The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    A Shameful Attack

    By HSG on Wed, 09/16/2015 - 9:26pm | Politics

    BrockReaders have pushed back against my varied criticisms of Hillary Rodham Clinton over the past few months. Some accuse me of cherry-picking her worst moments, e.g., her vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Others claim that I have misconstrued various statements and votes over the past twenty years or that I arrogantly believe that I know better than her supporters what's best for them.

    Then there are those who insist that the true Hillary is not the 2008 race card player or the one financed by the private prison industry, multinational banks, and fossil fuel producers, but the one who's delivered tear-inducing speeches on behalf of needy children. Still others insist that Clinton's email travail is a wholly trumped-up nontroversy. Finally some commenters call me a closet-Republican who's trying to bring Hillary down to make it easier for a true conservative to win next November. Underlying this complaint is the assumption that moderates and all of us to their left must stick together to forestall a Republican takeover of government.

    While I am not a Republican or anywhere near one, I agree that it is imperative that progressives unite in defense of Democratic Presidential candidates from scurrilous attacks. In this vein, I call on all Democrats, progressives, liberals, and leftists to condemn the dirty attack on Bernie Sanders by Clinton's close ally David Brock.

    According to the Huffington Post, on Monday, Brock's super PAC "Correct the Record" began

    circulating an email that yokes [Clinton's] chief rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to some of the more controversial remarks made by Jeremy Corbyn, the United Kingdom's new Labour Party leader, including his praise for the late Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan leader who provided discounted fuel to Vermont in a deal supported by Sanders.

    Among the "controversial remarks" Brock highlighted in the email include Corbyn's comment that he'd invite "'friends' from Hezbollah to come to the U.K. to discuss peace in the Middle East".

    There can be no doubt that Brock's intent was to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Bernie Sanders rather than educate voters about his record.  Indeed Brock himself could not explain to Bloomberg News what he was trying to say about Bernie Sanders in the email except to draw distinctions between him and Hillary.  Brock's guilt by association implication has antecedents in the worst aspects of America's political history.  There can be little doubt that Hillary Clinton is behind the attack or, at a minimum, approved of it as the Washington Post reported in a May 2015 article that "Correct the Record will work in coordination with the Clinton campaign as a stand-alone super PAC."

    Clinton is reprising her failed 2008 strategy that called for surrogates, including her husband and Geraldine Ferraro, to try to scare voters away from Barack Obama.  It didn't work then.  We must make it clear to Hillary Clinton and David Brock that it won't work now.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    Really?  We are in the throes of a Republican "debate" and you come up with THIS?  Is there any other topic that interests you?  I ask this because you are always front and center here at DagBlog.  I don't know what the criteria for Front Page status is here, but I find these repetitive posts disappointing.


    by CVille Dem on Wed, 09/16/2015 - 9:48pm

    Somebody has to be front and center. Ramona hasn't posted in 5 days. It's been 3 days since anyone made a comment. Cleveland hasn't posted for 4 days. 36 hours since anyone made a comment. Wolraich hasn't posted since August 7th. Maiello hasn't posted since August 30th. Sorry the football game you were watching was interrupted by this interesting, albeit predictable offering. Oh wait, you interrupted the game yourself to rush over here and scold Hal. Weird.


    by kyle flynn on Wed, 09/16/2015 - 11:57pm

    Wednesday night football! Wait ... what?

    Oh, you meant the debate, perhaps. Interesting analogy if so, though I don't get your complaint.


    by barefooted on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 1:00am

    The Republicans are beneath my notice.  Clinton is standing in the way of a truly superior candidate. 


    by HSG on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 7:46am

    Republicans are beneath your notice? Really?  You might have learned something if you had watched the egregious, sickening "debate."  If I had been playing a drinking game and had a shot every time the word "socialist" was spoken, I would have been drunk after the first hour. 

    Did you know that President Obama is a socialist?  Neither did I. But that is the accepted "truth" that they speak without any push-back. Of course when they describe Obama it is with scathing disrespect. When they describe Bernie, (whom I admire, by the way) they use the same "S" word, but with a smirk of derision. 

    OK we know that the 30% who are TeaPartyists are going to vote GOP regardless of who is the candidate, but Independents are swayed by their fear-mongering verbiage.  What I want for the country is what Bernie wants.  I don't think he has a chance in hell of being President.  Why? I don't think most people want a socialist as President.  References to Europe as being a socialist nightmare are accepted with a chuckle -- because those who laugh have never been there and they don't care (or even know) that places like Denmark, France, Finland, England, etc have such a great quality of life compared to ours.  Public transportation is "too expensive."  Universal health care is "horrible."  

    So, stay in your vey own echo chamber if you wish, but it keeps you from having a realistic view of the challenges that Bernie and Hillary both face.  Listening to Republicans (painful? Yes). But it is necessary to understand what we are up against.  Some objectivity would do your writing a favor and make it worth reading.

     

     


    by CVille Dem on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 8:37am

    Trust me I know what we're up against.  I lived through Nixon, Reagan, H.W. (least bad), and W.  I hear the rhetoric.  I get the hate, the divisiveness, the pandering.  I watched part of the debate last night.  It didn't change my opinion of those reptiles one whit.  Did it change yours?


    by HSG on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 8:49am

    And we'll live through the next train wreck coming down the track, whether it's another Clinton or Bush. I'll  surely be caucusing here in Washington in March for Bernie Sanders along with many, many of my friends and neighbors. I'm not optimistic, but I'll maintain a sliver of hope. The "duck and cover" Boomers may still scare easily with talk of Socialism, but it doesn't resonate so much with those of us born after 1964. And surely Sanders' identification with the term will be among the first questions come the debate next month. I can't wait to hear him tackle it.

    I'll cross the general election bridge when we get there. For now, however, I don't fear a Republican in the WH. We're so fucked I can't imagine how that could possibly make a difference in the long run. The planet is in a tail spin. When all the Boomers and their slightly older camp counselors are dead and buried their kids and grandkids will be warring over fertile land and drinking water while we scatter from one once-in-a-lifetime drought/hurricane/flood/blizzard. It'll make the current refugee crisis seem like a picnic. Can't wait.


    by kyle flynn on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 1:08pm

    I am going to correct you, Kyle.  There are many old hippies that have been waiting since 1980 for a person like Sanders to come along and run. We have been fighting this battle for 40 years. 


    by trkingmomoe on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 5:22pm

    So according to you there would be an equal "TRAIN WRECK" whether Clinton or Bush is elected.  Well, thank you.  That is all I need to know about how completely stupidly idiotic -- or Republican you are.  

    Just curious:  Have you ever heard of the Supreme Court?  Social Security?  Medicare?  Medicaid?  Veteran's benefits?  and on and on.....

    If you are a TeaPartier, fine.  But don't pretend to be a disenchanted Progressive. If that is your schtick you fail miserably. I kinda think Hal is in your camp.  I truly hope it rains on your tent.

     

     

     


    by CVille Dem on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 9:11pm

    I'm guessing that he has also heard of perpetual war, global pandemics combined with antibiotic immunity, catastrophic global climate change, and and leaders as well as the led cultures which will not address any of them in realistic ways.  


    by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 9:20pm

    Consider taking it down a notch, CVille Dem. Suggesting I might be a Republican or aTeaPartier isn't very nice. Besides, I think you'd be proud of my voting record. I'll bet it looks quite a bit like your own, just shorter.

    I didn't mean to leave the impression that I think another Bush or Clinton in the WH would be an equal "TRAIN WRECK." To be clear, I'm sure Jeb! would be worse, but I don't think Clinton would be good. I think she perfectly represents the craven politics that have defined the Democratic party since 1992 (the Obama years being a bit of an exception), and that have have contributed so obviously to the moment we're in now. It'll be at least four more years of the same old grudges Boomers from the left and right have been poking each other in the eyes over while the rich get richer and everyone else gets fucked. I think Sanders is different, full stop. I'll lay even money I could be wrong.

    I'm sick of our votes being held hostage, cycle after cycle, by threats like Supreme Court nominees. Fuck that. I get it, there are genuine policies and programs at risk. Replacing Ginsburg, Breyer and Kennedy over the next 4-8 years could be massively consequential. (Although, Ginsburg and Breyer should have retired early in Obama's 2nd term. Let's put some responsibility at their self-important feet.) The thing is, I don't think any of it-- The Supreme Court, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran's benefits and on and on--adds up to a hill of beans compared to the existential threat staring right at us. How about we at least talk about ways we might roll the dice in September of 2015? I guess I don't think we have nearly as much to lose politically as you do. That's all.

     


    by kyle flynn on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 12:22am

    Ginsberg and Breyer would be replaces by more mainstream (read: conservative) judges with the way Obama and Congress now work. Maybe they thought it as important to hold the left fringe on human rights a few more years.

    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 12:46am

    Are you suggesting Obama nominees replacing Ginsburg and Breyer would maybe/likely vote differently than they would? So what happens then when HC replaces them? She has some secret plan to deal with the Senate? Sounds to me you think the court is veering right no matter what happens in 2016. Take that threat off the table.


    by kyle flynn on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 2:04am

    1) I think Obama is more conservative than BIll Clinton, 2) the GOP pack is more rabid than yesteryear, 3) Obama seems to like to compromise - more with the right than the left.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 8:22am

    I would humbly suggest that Clinton was more conservative. Despite the seven billion cut in food stamps, Obama has generally tried to restore the safety net, while Clinton shredded it more ruthlessly than Reagan did. I also think Clinton was cozier with Wall Street than Obama.

     


    by Aaron Carine on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 8:30am

    1) How in the world do you think Bill Clinton was cozier with Wall Street? How many trillions did Obama arrange for banks in 2009 under "Too Big To Fail"? How slow was he to do anything about mortgage theft, and where were any banking convictions through egregious activity? Obama went along with the deficit scolds to slash social programs to make bankers optimistic about the debt's future, while Clinton said fuck 'em and raised taxes to pay for more programs.

    2) It's not unreasonable to cut food stamps during a massive employment boom. Discuss what terrible happened under Clinton from the time of welfare reform to January 2001. How bad was it?

    Of course if there are problems with this approach 12 years after it started, then fix them. If that's what Obama's doing, fine - but do recall that there was a guy George W Bush in charge of running welfare programs for 8 years, and he was as good at that as running the Iraq War or keeping an eye on political appointees or warding off a real estate crash.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 8:54am

    Two ways Bill Clinton elevated Wall Street and abandoned Main Street.  He signed NAFTA and he signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall.  Obama's had to go a long way to match that.  He's tried though. Failed attempt at a grand bargain.  Various "free trade" deals and now TPP, aka NAFTA on steroids.  Antonio Weiss, Robert Rubin, Tim Geithner, Larry Summers.  I'd say it's a push.


    by HSG on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 9:00am

    Nafta = Wall Street? Please stick to the point. Glass-Steagal was responsible for the housing bubble we saw growing for a decade? Glass-Steagal was responsible for the Bush DoJ not enforcing rules on the books? Couldn't be riled? Clinton's eo powerful

    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 12:29pm

    NAFTA was a give away to Wall Street.  I can't find the link but I vividly recall how the financial industry's mouthpiece, the Wall Street Journal, which was rabidly anti-Bill Clinton, came out with a full-throated endorsement of the deal after Clinton signed it into law while barely mentioning Bill.  George Stephanopolous is quoted as saying that Clinton "push[ed]" it because "'he wanted to be sure he wasn't seen as hostile' to business".


    by HSG on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 6:10pm

    It's a shame so many people are so hopelessly ignorant of even recent history. Bill Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with the repeal of Glass-Steagle.  It was a republican sponsored bill that passed with significantly more than veto proof majorities in the house and the senate. Clinton could have gone to war with his own party in congress and made a symbolic veto but the majority in favor was so large that even if the bill had lost 25% of it's votes  it still would have over ridden his veto.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 2:45pm

    OMG. Bill Clinton was for the repeal then and he's fine with it now. HC has demonstrated her signature hedging on the trail recently, but according to Alan Blinder she has no interest in reinstating Glass-Steagall. "Bill Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with the Glass-Steagall." That's crazy talk. Where is DD when you need him? There's the line of the day.


    by kyle flynn on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 4:51pm

    Its not crazy talk. It's the abysmal ignorance of the American public that blames him for it.  The vote in the senate was 90 to 8. The vote in the house was equally lopsided. Only 67% are needed to over ride a presidential veto. Whether Clinton was in favor or not was irrelevant. The majority in congress was so huge it didn't matter what Clinton wanted. He didn't lobby for votes. He didn't push for it. The support was overwhelming in congress without him. Had he tried to fight it he would have to change 24 senator's votes and 84 in the house. Only an idiot would think that's possible. Presidents have often fought losing battles to change a few senator's votes, changing 24 is inconcievable.

    Clinton had nothing to do with the repeal of Glass-Steagle and there was nothing he could have done to stop it. The most he could have done was a symbolic veto before it was passed over that veto.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 5:22pm

    He had nothing to with stopping it. I'll give you both that.


    by kyle flynn on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 5:15pm

    He had nothing to do with passing it. Had he vetoed the bill it would have passed anyway.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 5:31pm

    Take it up with Robert Reich.


    by kyle flynn on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 5:42pm

    I won't.  Bill (using first names to avoid confusion) could have vetoed the repeal of Glass-Steagall and then given speeches about why it was a terrible idea.  He could have warned Democratic supporters that they would be held responsible for the ensuing crash that did in fact result.  Sure, tCongress might have still overridden his veto but he might have succeeded and if he had failed, history would have recorded that he was on the side of the people.


    by HSG on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 6:04pm

    The Senate bill passed 54-44, 1 dem approving. The reconciled Bill passed 90-8(?) I'd guess they wouldn't override a veto.

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/106-1999/s105


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 5:50pm

    It is, and will always be, completely unreasonable to cut food stamps as long as there are hungry people among us. Period. Let's start there.


    by kyle flynn on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 12:36pm

    Thanks Kyle Flynn.  I just want to second all your points.
     


    by HSG on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 9:02am

    If you've been awake the last 7 years you must be aware that the GOP has been in ceaseless attack mode on Obama every day of every week of every month of every one of those years.

    The President has persevered and done much in spite of it all. Including allowing one exploratory oil well in the huge state of Alaska which you attacked as tantamount to climate euthanasia.

    If a Democrat is elected President, one nasty email by some political operative will be the least of their problems when they try to get anything done.

    Not to belittle Frank whom I greatly admire and respect.

    But I am sure the GOP would like no one better to run any of their clowns against than a elderly white haired self declared socialist, a term synonymous with communism, and the perennial GOP scary threat of tax increases, in the easily manipulated ignorant minds of far too many US voters.


    by NCD on Wed, 09/16/2015 - 11:12pm

    Oh God, Hal - please quit being dense and put away your crying towel (and your Bernie Sanders official supporter talking points/catholic cant)

    Hillary's Iraq vote wasn't one of your egregious cherry-picking antics (aside from the obvious that most of the main Democratic players/other presidential candidates & the UN voted exactly as she did, and the Iraq surge was policy under Obama as well)

    Your arrogance is typically not even reading her past policy and just because you haven't seen it (with both eyes firmly shut or averted) it must not exist.

    Re: the prison system, here's the kind of shit you think passes the stink test: 

    Richard Sullivan, of the lobbying firm Capitol Counsel, is a bundler for the Clinton campaign, bringing in $44,859 in contributions in a few short months. Sullivan is also a registered lobbyist for the Geo Group, a company that operates a number of jails, including immigrant detention centers, for profit....

    [F]ully five Clinton bundlers work for the lobbying and law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.

    Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison company in America, paid Akin Gump $240,000 in lobbying fees last year. The firm also serves as a law firm for the prison giant, representing the company in court.

    Let me parse that for you - Hillary's already raised over $50 million, but someone who brought in 1000th of that is worth noting.

    5 "bundlers" raised some unknown amount of money from unknown # of people, even though 250,000 people have donated to her campaign, 94% of $250 or less (& unusually, 61% women).

    The largest corrections company paid a company for which those 5 bundlers worked last year $240K last year - with no idea of any work that Akin Gump did related to Hillary & prisons - note that Akin is the largest lobbying firm in the country, with over 900 attorneys and revenue of $868 million last year - roughly 4000 times the size of the Corrections' account, which doesn't make it terribly important for Akin, does it? Or even prove that Akin did absolutely anything in lobbying Hillary?

    But you drag so much innuendo out of 1 specific deal, and that's just 1 of your packed litany of repetitive bullshit. Where the hell do you get off piling on the shameful Brock tactics bit? You regularly do much worse in every single one of your columns. You're an enabler of nasty crap.

    PS - I liked Hugo Chavez and think he was very good for his country & the poor there, despite all the US demonizing, and think that Hezbollah is popular because it replaced a vacuum in Lebanon looking after the people's needs, so I'm displeased with Hillary's camp sliming Corbyn over this, but don't have tolerance for your kitchen sink dump either.

    PPS - the supposed "race card player" deserves a slap back as well, but I simply can't be fucked with it - life's too short.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 5:14am

    Rather than have some article tell me how terrible this email is I'd like to actually read the email. It's all unsubstantiated allegations and innuendos without a single direct quote to back up anything. I checked all the links in the article you linked and none lead to a copy of this email. Why is there no link or even a single quote from the email? Do you have a link to this email? Until I see some proof that the author's accusations and conclusions are accurate I'll have to assume it's a hit piece by an over zealous Sanders supporter.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 7:17am

    Email was not posted anywhere.  I looked and looked.  Apparently it's proprietary to David Brock.


    by HSG on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 7:46am

    The author claims it wasn't off the record and he can tell all his opinions about it. But not include a single quote from it. Who knows, it may be true but that's the question. Who knows? If some Clinton supporter reported on an email written by a member of Sanders campaign and didn't post a single quote from the email would you accept all the allegations as true? Or would you want to read the email itself and form your own conclusions?

    I wouldn't accept unsubstantiated allegations against Sanders. I'd want proof even though I don't support him. Interesting you feel comfortable spreading unsubstantiated allegations against Hillary with absolutely no evidence to their veracity.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 8:13am

    The claims are not unsubstantiated.  David Brock admitted them in a long form interview on Bloomberg News which is cited in the main article above.  Brock did not dispute one word in the Huffington Post article.


    by HSG on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 8:34am

    Not quite. Brock admits he listed some of Corbyn's outrageous or distasteful positions. When Sanders claims he's delighted Corbyn won listing some of his more outrageous views and asking if that's delightful to Sanders is totally fair. Implying that Sander's holds the same views is slimy. Without seeing the email I can't make an informed judgement. Those are the types of questions I have about many of the claims in the Huff Post article.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 8:54am

    I am curious, I surely don't claim to know them all, [Don't recall ever hearing of Corbyn until recently] but which of Corbyn's views do you consider outrageous, so outrageous apparently that applying the same views to Sanders, and so apparently to anyone else,  is 'slimy', a word that has popped up here a lot recently?


    by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 11:15am

    I'm simply addressing the claims made in the article about the email. I'm not taking any position on the views expressed in an email I can't see.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 4:22pm

    What, are you the grownup in the room restraining from hysterical overaggeration? Careful, we don't forget this kind of overarching attention to detail - we have grudges to begrudge and other kinds of payback at hand.

    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 4:29pm

    Sanders was pleased that Corbyn won because Bernie supports Corbyn's economic position.

    “At a time of mass income and wealth inequality throughout the world, I am delighted to see that the British Labour party has elected Jeremy Corbyn as its new leader,” Sanders said in an initial statement on Monday.

    “We need leadership in every country in the world which tells the billionaire class that they cannot have it all. We need economies that work for working families, not just the people on top.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/15/bernie-sanders-clinton-su...

    If anyone believes that Sanders is going to bend over backwards to support Hezbollah, they are gullible. 


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 9:10am

    I think Hal is viewing this 'attack' all wrong, Bernie's campaign is stuck in the low 20% approval rating and doesn't seem to be moving unless there is some 'attack' such as when BLM confronted him.The low turnout at the Manassas rally  and Biden garnering similar numbers ,without being in the race, highlight his limited appeal.

    Comparing Sanders to a real Socialist such as Corbyn or a real and respected Socialist Leader such as Hugo Chavez  could improve how real Leftists view the lukewarm Sanders.

    Sanders could even gain respect and show true leadership qualities by stating that he also would be willing to meet with US adversaries such as Iran's proxy Hassan Nasrallah to seek peaceful solutions in the ME.

    The fact that his state had to depend on Chavez for its' poor residents welfare may be too embarrassing to admit and talking with Israel's main enemy may be impossible for a Zionist but there is an opportunity for Sanders to show real leadership. We'll have to wait and see if he uses or loses this opportunity.


    by Peter (not verified) on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 12:19pm

    One of my favorite parts of election fun is when one guys tells a bunch of other people that they have a responsibility to repudiate what another person said. I hope it explodes into a totally cray argument about whether or not things were ever sufficiently repudiated and at what level a lack of enthusiastic repudiation is tantamount to endorsement of the original attack, if not acceptance of it.

    It's totes amazeballs.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 12:25pm

    As a high profile writer and presumably liberal oriented with conceivable connections with people associated now or in the past with campaigning, you are denying to state a tantamount repudiation of the alleged vicious email attack by said persons who may or may not now or in the past be performing nefarious deeds under secret orders from Hillary?


    by NCD on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 1:10pm

    To channel J. Geils, is that "Reputed the Beauted"?

    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 1:16pm

    By Jove, do you besmirch my repudiation?


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 1:34pm

    Who would imagine such chicanery?

    by NCD on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 4:00pm

    Clinton and Brock coordinate activities as I noted in the original post and as the New York Times reports here.  Accordingly, "Correct the Record" is an arm of the Clinton campaign and, as the candidate, she bears responsibility for its actions.  This is not in any way tantamount to Clinton's "cray" concerns about Obama's failure to repudiate Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright.


    by HSG on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 1:56pm

    It's cray sills, brings out my Tay Tay, gotta shake it off.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 2:14pm

    This supposed attack is looking more like a False Flag operation after i read that the Bernie Boosters immediately put out their hands and begged donations to defend the Bern. $1.2 Million was raised in two days from the easily manipulated believers.

    The Attacker may be a HRC supporter but he and all the rest are Democrat operatives and the Party program is paramount.


    by Peter (not verified) on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 6:22pm

    ActBlue collected 1.2 million in less then 48 hours.  Enthusiasm counts for something in politics. 

    “We’ve never seen an immediate donor response like what the Sanders’ campaign received on Tuesday,” said ActBlue Executive Director Erin Hill. “At one point, it drove 180 contributions through our platform per minute. Over its 11-year history ActBlue has sent money to over 11,000 campaigns and committees – and the Bernie Sanders campaign holds the record for the two biggest donor days ever for a campaign on our platform.”

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-raises-1-million-clinton-super-pac-attack 

    The article goes on to say. 

    The attack came from Correct the Record, which, unlike most super PACs, coordinates directly with Clinton’s campaign. The group has been sending trackers to Sanders campaign events and plying reporters with so-called opposition research about the Vermonter for months, but never with the intention of its work being made public.

    But after The Huffington Post reported on a particularly controversial line of attack from Correct the Record earlier this week, the Sanders campaign took offense and saw an opportunity. They sent not one but two fundraising emails to supporters in response, and were astonished by the response.

    What a stunning chain of events!  Social media is changing the way campaigns are run.  Karl Rove and Lee Atwater tactics won't be so easy to pull off like in the past era. This is a different era with the advent of social media.  


    by trkingmomoe on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 7:13pm

    Shocker! Hillary Clinton Sided With Big Banks, No Bankruptcy Relief For Americans!

     

    Hillary Clinton’s controversial vote on a bankruptcy bill, pushed by credit card and banking interests, would have made it more difficult for people to get relief from debts through bankruptcy. Hillary Clinton voted with the Republicans and the bill failed. The issue came up during the 2008 presidential primaries when then Sen. Barack Obama seized on Clinton’s vote, saying at one point that the bill, “put the interests of those banks and financial institutions ahead of the interests of the American people.”

     

    Read More:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/17/clinton-defends-bankruptcy-vote-from-senate-career-saying-biden-played-a-role/


    by Barbara Dayan (not verified) on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 11:51pm

    Thanks Barbara, and you are welcome to join in anytime. 

    This is an issue that will plague both Biden and Clinton in this election.  There was a spike in bankruptcy in this country because of the 2008 economical melt down. Credit card debt is still a problem holding back the recovery after a bankruptcy. That bill should of never passed. 


    by trkingmomoe on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 11:39am

    Did her explanation justify anything? Did she get that bill improved a little from where it would have been, or it wouldn't have passed without her?

    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 12:48pm

    No it should not have passed and Clinton shouldn't have signed regardless of whether she could have stopped it.  Senators have an obligation to vote for justice even if such a vote may be futile.  Note that I am not saying that they shouldn't compromise or vote for a sub-optimal bill if on balance they believe it will help more than harm.


    by HSG on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 6:13pm

    Hunter Biden worked for NBNA who pushed for this bankruptcy bill. NBNA lobbyist helped write some of the provisions in the bill so credit card debt could not be discharged.  Later that was their down fall as well as maleficence. Hunter worked for them until the end. Biden, Hillary and Dodd was the major sponsors of the bill and saw to it was passed. Credit card companies profits soared after that because they issued them loosely to people that should not have had one and then charged very high interest rates on them. After it became law Katrina hit the Gulf Coast and the country found out how Draconian the law was.   

    If Biden enters into the race, this will be something that reporters will bring up.  It is also fair game for a debate question.  


    by trkingmomoe on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 8:53pm

    I won't.  Bill (using first names to avoid confusion) could have vetoed the repeal of Glass-Steagall and then given speeches about why it was a terrible idea.  He could have warned Democratic supporters that they would be held responsible for the ensuing crash that did in fact result.  Sure, tCongress might have still overridden his veto but he might have succeeded and if he had failed, history would have recorded that he was on the side of the people.

    Look I hated it when the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed. I lived through it. But I didn't blame Clinton. The support in congress was overwhelming at the time.    I posted on this topic in 2007 because I remembered what happened in 1999. This isn't ancient history. Though I think you're clueless on the topic and this is all new information to you. You simply didn't know how large the majority was above the super majority needed to over ride a presidential veto. You just spouted off talking points some anti Clinton hack supplied you with. Faced with the facts you can't back down now even though it's obvious your post is moronic.

    I doubt that Sanders is politically naive enough to begin the doomed fight you suggest here. It'd be fucking idiotic to start a fight with his own party over a bill that passed 90-8. He never could win and the bad feelings would affect other parts of his agenda. If he was such a  ignoramus and followed your plan he doesn't deserve to be president. The positive feelings I have for Sanders  aren't diminished by your comments because I know Sanders isn't stupid enough to follow your plans.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 7:20pm

    Clinton could have declared Jailed Helm to dissolve Congress and then veto the Bill. Why didn't he?.....hahaha

    I had no idea it passed by that margin. Even Dubya's Iraq Jujitsu pre-midterm with us or against us Use of Force Resolution had far less support.


    by NCD on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 7:49pm

    Clinton could have declared Jailed Helm to dissolve Congress and then veto the Bill. Why didn't he?

    Because Hillary didn't follow through on the Lysistrata plan to force him to. It's all Hillary's fault.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 8:31pm

    I left a reply on another computer and it is held up for moderation. The basic point of that comment was that B. Clinton's signing statement gave evidence as to whether or not he supported the bill doing away with Glass-Steagall. Google what B Clinton said for the record about his evaluation of the good/bad outcome of changing regulations which kept banks from gambling with other people's money. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 8:49pm

    There is in fact no agreement in economic circles that the changes to Glass/Steagall led to the 2008 crash. For instance one sides argument:

    Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented the last financial crisis. And it probably wouldn't have prevented JPMorgan’s $2 billion-plus trading loss. The loss occurred on the commercial side of the bank, not at the investment bank. [...]

    The first domino to nearly topple over in the financial crisis was Bear Stearns, an investment bank that had nothing to do with commercial banking. Glass-Steagall would have been irrelevant. Then came Lehman Brothers; it too was an investment bank with no commercial banking business and therefore wouldn't have been covered by Glass-Steagall either. After them, Merrill Lynch was next — and yep, it too was an investment bank that had nothing to do with Glass-Steagall.

    Next in line was the American International Group, an insurance company that was also unrelated to Glass-Steagall. While we're at it, we should probably throw in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which similarly, had nothing to do with Glass-Steagall.

    The only thing that can prevent these events is tighter federal regulation, and the bottom line is Republicans never support regulation, while Democrats do.


    by NCD on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 9:18pm

    There's that too. I read the articles  but I don't post much on Wall Street as I only have an amateur's understanding. Back in 07 I remember spending a couple of hours searching for information about "shorting" a stock because I had no idea how a person could make money by betting a stock would go down. (laughs)

    Even though I'm not deep enough into the details to always understand banking and investment I follow the story enough to see that more often than not when we loosen a regulation those Wall Street dudes will figure out  a way to use that to get rich while screwing over the rest of us and damaging the economy.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 9:51pm

    I do remember Bill being something of a supporter of the bill and he can be criticized for that. Hard to know how much. Sometimes if a dog is going to get the bone it's politically astute to make a big show of giving it to him. But heaping all the blame on him is a gross exaggeration as it was going to pass with or without him. There were just too many blue dogs back then and most dems didn't see such a devastating outcome.

    As we all know the president isn't a dictator. Sanders or Hillary will have to find ways to get the support of more than a majority of democrats to have any hope of fighting the intransigence of the republicans. You can't do that by pissing off democrats by leading a doomed fight over a bill that has more than the super majority needed to over ride a presidential veto. I believe they both are smart enough to know that sometimes compromise is necessary and sometimes if you're going to lose it's better to lose gracefully. If Sanders is such an absolutist that he will always fight even against a 90 to 8 vote he'll be a colossal failure as a president.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 9:59pm

    Your 90 t0 8 seems to assume that that would be the ratio if B. Clinton had actually opposed the bill and had fought for its defeat. Being for it made it easy for other D's to vote as they did regardless what a they thought was best for their [alleged] constituancy. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 9:55pm

    If he had fought that wouldn't have been the ratio. But when a vote is that lopsided it's ridiculous to think anyone could have gotten the 24 votes needed to stop an over ride of a veto. Especially when Clinton was a lame duck nearly out of office, damaged by scandals (even though fake and trivial when real imo), and with a republican house and senate.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 10:11pm

    Repeating my comment above-The Senate bill passed 54-44, 1 dem approving. The reconciled Bill passed 90-8(?) I'd guess they wouldn't override a veto.

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/106-1999/s105

    But the move to repeal in 1998 was in full swing and I still think Bush's activist non-enforcement of the law and completely allowing all the mortgage, poisonous assets, and other malfeasance to occur. If Glass-Steagall were on the books in 2003, Bush would have gutted it in practice or through repeal. You can have a million laws under mayor Daley or Tammany Hall.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 09/19/2015 - 3:18am

    removed.


    by kyle flynn on Sat, 09/19/2015 - 7:28am

    I'm not sure who it is you're insulting here, but I think it might be me. To be clear, I'm not the author of the quote you've included. Maybe you're insulting Hal. Maybe both of us. Anyway, I've made one narrow criticism of a singular statement you've made and repeated: that Bill Clinton hd nothing to do with the repeal of Glass-Steagall. This is simply and purely false. I don't blame Bill Clinton for it. Plenty of people, as you've pointed out, are responsible. He's one of them, though, without a doubt. He wanted it, He worked for it (just ask his Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers), and he doesn't show a solitary sign he regrets it. He was for it before he was for it. Robert Reich takes it another step. He thinks Bill Clinton "led the way." Clinton said this during the signing ceremony:

    I think you should all be exceedingly proud of yourselves…today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down these antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority. This will, first of all, save consumers billions of dollars a year through enhanced competition.

    Furthermore, your repeated citation of 90-8 vote in the Senate isn't the whole story. That's the final vote after Conference. Months earlier the Senate passed their version with a modest majority of 54-44. There was a fight. Had BC been among the opposition, who's to say.

    Finally, NCD is right. There is hardly consensus on the consequences of the legislation. It's interesting, however, who comes down on which side of the debate. We all trust who we trust, I suppose. Here's one argument. Of course the future, in this case, counts for more than the past. What matters to me is that HC defends this history and won't commit to reinstating Glass-Steagall. Bernie Sanders stood up to repeal it then and stands up for reinstating it now. Not a surprise. Just for fun, here is how the Times reported the story on 11/5/1999. 

     


    by kyle flynn on Sat, 09/19/2015 - 2:18am

    I'm not sure why people keep quoting the party line vote on the senate bill. Since 44 of 45 democrats voted against the senate bill I don't think Clinton entering the fight would have had any effect. Don't you pay attention to how congress works. They knew it was different than the house bill. They knew it had to go into reconciliation. It's not uncommon for parties to vote in a block in that situation to give them more power when negotiating the reconciliation bill. It's just politics and tells us nothing about a senator's view of the bill or what their final vote would be. 36 democrats changed their vote after some minor changes during reconciliation. Are you seriously saying they all had a change of heart? Most supported Glass-Steagle repeal and only voted no as a negotiation tactic as it went into reconciliation.

     


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 09/19/2015 - 4:01am

    I agree with you 1000%. Repealing Glass-Steagall enjoyed broad and deep bipartisan support, including  Bill Clinton. And I recognize that it's a bit ridiculous to imagine BC standing up to the legislation. It's fantasy. It's not who he is now or was then. Which is the point. Clinton was in on it. He wanted it. He signed it and bragged about it. To claim he had nothing to do with it is crazy talk. 


    by kyle flynn on Sat, 09/19/2015 - 7:22am

    Yeah you can give Clinton 1/450 of the blame. At least I think we can agree that he couldn't have stopped it with a wave of his magic veto pen.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 09/19/2015 - 3:12pm

    No worries Kyle Flynn.  Ocean-kat called my post "moronic" or was it "idiotic".  I can't remember any more and I have neither the time nor inclination to go back and reread.  I do wonder though about the folks who casually throw these terms around or drop "s" and "f" bombs like stevedores and fishwives (apologies to stevedores and fishwives).  Who do they think they are they persuading?


    by HSG on Sat, 09/19/2015 - 10:54am

    Hal, being a Party Insider what's your opinion about Biden's chances for the nomination? The Party Moneybags are calling for him to run and with HRC's poll numbers slipping and the Bern stuck in the 20% doldrums the time may be ripe for some new enthusiasm to spice up the race.

    The odds and history say that the next pres will be a Republican so it's as important who the Dems pick to be the designated loser as the winner.


    by Peter (not verified) on Sat, 09/19/2015 - 11:59am

    Party insider?  I've got less juice than a California citrus grower whose water rations were cut.  On balance, I slightly prefer Biden to Hillary since I believe he'd be a less hawkish and more redistributive President than she.  Still, she'd probably have a slightly better chance in the general election.

    Without any special knowledge, I don't think Biden will run for the following reasons: 1) As Ramona pointed out in an excellent blog Please Joe Don't Run he sure doesn't seem to want to.  2) I don't see how he'd distinguish himself from Clinton sufficiently to make the case that he should be the Democratic candidate.  3) Hillary's struggling but she's clearly still very strong.  Unless he thinks the nomination will be a cakewalk, I don't think he'll run.

    Accepting your premise that the next President will be a Republican, I don't see that it much matters which Democrat loses in the general election.  The only three who, I think, have a chance are Clinton, Sanders, and Biden.  All are at an age where they can't realistically expect to run again.  In 2020 - or 2024 if your premise is wrong - we can hopefully look forward to a fresh slate of Democratic candidates.  Possibilities in no particular order - the Castro brothers, Chris Van Hollen, Kamala Harris, Bill DeBlasio, Andrew Cuomo (yuk), Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar.


    by HSG on Sat, 09/19/2015 - 12:58pm

    It's amazing to me the amount of time you want to spend talking about words like fuck and bullshit. Especially when by now you must realize I don't give a fuck.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 09/19/2015 - 1:49pm

    Maybe B. Clinton was against Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which did  away with Glass -Steagall but how could we know? What evidence, one way or the other, do we have today?

     The vote to confirm the act was one which would have been sufficient to over-ride a veto and some say that that fact makes the next fact, that he signed the bill, zero evidence that he supported the bill. I do not see it that way. Did he campaign against the bill? I don't think so. If he was against the bill would he have done so. Seems like it.  But here is a clue as to how he felt about it.

    Public Papers of the PresidentsWilliam J. Clinton<br>1999: Book IIWilliam J. Clinton

    Today I am pleased to sign into law S. 900, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This historic legislation will modernize our financial services laws, stimulating greater innovation and competition in the financial services industry. America's consumers, our communities, and the economy will reap the benefits of this Act.

    It goes on and his statement of how  it would do wonderful things for our economy is available on line by googling his signing statement.

     


    by LULU (not verified) on Fri, 09/18/2015 - 7:49pm