MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 10 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
Hillary adds DNC to list of those she blames for her loss
By HSG on Fri, 06/02/2017 - 9:06am |URL:
https://heatst.com/politics/dncs-ex-head-of-data-science-hammers-hillary-clinton-after-she-blames-his-team-for-loss/
- Add new comment
- 12419 reads
Comments
I would have chosen to use their headline DNC’s Ex Head of Data Science Hammers Hillary Clinton After She Blames His Team for Loss because there's some incredibly angry tweets by him posted in the article, calling her accusations "fucking bullshit." And he blames her team for ignoring DNC data on "mi/wi/pa". Anyone interested in the Dem party should see them.
by artappraiser on Fri, 06/02/2017 - 10:38am
Thanks AA. Your/their headline is better.
by HSG on Fri, 06/02/2017 - 11:12am
How about, "Even Though the Winner of the Popular Vote is Not in Office, and the Entire Country (and World) Suffers Because of it, the DNC Plays With Itself Instead of Solving Problems."
by CVille Dem on Fri, 06/02/2017 - 6:14pm
Yeah I thought we were done with this post-election circular firing squad...
by Obey on Fri, 06/02/2017 - 6:42pm
The DNC? When the media's and the nation's focus should be on our insane withdrawal from Paris, Clinton chooses to point the finger at DNC number-crunchers who gave her good data which she ignored.
by HSG on Fri, 06/02/2017 - 6:52pm
I am wondering if there is some in house fighting going on with maneuvering to control the party? I don't understand the sour grapes? Is this to create a distraction?.
by trkingmomoe on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 2:03am
Because after all, the DNC's done such a bang-up job getting other Democrats elected, they should be beyond reproach. But Hal's found a new friend. Maybe give us a rundown on Seth Rich's murder while you're at it. #ZombieAlert
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 2:29am
Aaron Blake @ WaPo has way more on this, including Therriault's history and why he just took the tweets down, and a statement from him on that, some tweets from others who have saved them, and tweets from Tom Bonier, John Hagner and Rahm Emmanuel on topic. One thing that seems sure from his piece is that there are very touchy rifts in the party apparatus over Clinton's statements:
Ex-DNC aide hits back hard at Clinton, says her campaign ignored data on Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin
All of which should be no surprise once she said what she said? Surely she knows everyone in the party would go "nod, nod".
by artappraiser on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 5:12am
Ironies abound. The loser who takes "absolute personal responsibility" finds yet another culprit, in addition to Comey, Russia/Wikileaks, the media, Facebook, and sexism, for her loss. The Chair of the DNC, her latest scapegoat, was an overt Hillary supporter. Despite the complaints of Hillary Clinton supporters that Bernie was a harmful and divisive force during the Democratic primaries and continued to be one during his "unity" tour with Tom Perez, it is Clinton with her "hurtful" and dishonest finger-pointing at relatively low-level DNC staffers who is the one causing dissension.
On a related note, since Trump won in November, voters have seen Democratic Party leaders like the 100 millionaire Clinton evade any responsibility for her loss and act utterly confounded that her coronation didn't go as planned. They have seen President Obama's post-Hillary loss victory lap include cavorting with billionaires, a $60 million check from a book publisher, and defiant acceptance of a $400K check from the very bankers who tanked the economy in 2008 and whom he did not prosecute. They have seen top Democrats take money from the pharmaceutical industry and then vote against importing safe cheap drugs from Canada.
Before the election, they learned that the Democratic Mayor of Chicago, a former Obama White House Chief of Staff, covered up a murder by a police officer in order to smooth the path to his re-election. That self-same Mayor, who held a high position in the Clinton administration, has undermined the Chicago Public Schools at every opportunity while accepting campaign contributions from charter school operators.
Under these circumstances, poor, working, and middle-class Americans can be forgiven for thinking Democrats are not on their side and that Party leaders view it mostly as a means for them to attain great wealth and power. In fact, those deplorables in flyover country might even be right.
by HSG on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 9:51am
Bernie took responsibility for losing? I thought he blamed the DNC and those party rules and the primary schedule...
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 10:12am
I can find no evidence that Bernie attributed Clinton's victory in last year's primaries to the DNC, party rules, or the primary schedule. If he did, he was wrong to have done so. He would have been better served explaining that he needed to do a better job reaching out to African-Americans and listening and responding to their specific concerns.
Bernie did tell Chuck Todd that he lost to Clinton in states with large high income/low income gaps
Here's what Politifact concluded about that statement: "The figure is a bit high if we look at turnout by income. In 2014, about 75 percent of people who made under $10,000 and about 69 percent of those who made under $30,000 didn’t vote. If we look at financial insecurity, however, Sanders is right on the money."
Nevertheless, while Bernie was factually correct and didn't blame anybody else for his loss to Clinton, he would have been better served by acknowledging that he didn't get his message across as effectively as he wished.
How do you feel about HRC's fingerpointing?
by HSG on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 11:27am
Hal, when poor people voted, they voted for Hillary. Sanders did not capture the votes of poor people. Sanders did not win the Black vote.
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/4/24/actually-sen-sanders-poor-p...
Has Sanders' behind found its way to a black community since the election? Sanders is not the future of the Democratic Party.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 11:49am
It's unfortunate that tensions remain between the African-American community and Bernie Sanders since the policies that he pushes would unquestionably lead to better results than the policies that mainstream/corporate Democrats push. As I mentioned in my response to PP, Bernie would be well-served acknowledging that many African-Americans have been resistant to his message. On the other hand, as you have noted he does have a 73% approval rating among all blacks. So he must be doing something right.
I am always interested in your criticisms of Bernie RMRD - or more specifically the way you go about criticizing Bernie. Often you make general statements, as here, "Sanders is not the future of the Democratic Party." Other times, you note that blacks, especially well-connected African-American politicians preferred Hillary. You demean leaders like Cornel West and Ben Jealous who backed Bernie or have the temerity to criticize Obama. But you never, or almost never, criticize Bernie's documented actions, speeches, or votes.
On the other hand, when I criticize corporate Democrats it's almost always based on what they've done or said.
How do you feel about Hillary's finger-pointing?
by HSG on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 12:00pm
I don't care about Hillary venting her frustrations. A deluded group of voters elected Trump. Those voters are not that into the Democratic Party. The response has been to pull out all stops to attract the deluded. The DNC is criticized as being a toady for corporate interests. The DNC is portrayed as a failure to attract these white voters. Yet when I noted the black voters felt taken for granted by the Democrats, mentioning concerns about voter suppression and police abuse, etc., I was told that black voters should be happy with the DNC platform. I was dismissed. I was told that I was uncivil.
It is June 2017. The DNC, Sanders, Perez, Ellison, etc. should be presenting plans to combat voter suppression. They should be naming people harmed by police abuse and what the DNC is doing to fight the battle. Democrats are doing none of this. Democrats will come knocking on doors in black neighborhoods in September 2018. Hopefully some people will still open their doors.
Sanders does not want to carry the label "Democratic Party member". He supported a guy in Montana who wanted nothing to do with Tom Perez. Yet the Montana candidate expected money to flow like magic from the DNC. This was as bad as the woman who ran against Mitch McConell but wouldn't openly state that she supported then President Obama.
My recent statements about Cornel West come after his recent appearance on Bill Mahrer. Mahrer confronted West with the fact that 24 million people would not be at risk of losing healthcare if Hillary were President. Instead of simply admitted that truth, West mumbled something about not voting for David Duke or Trump if that were the choice. West and I live in different realities. West is about as popular as keeping Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill in the black community.
When I go out urging people to vote the Democrats back in, I expect a great deal of pushback from black voters tired of being ignored by Democrats including your hero Bernie Sanders. 2018 may be a self-inflicted train wreck for Democrats.
Hillary is venting. Let her vent. Sanders needs to get his behind to black communities if he is crafting a "new" Democratic Party.
Edit to add:
Black Democrats on being dismissed
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/some-blacks-agree-with-trump-on-...
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 12:58pm
African-American voter suppression is a real and serious problem. It is interesting and disappointing that this is one legitimate explanation that Hillary could put forth to explain why she didn't do as well as she might have hoped and yet she hasn't mentioned it among her litany of excuses as far as I know.
Regarding Bernie Sanders and this issue, he does raise it at his website. But I'm with you RMRD. He - along with the DNC and Democratic leaders - have also been disappointing. They need to be speaking forcefully and frequently about it and and they haven't been. For Bernie to bury it on his website is not enough.
Maher deliberately put West on the defensive in the confrontation you reference. Neither was willing to listen to the other. It was bad TV.
I don't think you can blame Quist for keeping the DNC and Perez at arm's length. He viewed them as likely to be liabilities in Montana and he probably knows better than either of us if that's the case.
Allison Lundergan Grimes looked awful when she refused to say whether she voted for President Obama. If she had any chance to unseat McConnell, she probably lost it in that exchange. I don't see that as analogous to Quist's decision not to campaign with the DNC and Perez. Grimes came across as secretive and ashamed of her vote. By contrast, Quist wasn't hiding anything.
by HSG on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 1:09pm
The problem for Quist is that DNC money does not come without strings.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 2:05pm
If Bernie didn't officially blame the DNC, you & every other Bernie fan I know did. Kurt Eichenwald answered it all so I wouldn't have to.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 2:18pm
Thx
Don't know I missed this.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 3:56pm
Did you miss Rove backing Bernie? and Russia fake news spammers too? is it any wonder why he's America's "most popular politician™"? When is "reaching across the aisle" too much? Unlike Bush, perhaps 'carried to 3rd base and thought he hit a triple'.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/04/2017 - 12:54pm
Still arguing about how Sanders is or is not killing the Dem party, I see.
MEANWHILE, I could be wrong about this, but doncha see:
HILLARY IS DISSING THE DEM PARTY. In other news, she is starting her own movement. Like, you know, the Koch bros. started their own.movement because they didn't like the GOP, they wanted something a little more Tea Party-ish?
While you're still arguing Sandersites vs. Clintonites, the neo-conservatives who hate Trump and the neo-liberals who hate Trump could form a new party and be a majority leaving y'all behind.
by artappraiser on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 2:24pm
Haters gotta hate. Maybe it's the emotion that binds.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 3:35pm
Hating is fine. If those are the feelings that a particular candidate or set of policies conjure up, so be it. Making bogus arguments and denying legitimate ones is the problem. Ignoring facts and conjuring up a specious narrative in their stead is when things go very very wrong. Shouting others down with insults and obscenities rather than responding dispassionately with logic and defensible claims causes mayhem.
by HSG on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 3:48pm
So Bernie gets to be angry and promote aspirations over political realities & practical details, but I gotta be "dispassionate" and "logical". Too damn funny, the way you talk. Oops, sorry for that curse word, 2 bits in the cussing jar.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 6:14pm
The "neo-conservatives who hate Trump and the neo-liberals who hate Trump could form a new party and be a majority leaving y'all behind." From your word processor's keyboard to the flying spaghetti monster's ears.
by HSG on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 3:43pm
Where I got the idea, looking last night at the below twitter feed, some examples posted. And then remembering how the group of Neo-libs that wrote on foreign policy around 2006 at TPMCafe @ Josh Marshall's invitation, acquaintances of his, people Marshall respected, were hated and attacked by lefties on the site just as much as they hated the Neo-cons. And how the same exact people hated Obama when he started on the scene, for doing things like inviting evangelical Rick Warren to his announcement gig, and for being hawkish by saying he's not against all wars. Far left didn't like either group, and far right don't like anything "neo." Centrists in general dislike poltical correctness, and righties practice their own form of it.
by artappraiser on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 5:35pm
I'm just a single data point, but as a possible centrist (not sure if that's accurate across the board) I go back and forth on "political correctness". I learned a lot at Shakesville while sometimes feeling it going a bit far but appreciating their commitment to some pretty difficult feminist & LGBT goals (am I the only one on the planet who still has to think out what order that acronym goes each time I use it?). Open Left for its self-professed liberal views spent a lot of time raking white Southerners over the coals for... being white Southerners. I'd say I "evolved" (read: just changed my mind, no selectio or massacres required) quite a bit on Southern symbols as viewed and dealt with by black observers/locals, even though I think there's some mutual shift needed (the NOLA mayor's speech was brilliant). I try to limit my use of obscenities that have any racial or gender or gay connotations, even though nothing might match calling someone a "pussy" in terms of perceived meaning in a given situation and the power/explosiveness of impact. And then again, sometimes I feel mischievous and don't want to be chained in (especially trying to be funny - comedy and good jokes are hard to pull off without healthy irreverance towards all things, especially oneself.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 6:39pm
Edit to add: They sure wouldn't be a majority though. But it would be great to see the corporatists exit en masse.
by HSG on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 9:35pm
No.
by Flavius on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 9:56pm
no to what, Flav? like I said yesterday:you so funny.
by artappraiser on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 11:24pm
To ¨it would be great to see the corporatists exit en masse¨.
by Flavius on Sun, 06/04/2017 - 3:08pm
For example if ¨corporatists ¨ includes George Soros , it would not be ¨great¨ if he exits. Given ¨Citizens United¨.
by Flavius on Sun, 06/04/2017 - 9:59pm
Counterpoint:
- The Tories have an at least 2 to 1 funding advantage in the UK election
- Labour started 24% down in the pools and has managed to almost close the gap, despite also a univocally hostile press.
It's almost as if good policy (rather than less bad policy) can make up for the resulting funding disadvantage.
by Obey on Mon, 06/05/2017 - 1:06am
Actually, it's showing that less bad but kinda blurred policy can triumph over a leader that comes across as largely clueless, arrogant, heartless, and contradicts herself in big ways. Oh, and a woman. Boris Johnson for example can spout out about his "Titanic Success" and still draw a crowd and keep his government seat, and somehow the Tories can be wrong and deceptive at every turn but still keep their majority. Personally, I'd keep the fundraising going.
PS - photo of conservative keeping up the reservation - "what me worry? things will work out"
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 06/05/2017 - 2:34am
- "Third-way Centrism is dead"
- "No no its resting. Beautiful plumage"
As for the likely next Tory leader, who wouldn't go to a Boris event? Once May starts crash-tackling 8 year olds and getting stuck on a zipline with fun-size flags, we can talk.
by Obey on Mon, 06/05/2017 - 4:05am
Corporatists means those who champion pro-corporate, anti-labor, anti-consumer, anti-competition, anti-environment policies.
by HSG on Mon, 06/05/2017 - 9:47am
It appears we have quite different definitions of Neo-Liberals and Neo-Conservatives. Talking apples and oranges. That's like a Pat Buchanan old timey conservative.
by artappraiser on Mon, 06/05/2017 - 10:32am
Thanks for answering, Flav. Wanted to know only because you clearly wanted to share your opinion, but it wasn't clear what the opinion was.
by artappraiser on Mon, 06/05/2017 - 10:31am