. It is a testament to her tenacity and her supporters dedication that she continues to win.
More Clinton supporters are enthusiastic than those backing Sanders, but the media won't tell you thThe strange silence about Hillarymania: Clinton fires up voters more than Bernie does, so why is no one talking about it?
More Clinton supporters are enthusiastic than those backing Sanders, but the media won't tell you that
long article from salon.com
But if you dig in, it also becomes quickly clear that much of the online enthusiasm isnt really pro-Sanders so much as its anti-Clinton. There are thousands, probably millions of social media messages which are more about using Sanders as a cover to harass women and their allies than as legitimate advocacy for the candidate. Remove the mansplaining, harassment, and gotcha trolling, and the amount of Sanders traffic isnt quite so awe-inspiring in volume.
The online boors arent the majority of Sanders supporters, to be clear. On the contrary, this poll and others show that the majority of Sanders supporters are pretty chilled out. But this small percentage of angry men (and a few women) are really loud online and their anti-Clinton vitriol contributes to the false notion that Sanders has the wind at his back.
Clinton isnt a meh candidate, in other words. She inspires passion, both in her haters and in her supporters.
If you give it a moments thought, that Clinton would be such an inspiring figure to her supporters makes perfect sense. She has spent two and a half decades in the spotlight, enduring huge amounts of sexism as every single man in the country who feels threatened by smart women or powerful women projects all his anxieties on her with the passion of a thousand burning suns. But she hasnt stopped striving. She eats haters for breakfast and keeps smiling, all while more haters are telling her she doesnt smile enough.
For supporters, especially female supporters, who are sick to the teeth of all this sexist nonsense and sometimes wonder how they are going to keep on fighting another day, Clintons resilience is the stuff of legends.
YOUNGER: Im not sure how negative it is to question your voting discretion in spite of overwhelming support. If critiquing Hillary or your apprehension to accurately vote for those you represent is negative, then Im not sure youre the one Id like representing me.
Metcalfe then asked Younger where he lived, and after he responded, he asked her frankly why shes casting her superdelegate vote for Hillary Clinton despite a vast majority of her state caucusing for Sanders.
METCALFE: Because I believe Hillary Clinton would be a better president. End of conversation.
YOUNGER: And thats why people get angry. Bernie supporters can be quite vapid. But voting in opposition to what we voted for is only supporting the idea that Hillary and her supporting super delegates are in the pockets of others.
Bernie won in Alaska. End of story. Your personal preferences for president are represented in your vote as a citizen. Not as a representative of your state.
At this point in the conversation, Metcalfes tone turned noticeably sour. She patronized Younger, reminding him of her experience as a Democratic Party officer for decades, and essentially told him his opinion on how she should cast her superdelegate vote was invalid, since he was just a voter.
METCALFE: Im in the pocket of no one. I have no financial connections to Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat. I am a retired union representative. I put in my time in the trenches for 40 years, and I really object to someone like you who has probably done nothing except caucus telling me what to do. I am voting for the best interests of my country. And that would be Hillary Clinton.
Thanks everyone for having this group, this safe haven. I appreciate the positive energy that HRC and her supporters are able to emanate, notwithstanding anything, anyone!! I learn from all of you and you are a great example of character to me and others!
All of you are lovely!! You all remind me to stay positive, sane and great, and liberal and Fun!
Think all will be well!!
We will take her all the way to the White HOUSE!
Much love, kindness and appreciation!
The claim, which came from Bernie Sanders senior strategist Tad Devine, was that Sanders has won states in which he invested time and resources, and has lost eight key states because he wasnt bothering to compete there to begin with. Its not clear why such a claim was supposed to help the Sanders campaign or make him look good, but as it turns out, the claim is factually and numerically false. Rachel Maddow took particular objection to the claim and tore it apart on-air last night.
Maddow walked through the numbers demonstrating that the Bernie Sanders campaign invested more time and resources than Hillary Clinton in states like Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, and Virginia yet Clinton won all of those states in whopping blowouts. That left Maddow to conclude that the Sanders campaign will have to walk back Devines comments for being false. She also suggested that if Sanders continues with his new strategy of trying to pressure superdelegates to hand him the nomination even though hes far behind in regular delegates, even his own supporters may not follow him down that path.
Generally speaking, Rachel Maddow sounded borderline fed up with the direction the Bernie Sanders campaign has begun taking of late. Considering that she has been one of his biggest on-air allies in all of cable news , this cant be a positive development for him. Her full nine minute MSNBC segment is available online, but the above referenced commentary begins at about the six minute mark.
CANVASS | PHONEBANK | FACEBANK | VOTE 🔥 ↩
MAKE A DONATION
How to Vote
Find an Event
Tim Canova's Facebook has 31,000 likes. His opponent Debbie Wasserman Schultz has 240,000+. Can we give him a Bernie Boost?
Here's a spreadsheet of 300 superdelegates who have pledged to vote for Hillary despite the wishes of their constituents. Contact them to let them know you want representation! We must be represented! docs.google.com
submitted 1 month ago by -Lo_Mein_Kampf-
A lot info in one article
How to do it? Ive started by recognizing bullying as a tactic of the opposition. I understand why it is done. And I am protecting myself. Thats the best I can do at the moment. We each need this consciousness. As far as mechanisms, I think its important that we band together. We can become tribes that congregate, refresh, vent and lend support through the DM option on Twitter. We can call out for help when the gang-bangers attack, and know that our friends will be there. If theres one trait Ive noticed thus far, its that the bullies gang up on a single individual. We have to deploy the same tactic in a defensive posture. Sounds like war, yes. It is. However, I know well get through it. My visual reminder, at the end of an evening or during an assault, comes from Hillary. Ill sign off with this empowering reminder.
Jacksons reply to the FEC admitted that 106 contributors could not be verified as U.S. Citizens or legal residents and that their donations would be refunded
On 25 February, the FEC sent an RFAI covering January 2016. Once again, impermissible donations from people with addresses outside the U.S. were found. Again, the Treasurer for Sanders campaign fund-raiser was reminded of federal laws:
Schedule A-P (see attached) discloses a contribution(s) from an individual(s) who has a mailing address outside of the United States of America. Please be advised that 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a) (formerly 2 U.S.C. § 441e(a)) and 11 CFR § 110.20 prohibit foreign nationals from making contributions in connection with any election for political office or in connection with any primary election, convention, or caucus held to select candidates for any political office.
The FEC ordered Jackson to comply with these laws by 31 March:
If you have received a contribution from a foreign national, you must refund the impermissible contribution to the donor in accordance with 11CFR § 103.3(b). Please inform the Commission of your corrective action immediately in writing and provide a photocopy of your check for the refund. (25 February 2016 RFAI)
On 25 March, Bernie 2016 filed an amended report to the FEC, showing refunds to individuals totaling $684,455.53. The amended report covers several months in 2015. Its not clear whether the refunds were for excessive contributions or prohibited donations by Foreign Nationals or something else.
Bernie 2016 has yet to report its campaign finance disclosure for February.
HRC GROUP READY