Will The Elderly Stick Us With Trump Or Biden And Then All Die Off In The Pandemic Before The Consequences Are Felt?

James Carville is a vile, mouldering 75 year old man, who long ago lost any relevance he ever had-- other than on Comcast TV. Last night, as Biden was racking up his wins he cackled, "Let’s shut this puppy down, and let’s move on and worry about November. This thing is decided. There’s no reason to keep it going, not even a day longer." The elderly-- who were responsible for Trump's tenure in the White House (and thereby the inadequate response to COVID-19 and many of their own, perhaps untimely, deaths)-- are about to saddle the Democratic Party with another anti-inspirational, insiders-only, vision-free nominee.

Tuesday in Michigan, Bernie's appeal was to the people who will be left after the coronavirus pandemic burns out. He won:

• 83% of 18-24 vote
• 81% of 25-29 vote
• 62% of 30-39 vote
• 51% of 40-49 vote.

Most of the walking dead, like Carville, voted for Biden. The walking dead won. And I guess we don't get a re-vote in a few months, when they're dead. Which reminds me of two things (aside from the fact that I'm 72 years old):

• Most of those expressing great fear of coronavirus to pollsters, said they voted for Biden, the anti-Medicare-for-All Democrat
• Why didn't MSNBC fire Carville at the same time they fired Chris Matthews, their best decision of 2020?

John Harris' Mini-Tuesday wrap-up for Politico-- Biden and Trump: Don’t Stop Thinking About Yesterday-- captured the state of the country's politics: "2020 promises to offer two old men but no new ideas."

16 and 17 year olds aren't allowed to vote. Presumably thiner minds aren't matter enough. Why are people over 85 voting, even if their minds are... over-mature. Maybe there should be some kind of testing... like when old people renew drivers' licenses? "At a transformative moment in history-- when the onrush of changes in climate, technology, demography, and global balance-of-power are creating a new generation of urgent policy challenges in the United States and around the world-- the 2020 race now promises to be effectively devoid of new ideas," wrote Harris. "Instead, this promises to be a race above all about character and personal qualities. It will be waged by old men-- age 73 for the incumbent, age 77 for the presumptive challenger-- whose essential worldviews were formed decades ago and whose essential instincts and preoccupations are backward-looking."

Both candidates are noticeably-- and increasingly-- senile, which seems to be repulsing people under 50 and looking attractively self-affirming to people over 70.

The main idea of Biden’s campaign is, in the phrase that had its origins in a malapropism by Warren G. Harding, a return to normalcy. He has the usual roster of standard Democratic policy positions but they are not animated by an arresting new vision, like Barack Obama’s “hope and change” message of 2008. Instead, Biden’s promise is mostly about the restoration of civility and precedent.

The main idea of Trump’s campaign is by all evidence the continuation of non-normalcy. Disruption was his promise in 2016, and what he has delivered for three years. Increasingly, though, that disruption is less about specific policy goals-- never mind larger ideas—than it is about Trump’s own cult of personality, with its titanic gyrations of whimsy and grievance.

Here’s one to be answered by Trump supporters: If he wins a second term, his most important policy goal will be: What?

Here’s one to be answered by any voter. The State of the Union address, when presidents seeking re-election historically lay out a second-term agenda, was just last month. Yes, you probably remember a carnival-like atmosphere, during which Rush Limbaugh was bestowed the Medal of Freedom and Nancy Pelosi ripped up her copy of the speech. Do you remember Trump’s main new policy initiative or any big promises he intends to make the basis of his re-election?

As a political culture, we are now so immersed in the nonstop news cycle with its premium on insult, indignation, and living in the moment that we scarcely notice when an election that is momentous by any measure winds up with a choice like this one. 2020 will have one candidate who is all about Trump, another who is all about being the opposite of Trump, but no candidate who has defined himself by a new set of arguments about the future, or a new set of remedies about the problems likely to shadow the country or the world in the years ahead.

Bill Clinton, whose 1990s-era policies are largely out of fashion and whose personal lapses are now judged censoriously by Democrats who were once more forgiving, perhaps still might get some credit for knowing something about presidential politics. One of his signature maxims is, Every election is about the future.



Hmm….It would be interesting to get Clinton’s unfiltered analysis of this one. His theme was the Fleetwood Mac song, “Don’t Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow).” Biden and Trump, by contrast, sometimes seem to be urging, “Don’t Stop Thinking About Yesterday.”

Biden began his campaign with what turned out to be a blunder, referring to the Senate that he served in after winning shortly before his 30th birthday in 1972, when he said he managed to work productively even with that era’s segregationists whose views he found repugnant. Though he has dropped fond references to Dixiecrats, he still cites his own history crafting deals in the Senate, and, on a more personal note, his own perseverance through tragedy after the 1972 deaths of his first wife and daughter and the 2015 death of his son, Beau Biden.

Trump, likewise, filters contemporary issues through a personal prism that is decades old. His warnings about the rise of China flow rhetorically directly from his 1980s warnings about what was then seen as the implacable rise of Japan. His descriptions of negotiations with leaders in Congress to other heads of state often use language that sound like the advice he gave in his 1987 book, “The Art of the Deal,” published when he was 42. One of his major first-term policy victories was fulfilling a pledge to replace Clinton’s NAFTA trade deal, passed more than a quarter-century ago.

Even as the world changes dramatically, by all evidence what Democratic voters seem to want this year-- no less than Republican Trump diehards-- is a contest over character and personal traits.

In other words... which candidate lies more? Which candidate has a more repulsive and corrupt family? Which candidate is more incapacitated mentally? Which, in the end, is the lesser of two evils? This is the perfect battleground for someone like Trump-- and will be absolutely catastrophic for a traditional old hawkish pol like Status Quo Joe Biden, who has one chance of getting into the White House: Trump making himself-- if he hasn't already-- too beyond the pale even for the morons who vote in American elections.





Neil Young is also old (74 years old)-- but a brand new voters, so he sounded 18 yesterday when he endorsed Bernie:

I support Bernie because I listen to what he says. Every point he makes is what I believe in. Every one.

In 2016, If Bernie had run instead of Hillary Clinton, I think we would not have the incompetent mess we have now.

Does America have the Democrat party insiders, the DNC to blame for our incompetent mess?

Did the DNC pull every political string to stop Bernie and get Hillary in 2016?

Did that work?

Now, are they trying to stop Bernie Sanders again?

Is Joe the new Hillary?

Is that what you really want?

I think the DNC is more interested in themselves and the power of their party than anything else.

As a new citizen, I was excited to register to vote. Outside the courthouse after I was naturalized, (funny word for it) there was a Democrat Party Registration booth. I registered. My first error as a U.S. citizen will be corrected now.

I am registering Independent. The wheels are in motion. I don’t trust the DNC because I think the DNC is pushing their own agenda over the good of our country.

The thing about Bernie for me is he is consistent. He wants our children to have the best chance at a great education.

The DNC will spread their talking point that ‘Bernie is Divisive.’ They will tell MSNBC and CNN to spread that opinion. They will spread it.

That’s because Bernie is not with the DNC.

Bernie is with you.

Are Bernie’s Policies Radical?

Fight CLIMATE CHANGE like it is real.
Eliminate STUDENT DEBT
Make COLLEGE TUITION Free.
Pay for it all with TAXES ON THE SUPER RICH
$15.00 MINIMUM WAGE
HEALTH CARE AS A HUMAN RIGHT!
The GREEN NEW DEAL for millions of new jobs with a future.

These are Bernie’s ambitious goals on your behalf.
I don’t think these are radical goals. Do you?
These goals are opposed by the DNC. Ask yourself WHY?

Listen to what Bernie says- not what the DNC is selling you from Social Media.

I don’t believe Facebook. It’s corrupt and admits that it is.

Facebook is full of bots and trolls. It’s not AMERICA. Forget social media. Ignore it, and replace it with TRUTH. I don’t believe the Facebook social media cesspool of lies, disinformation from other countries and mis-leading comments.

I believe Bernie Sanders.

I think Bernie is the Real Deal.

I think Democracy is in deep trouble. The solution is big CHANGE. Are you scared of Change?
I believe that in these times Democratic Socialism is good for American workers and students. It’s certainly not Communism. It’s the future for the working class.

The USA is broken, as is our sacred Democracy temporarily broken.
Search for Truth.
We already have socialism in the USA bailing out Wall Street and the super rich. How about the working class and the students who want a real future without debt?
What about them?

Ever wonder why the DNC is against Bernie?
Is Bernie against all the corporations funding the DNC candidate’s political campaigns?
Will Bernie hit their corrupt campaign pocket books?
Will he try to clean the system up?
Is that radical or divisive to America?

Bernie scares the hell out of the DNC. That’s why they’re acting this way right now. They are scared because their own power is challenged. If Bernie wins, they might lose it.
Is it time to get the money out of politics and put the truth back in?
Does this require Strength and Truth?

Bold changes. Bernie Sanders.

Do you think Democracy as we knew it is dying today?
That’s what I think.

If you are a loyal Trump supporter, please write NYA and tell your story. We will print that. We want to know about the positive side of supporting Trump.
We want to know your opinion. What is the positive side?

Was Donald Trump elected because of the negative effect on America of the DNC and the DNC policies of its Democratic candidates?
Did Trump supporters want change?
Do Bernie supporters want change?

It is-- was Time to change America. That’s what Trump supporters thought. That’s what I think.

Until then--
Stand with Bernie,
Stand for the workers,
Stand for the teachers,
Stand for the students.
Stand up for Climate Justice.
STAND for higher taxes on the super-rich to pay for all of the above!
Stand for The American Future.

Stand with Bernie Sanders.

Hey... while we're at it

Democratic Party Establishment Interests Do Not Align With The Grassroots Of The Party-- Not Even A Little

Siena is a generally useless poll--except in New York state. For some reason, they tend to be fairly predictive there. Their new poll, released yesterday, shows Bernie winning the primary with Bloomberg in the #2 spot. Among registered Democrats:

• Bernie- 25%
• Bloomberg- 21%
• Status Quo Joe- 13%
• Elizabeth- 11%
• Mayo Pete- 9%
• Klobuchar- 9%

All 6 Democrats beat Trump in head-to-head match-ups, although Bloomberg does best-- beating Trump by 25 points. Although Bernie and Biden have more support from Democrats, Bloomberg manages to garner more support from Republicans than any of the Democratic candidates and also leads with Independents, presumably Republican-leaning Independents.

Biden, Bernie and Elizabeth have very high favorables among Democrats, while NY Dems rate Mayo Pete and Bloomberg significantly lower. And when it comes to unfavorables, Bloomberg is the most disliked by Democrats. Bloomberg has the highest favorables among GOP voters. Bernie has the highest favorables among Independents.

New York's 274 pledged delegates will be up for grabs on April 28 in a northeast Super-Tuesday that also includes Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Delaware-- for a grand total of 663 delegates, the most of any day besides March 3. It's possible that Bernie will have-- despite corporate media anti-working class hysteria-- enough delegates in his pocket to be unstoppable. Reporting after the Nevada blowout, BuzzFeed's Ruby Cramer noted that "David Plouffe, who was Barack Obama’s campaign manager in 2008, said on MSNBC Saturday night that if the primary stays crowded after Super Tuesday, Sanders could have a hold on the nomination."

“If it is more than a two-candidate race, certainly, if it’s a four or five-candidate race, Bernie Sanders can walk to the nomination getting 35, 36, 37 percent of the vote,” he told NBC’s Brian Williams.

He later made that more explicit. “But basically, if we’re-- Brian, if it’s March 3rd and we’re talking about Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Warren, Biden, Bloomberg, and Sanders, and everybody’s in, Bernie’s going to win almost all the delegates he needs to build an impenetrable delegate lead. That’s just math. It’s not my opinion, it’s just simple math."

The final vote in Nevada was released late yesterday-- along with the delegate assignations. Bernie wins, establishment loses

Even as anti-progressive an operative as Hillary's losing campaign manager and the DCCC's all-time worst disaster-maker, Robby Mook-- a walking onomatopoeia-- said that "If he has a three-figure lead, there is no catching up. It’s too late after Super Tuesday. Even if the field drops down to two people, that person still has to be beating him by 10-20 points in the remaining contests. This is the fog everybody is in right now. If you aren’t Sanders you have to deal with this problem before Super Tuesday."

On Sunday, William Rivers Pitt wrote that "Plouffe’s sober assessment of the state of the race, combined with Sanders’s resounding Nevada victory, had a strange and terrible effect on the minds of a number of MSNBC regulars. No longer content to ignore or dismiss Sanders’s status as frontrunner, that network’s top names spent the bulk of Saturday evening in a state of near panic, weaving a tapestry of impending doom out of literal Nazi analogies and Russia scaremongering."

“Right now, it’s about 1:15 Moscow time,” said James Carville, the longtime Democratic establishment strategist and occasional Gollum impersonator. “This thing is going very well for Vladimir Putin. I promise you. He’s probably staying up watching this right now. How you doing, Vlad?”

MSNBC Host Joy Reid, for her part, smashed the panic button straight through the table in a breathless aria for the ages regarding the seeming menace of Sanders supporters in the face of puddle-bound Democratic establishment candidates.

“They’re turning the tables over and they don’t care what the potential result is,” said Reid of Sanders voters:

They’re the hungriest. He only had to consolidate them, and the moderates, the sort of mushy moderates, think that they have the luxury of luxuriating on whether they’ll have someone who can speak six languages, you know, maybe today I want this woman who’s from the Midwest and, you know, maybe I’ll go with the vice president…. No one is as hungry, angry, enraged and determined as Sanders voters. Democrats need to sober up and figure out what the hell they are going to do about it.

On Friday, Dr. Jason Johnson, another regular MSNBC contributor, went on SiriusXM’s The Karen Hunter Show earlier this week and referred to Black women who have appeared in the media to support Sanders’s campaign as “the island of misfit black girls.” The group of women to which he was referring includes Barbara Smith-- the respected Black feminist critic who co-founded the Combahee River Collective and coined the term “identity politics”-- and Nina Turner, the Ohio politician who is now national co-chair of the Sanders campaign.

Sanders’s national press secretary, Briahna Joy Gray, offered this response:

On Saturday, Johnson apologized for the remark.

Meanwhile, Nicolle Wallace, MSNBC host and former press secretary to George W. Bush, went scratching for whatever wildly discredited anti-Sanders rocks she could throw, arguing that Sanders “hasn’t been vetted by either the press or the other candidates.”

Apparently, Wallace is unaware-- or is pretending to be unaware-- of the decades during which Sanders has served in politics, and his presidential primary run against Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment in 2016. If that isn’t “vetted,” then nothing is.

But it was MSNBC’s own human weathervane, Chris Matthews, who took home the prize for Most Offensive Anti-Bernie Slander on Saturday night. “I was reading last night about the fall of France in the summer of 1940,” he lamented, “and the general, Reynaud, calls up Churchill and says, ‘It’s over.’ And Churchill says ‘How can it be? You’ve got the greatest army in Europe. How can it be over?’ He said, ‘It’s over.’ So I had that suppressed feeling.”

Suppressed feeling? Not so much, Chris. By Sunday morning, #FireChrisMatthews” was the top trending topic on Twitter.

The Sanders campaign’s communications director, Mike Casca, responded with somber astonishment that a national news network would liken the campaign of a Jewish presidential candidate to the Third Reich:

I expect Sanders’s opponents to say ridiculous things as they watch him pull away. It’s primary season; if you’re losing and still acting reasonable, you aren’t trying hard enough. But to watch MSNBC, the so-called “liberal” network, sink into this kind of venomous Fox News-worthy nonsense is a bright, blinking warning light for the entire institution of U.S. journalism.

The establishment wing of the Democratic Party and its cohort of faux-progressive media mouthpieces have been confronted by their own senescence after so many decades of poorly managed control, and they are not liking the taste of it. Even if they manage to thwart Sanders’s nomination with brazenly undemocratic power moves at the convention, the party will never be the same after 2016 and this year’s elections. The writing is on the wall, and it is making them scream on live television.

The dinosaurs have seen the meteor, and it’s coming by way of Brooklyn and Vermont.

Shaniyat Chowdhury is the progressive Democrat running for Congress in southeast Queens, for a seat held by one of DC's most corrupt swamp residents. Chowdhury has endorsed Bernie while his opponent has been bought by Bloomberg. "Give the people what they want! I think members members of Congress forget they are in a job as public servants and not to serve themselves. It’s clear the people want Bernie to win because he is speaking to their pain. Denying them the right to healthcare is a big F-you to the American public and those members need to be primaried. My opponent for example, endorsed the racist oligarch Bloomberg who was a democrat for fifteen minutes. Against the interest of the people in NY-05 he is taking Bloomberg’s money to be his campaign for-chair so Democrat’s like Bernie cannot win. We are going door-to-door and not one person is happy about Meeks and Bloomberg. No matter how much power one person may have, the people will always revolt to win back power."


 

Is Today The Day Bernie Seals The Deal With America-- Will The Real Remedy To Trumpism Win Big Enough In New Hampshire To Power Him Into Nevada?

I guess the Iowa counting is done now. Here's how the establishment cheated Bernie. In the first round, he received 43,699 votes (24.7%) to Mayo Pete's 37,596 votes (21.3%). In the second round Bernie received 45,842 votes (26.5%) to Mayo's 43,274 votes (25.1%). As you know 43,699 and 24.7% are more than 37,596 and 21.3% and 45,842 and 26.5% are more than 43,274 25.1%. But the Iowa Democratic establishment awarded Mayo 13 delegates and Bernie 12 delegates. Sounds similar to how Trump got into the White House with 62,984,828 votes (46.1%) even though Hillary won 65,853,514 votes (48.2%). Except in the case of Iowa, the decision to cheat the winner had nothing to do with anyone but the Democratic Party. This should be the last time Iowa gets the first in the nation slot.

So what happens in New Hampshire today?The Real Clear Politics polling average:

• Bernie- 26.6% with last minute positive momentum
• Mayo- 21.3% with last minute negative momentum
• Elizabeth- 13.1% with last minute negative momentum
• Status Quo Joe- 12.9% with last minute negative momentum
• Klobuchar- 9.6% with last minute positive momentum

The final Emerson tracking poll (Sunday) shows Bernie way ahead but doesn't pick up on the turn-around towards Mayo after a p.r. drubbing over the weekend. It also shows Klobuchar with the biggest moment, vaulting into third place, significantly ahead of Elizabeth and Status Quo Joe's whose campaign seems to have petered out entirely.

A Boston Globe poll by Suffolk Sunday also had Bernie way ahead with 27% (up 3), with Mayo trailing with 19% (down 3), Klobuchar in 3rd place, closing on Mayo with 14% (up 5), Elizabeth and Biden each falling further behind with 12%.

Politico's headline emphasized that the conservatives are brawling among each other while Bernie is "gliding" towards a win in New Hampshire. Holly Otterbein and Stephanie Murray noted that superPAC money from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party smeared Bernie to the tune of $800,000 in TV ads during the last week of the Iowa caucuses-- using GOP talking points and insisting he couldn't beat Trump. But... "Here in New Hampshire, the opposite has happened: The airwaves are free of anti-Sanders spots in the days before the first-in-the-nation-primary" while the conservatives, in their words, "shank each other," raising concerns-- if not panic-- among the pro-Wall Street Democrats who control the party machinery. One of them-- too frightened to speak on the record-- told Otterbein that "It’s fratricide at the moment. It’s super bad. Too many mods against Bernie and a fading Warren. Very, very scary," referring to corrupt conservatives as "mods."

Tom Steyer is largely training his advertising firepower onto Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden. The former vice president is mocking Buttigieg’s experience and targeting him in a digital spot. Fighting back against Biden, the ex-mayor says he’s tired of being a punchline.

...Sanders, who is campaigning at 10 stops across the state this weekend, has been boasting about those establishment jitters on the trail.

“We’re taking on not only the whole Republican political establishment and Trump, we’re taking on the Democratic establishment!” he said to cheers at a canvass launch Sunday afternoon. “And as some of you may have noticed, Democratic establishment’s getting a little bit nervous.”

He drew out the word “little” jokingly, adding that he’s also up against Wall Street, insurance companies and the fossil fuel industry.

...Steyer is airing an ad on television in New Hampshire, which flashes images of Buttigieg and Biden as a narrator states, “We simply can’t afford to nominate another insider or an untested newcomer who doesn’t have the experience to beat Trump on the economy.”

Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren also criticized Buttigieg on the debate stage Friday over his experience and racial disparities in his mayoral administration. And Biden’s team released an ad online Saturday, widely viewed to be the most negative spot by a 2020 candidate so far, which said that while Biden helped pass the Affordable Care Act, Buttigieg was installing decorative lights under bridges. It has more than 4 million views.

...A post-debate poll by FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll found that Sanders received the highest rating for his debate performance.

Scott Ferson, a Boston-based Democratic strategist who is leading an outreach effort to engage independent voters in New Hampshire, said Klobuchar could gain from Buttigieg and Biden attacking each other.

"I tend to think it's sort of a pox on both their houses as they start doing this back-and-forth,” he said. “That always tends to benefit sort of who hasn't been touched, who's coming on strong, who's improving. And I think, frankly, who I've seen improve the most has been Amy Klobuchar.”

Mark Mellman, president of the Democratic Majority for Israel, argued that his super PAC’s anti-Sanders attack ad in Iowa cut into his momentum. It said that a socialist could not defeat Trump and referenced his October heart attack.

“He still has a chance to win the nomination. But without our ad, he would have come out of Iowa with a significant lead on every metric and would likely duplicate that result in New Hampshire and Nevada,” he said. “At that point he would have been very difficult to stop. In part because of our ad, he still has a real fight on his hands.”

Mellman said that his organization “won’t be airing any ads in New Hampshire and haven’t made final decisions beyond that.”

Already, there are whispers about attack ads being cut against Sanders so they can air in Nevada if he emerges from New Hampshire triumphant.

“We expect that wealthy special interests will do everything to stop Bernie Sanders,” said Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ senior adviser.

Also in Politico Monday morning, was a piece by Michael Kruse asking if the Democratic Party is now Bernie's. "He won the most votes in Iowa a week ago," wrote Kruse, "a result that seems clear in spite of the botched caucuses. He’s leading in more and more polls, at times trailing only Joe Biden, whose campaign seems to be wheezing. And he has become nothing short of a grassroots fundraising colossus, the possessor of a reservoir of resources that could let him run forever. In this panicky, high-stakes race to take on an emboldened Donald Trump in November, Sanders is positioned as well as, if not better than, any of his many competitors to be the Democratic nominee. That this man, who has spent most of his life spurning and disparaging the Democratic Party, who is only semi-nominally even a member of the party and who is reviled by some of its biggest names, could be by summer its titular head is a prospect few would believe possible. That is, if they hadn’t seen Trump do something similar in 2016: The ultimate anti-establishment outsider, the almost ridiculous choice in fact becoming the choice. The seriousness of Sanders’ chances can be measured in relation to the apoplexy he’s started to generate among stalwart operatives. Bernie Sanders? “Having him for president of the United States?” longtime Democratic strategist James Carville said when we talked last week. 'Are you fucking kidding me?'"

"Regardless, though, of what happens Tuesday and from here, Sanders, already more than any other 2020 candidate, has shaped the ideological tenor of Democrats’ lumbering primary process-- more even than he did in ’16," wrote Kruse. "His 'Medicare for All' proposal, the linchpin of his expansive progressive agenda, has served as the policy position around which the other top candidates have defined themselves. Add in the poll numbers for Elizabeth Warren, another left-of-center Democrat angling for giant structural change, and the upper tier of the Democratic field leans more toward Sanders than it does Joe Biden. And he has ensured his stamp will remain on campaigns still to come. By far the most prominent surrogate in the field is Sanders’ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a first-term, just-turned-30 congresswoman from New York City who could be his granddaughter-- and whom Sanders supporters and, in particular, his legions of millennials view as proof that all of this is not about just an individual but rather a movement that has altered the contours of liberal politics and is nowhere close to done."





UPDATE: Dixville Notch


Dixville Notch, a very Republican town, gave the winless night to the most Republican of the candidates running in the Democratic primary. But don't worry, Dixville Notch's midnight primary only predicts GOP winners and never Democratic winners. Between 1968 and 2012, the candidate with the plurality of Dixville Notch's voters was the eventual Republican nominee for president. On the Democratic side, however, they usually get it all wrong and their winners wind up in the also-ran category. Bill Bradley won in 2000, for example and four years later it was Wesley Clark-- who received just 13% of the vote statewide and placed third in New Hampshire.

Can you believe James Carville letting McCranky off the hook for his campaign's vile anti-Obama smears?

by Ken

When our good friend Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake gets riled, sensible folks tend to stand back and clear a path. The antics of "Democratic Consultant" James Carville this morning on CNN have smoke coming out of her ears.

And understandably so. Isn't it bad enough that we have to listen to the lying scumbug McCranky pontificate daily about the horrible smears being perpetrated by his opponent? When his opponent has merely tried to get a smidgeon of truth on the record while the Crankyman has an entire team of truth-hating smear artists toiling 24/7 to produce sacks of manure to hurl against Obama -- with, of course, the whole of the Right-Wing Noise Machine ready and eager to spread the crap, all too often abetted by the mighty infotainment-news media? Now we have to listen to someone supposedly on our side making the astonishing claim that the little scumbug doesn't know what's being said in his name?

Actually, I'm prepared to believe that he doesn't know, in the same way that he doesn't know . . . well, pretty much everything an honest and/or competent candidate for the presidency is expected to know. I think it's all too compatible with the low-life man of dishonor he has become to not know things -- whether through simple intellectual laziness (of which he has a great deal) or, as it seems increasingly, through cynical design -- it's, er, inconvenient for him to know. Can't blame the little bastard for what he doesn't know, right? Like the orgy of lies, delusions, and smears that makes up the sum and substance of his vile campaign.

Just now I couldn't even get onto FDL. Perhaps a tidal wave of anti-Carville-mania has the tube paths overflowing? Anyway, here is Jane in full battle cry:


Carville Says McCain Too Honorable To Know About Attack Ads
By: Jane Hamsher, Thursday, September 11, 2008, 9:55 am

So the McCain campaign runs attack ads against Barack Obama basically saying he wants to diddle your five year old, and what does "Democratic Consultant" James Carville say about it on CNN?

CARVILLE: And John McCain, deep down inside my heart, you know, as you know, I've said before I admire McCain. I don't believe he knew about it. I hope somebody asked him. But I refuse to believe that John McCain agreed to airing this spot. I know he says I'm John McCain, I paid for it but they have that in the can and they do it. It I don't think he knew about it. I really don't.

You're kidding me, right? The Republicans have made this campaign about character, once again. They've smeared Obama with the ugliest, most disgusting, distorted ads we've seen since Willie Horton, and what does Carville do? He lets McCain off the hook.

I'm listening to this come out of my teevee in a state of disbelief -- he couldn't possibly have said what I thought he said, did he? So he says it again:

CARVILLE: I can't sit here. They're running a completely false ad against Barack Obama, and you say he's out there talking about this. I mean, my point is, I really don't think that Senator McCain knows about this ad, and in my heart of hearts, I want to believe he's absolutely furious about this and somebody's being called on the carpet because this ad is blatantly completely false.

This is beyond "off message." Does someone want to ask Carville what side he's playing on?


CONFIDENTIAL TO JAMES C., FROM KEN AT DWT

Uh, James, I would like to think you're going to live to regret this. I would like to think you're going to be snowed under by people who remember when you played for our side.

Do you remember, James, where you said on CNN, "In my heart of hearts, I want to believe he's absolutely furious about this and somebody's being called on the carpet because this ad is blatantly completely false"? Has it occurred to you that you could have said:

I used to admire John McCain. However, when I see the kind of campaign his people are running, all lies and smears, all I can think of is, maybe he doesn't know. In my heart of hearts that's what I want to believe. It's not much comfort, though. Do we want a president who doesn't know what's being done in his name?

#

MATTHEW GRIMM GETS A LETTER FROM JAMES CARVILLE

Little more than a week after showing himself the most scurrilous, divisive prick in the Institutional Democratic Party, James Carville just sent me a letter asking for money. He wants my increasingly meager discretionary income on behalf of at least one of the party's runners-up on the scurrilous prick scale, Chuck Schumer.

Apparently blind to the welter of Democrats and even independents who consider Carville a raving crazy-uncle-ish fossil and tiresome vestige of a misguided experiment in party corporatization, Schumer's Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has trotted out the Clinton strategist in a mailer that has him het up on gittin us galvanized. Funny thing, I agree with almost every one of the party rallying points Carville, or Schumer's people with Carville's imprimatur, makes in the letter. And yet I find myself reading it with nose wrinkled, more eager to throw it in the shitter than actually appraise it, eager to symbolically, or in my mind, kicking Carville square in the nuts as I do. I'm not sure this qualifies as effective marketing communications.

Sure, it could be that he's fresh off playing Clinton-machine goon, calling Bill Richardson "Judas" and all on Easter weekend, but American attention spans are short. Surely, this quirky self-impressed Cajun huckster could effect some common ground in this all-important election cycle. But then, in the eleventh paragraph, I get a more sublte reminder of why Carville and Schumer should go fuck themselves. There, Carville urges me to "get behind the only arm of the Democratic Party focused solely on kicking the Republicans out of the Senate-- and it's NOT the DNC."

Sure, technically he's right, but making a hard point of stating as much seems a barely disguised swipe at the Democratic National Committee. The DSCC is the only Dem org exclusively raising money for Senate races, but Carville, and Schumer, could have easily stopped right there, couldn't they? But no, they're in competition for your money with the DNC, and desperate to hook more towards their agenda, a patently diluted, deballed right-wing Democratic party, versus a party of the rest of us.

A quick primer: the DNC would be the Democratic National Committee run by Howard Dean, the who pressed the party's discourse back leftward in the last election presidential cycle, and who then succeeded Carville and Schumer's fellow corporation-fellating Clintonista douchebag Terry McAuliffe at the committee's helm. Dean re-ruddered the Democratic Party on the so-called "50-state strategy," meaning it would set out support candidates and actually compete for votes even in "Red" states, all stereotypes be damned-- to build the party organization community by community, "retail" platforms from which to address the gross failures of the GOP to address up-and-down-the-street issues top-of-mind to voters of all stripes. [Dean's successful strategy, infuriating the Democratic conflict of interest Insiders brigade, like McCAuliffe, Mark Penn, and Carville invests Democrats' money into building up state-level party infrastructure insteda of into consultants fees and billable television advertising.]

That strategy as well as Dean's populistic bent-- both then and now dismissed and spat upon by the Clintons, Carville and their Senate and House campaign committee henchmen, Schumer and Rahm Emanuel (D-Wall Street)-- netted the party's electoral resurgence of Nov. 7, 2006. This occurred arguably in spite of the work of Schumer, who had attempted to run right-wing Democrats against economic populist winners like Montana John Tester, and to the chagrin of Carville. The latter, the day after the sweeping party victory, actually called for the ouster of Dean.

Now Schumer wants my money to bankroll, ummmm, curiously, for Red states. "Even in so-called 'red states,'" Carville writes me, "voters have seen through the bankrupt political philosophy of the Far Right."

Not enough, apparently, according to Schumer and Carville's own actions, for them to attempt to field something other than even thinly-veiled, corporate-blessed right-wing hacks. See Kentucky and North Carolina, where they are trying to foist DINOs like Bruce Lunsford and Kay Hagan, respectively, upon the beleaguered Democrats they presume to rescue. This conspicuously in spite of the fact that democratic Dems Greg Fischer and Jim Neal are running for those same seats. At a recent event in NC, Carville, in fact, talked up Hagan's heroic run against Liddy Dole, curiously omitting how Hagan is ready to roll over with other Vichy Dems and hand big telecoms immunity for their Bush-collaborative crimes. Carville gave the papal (Schumerian) blessing to Hagan with Neal in the very room, forcing the latter to remind Schumer's agent that he, like Hagan, was still in the running for the state's May 5 primary.

Schumers and Carvilles remain, they would say, are just focused on "electibility," codespeak for the odious Clintonista MO of triangulation, by which one attempts to be all things to all people, at the expense of being anything of substance to any. They can say generally agreeable things, as does Carville's letter to me, and still do as little possible to forward the ideas and ideals behind them, grasping white-knuckled to a delusion of "mainstream." If they bothered to look at any substantive research, they would find that mainstream has become unmistakably progressive. But, like the assholes in the White House, they're more interested in stovepiping the data of jagoffs like Mark Penn that tells them they can go on mainlining corporate dollars and canoodling with investment bankers.

These assholes want my money. These assholes diluted the Democratic Party to where it meant nothing. These assholes bent the party over backwards to where it could no longer even stake itself to virtue in the face of fucking evil. These assholes, in fact, decided virtue a commodity, tradable for corporate money, the great unequalizer of American politics, and thereby ceded the party's great raison d'etre since the days of FDR, championing all the people.

These assholes are everything of which the party, and the nation, needs to shed itself. They represent what we are trying to save the party from.

These assholes won't get cent one from me. We've got tools like ActBlue and the real progressive arbiters like the Blue America communities now, to circumvent their asses and get the pittance I can afford to the people who actually fucking deserve it. But more than anything else, this stupid, stupid letter, as much as I agree with its ostensible intentions, evinces the same kind of disconnect with reality that running corporate-embedded right-wingers as vitally needed agents of change for a system fucked by corporate embedded right-wingers. That is, Carville's spokesmanship for the DSCC represents just an absolute misfire from a basic Marketing 101 perspective.

Oh, look, a letter from James Carville! To me! For real? Awesome. Maybe Amnesty International could get Kissinger to MC their next fundraiser.

-by Matthew Grimm

WHAT'S WRONG WITH JAMES CARVILLE?

We've tried to keep out of the vituperative aspects of the fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Personally I voted for Obama, although the decision wasn't a slam dunk. I think they're both decent candidates-- though neither is great, until compared to trash like Bush or McCain-- and that each has some serious drawbacks for committed progressives. Each also represents something symbolic that is awe-inspiring-- Hillary, the shattering of the ultimate glass ceiling for every woman in America (and much of the world) and Obama, the triumph of hope over hopelessness, despair and societal impotence. Her overall voting record is slightly better than his. Hers is moderate leaning towards progressive. His is moderate and not leaning nearly as progressive. On the progressive scale among Democrats, Hillary is the 29th of 50 and Obama is the 40th, down there with problematic Democrats like Tom Carper (DE), Max Baucus (MT) and Byron Dorgan (ND), not as supportive of progressive legislation as-- hold your breath-- Ken Salazar (CO) but a bit more progressive than Blanche Lincoln (AR) and Claire McCaskill (MO). Neither of them has a voting record like an actual progressive, such as Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Ben Cardin (MD), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Barbara Boxer (CA), or Dick Durbin (IL). Even the always suspect Dianne Feinstein has a generally better record than either of them.

What ultimately made me cast my vote for Obama-- the tiebreaker, more or less-- was the sleaziness and corruption she's surrounded herself with. He may not be ideal either and his voting record is too moderate for my tastes but she is the DLC and people she chose to run her campaign are nearly as bad as the people driving the Double Talk Express-- and not nearly as smart or ruthless. It goes beyond just McAuliffe and Penn and Wolfson, 3 especially bad actors inside the Democratic party. The whole upper echelon of her campaign is all about looking backward instead of looking forward.

James Carville is the perfect example. Forget that he served as the conduit for information about the Kerry campaign to Cheney via his wife. Forget that he tried engineering the replacement of the popular and successful-- and elected-- DNC Chairman Howard Dean with the unpopular, unsuccessful and electorally defeated reactionary Harold Ford. Just go to his latest outburst, denouncing New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson as a "Judas."

Richardson was all torn up between personal loyalty and affection for the Clintons and doing what he knew was the right thing for his country. To a slime-bucket insider like Carville, that makes him a Judas Iscariot, someone who betrayed Jesus, God, mankind... I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton because her campaign-- and presumably the plans for her administration-- are filled with people like James Carville.

Carville was at the Young Democrats convention in North Carolina yesterday. I hope he didn't charge them as much as he charged me when I hired him to entertain at a convention for my company a few years ago, but I noticed that any young Democrats who wanted to hear him spewing his poison had to pay $50 to get in. I imagine it was all about how people should vote for Hillary, in a state where Obama is polling over 20 points ahead of her. But then he went further. He endorsed the Insider, anti-grassroots hack, Kay Hagan in a way that purposely made it seem like she was the nominee of the party, when in truth she's only the nominee of the Lizard Man and the lobbyists. The progressive grassroots candidate for the Democratic nomination, Jim Neal, was in the room and he loudly reminded Carville and the Insiders that "We have primaries here in North Carolina. We don't have coronations... It was the first time I've ever seen him quiet," Neal said. I guess in Carville-World, Neal, who has also endorsed Obama is another Judas.

More on Fox Noise's Carville-Begala-Clinton fantasy: This would be hilarious if it weren't so . . . oh heck, it's still pretty darned funny

"My worry is that if this is what one of Fox's best and most respected reporters is doing, what are the hacks up to?"
--Paul Begala, in his HuffPost account of the "surrealistic" day he spent Tuesday trapped in a make-believe Fox Noise story (see below)

In the real world, the news that Fox Noise just "reports" shit without regard to whether it's true would hardly be news. Is there anyone who actually believes that the Fox minions are in the news business?

Alas, we don't live in the real world. We live in Bushworld--or, rather, a world in which reality is subject to override by the sometimes delusional, sometimes just plain demagogic manipulation of the unholy Right-Wing Noise Machine. Hence the famous Fox Noise Motto:

"We Blow It Out Our Ass, You Dumb Shits (Dear Gawd!) Just Seem to Lap It Up"

So we return to the Fox Noise "scoop": that the floundering Hillary Clinton campaign had called in the cavalry in the form of James Carville and Paul Begala (above), who had played such a vital role in getting Bill Clinton into the White House, as some sort of advisers. You remember, the bullshit that prompted this tart response from Carville, reported by Greg Sargent on TPM Election Central, which we passed on yesterday:

"Fox was, is and will continue to be an asinine and ignorant network. I have not spoken to anyone in the Clinton campaign about this. I have not done domestic political consulting since President Clinton was elected. I'm not getting back into domestic political consulting. If I do go back, it would be safe to say that I'm the biggest liar in America."

Asked if he knew whether Begala would be coming back, Carville continued:

"To the extent that I know anything, as of nine this morning, no he is not."

(This was passed on to us, you may recall, by a friend with the note: "Every now and then Carville reminds me of why I used to love him.")

Well, it gets better. The TPM report included an update with Begala's categorical denial. Now we learn from Begala that he repeatedly informed the Fox Noiseman in question, whom he describes as "a good guy whom I've known for years," that there was no truth whatsoever to his serial reports. ("No doubt someone is telling you this stuff about me. It's just not true.") And Fox just kept on "reporting" the "story."

Finally Begala turned to Huffington Post to tell his story:

PAUL BEGALA

Fox News: We Report--Even if We Know It's False

Posted January 9, 2008

I've been dealing with the media and politics for 25 years, but I've never had a more surrealistic day than January 8. Several times that day Fox News reported that I was joining Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign. It was a big story - at least until the stunning election returns.

The only problem was, it wasn't true.

Fox News never even tried to contact me to verify their story, and when I contacted Fox, I felt like a character in a Kafka novel -- or at least Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Fox's Major Garrett -- a good guy whom I've known for years -- broke the story. My phone started ringing off the hook, and my email box bulged. There are still, thank goodness, a lot of real journalists out there. Tim Russert was first. I assured him it wasn't true, he thanked me for waving him off a false story, and that was that. Then my own network, CNN, called. I told them if I were quitting CNN that CNN would know before Fox News. Soon after, others called or emailed: Jonathan Alter of Newsweek, George Stephanopoulos and Teddy Davis of ABC, Beth Fouhy of AP, Mark Halperin of Time, John Harris of the Politico, Jill Lawrence of USA Today, Peter Baker of the Washington Post, Patrick Healy of the New York Times, David Gregory of NBC and Bill Sammon of the Examiner. There were probably more. I list the names only to give credit to journalists who behaved like reporters, not repeaters.

After I told Fox it wasn't true -- and this is the surreal part -- they kept reporting it anyway. In fact, Fox's Garrett told me he'd "take it under advisement." Take it under advisement? I realize I'm generally seen as just another liberal with an opinion, but this was not a matter of opinion, it was a matter of fact. Fox now knew their story was flatly, factually wrong, and they took it "under advisement."

Apparently that meant repeating the falsehood with added detail: the "fact" that I had been on a conference call the previous day with the Hillary high command. Again, false. My worry is that if this is what one of Fox's best and most respected reporters is doing, what are the hacks up to?

I exchanged several civil emails with Garrett -- and append them to this post. They are not nuanced. Read them for yourself. I report, you decide.

----- Original Message -----
From: Begala, Paul
To: Garrett, Major
Sent: Tue Jan 08 14:18:37 2008
Subject: N.H.D.
Major,
I know you're swamped, and I hate to bother you on such a busy news day, but whoever told you I am joining Hillary's campaign fed you some bum info. It's just not true. Or as I say to my boys, N.H.D. Not. Happening. Dude.
I'm not coming in as a volunteer, or as an adviser, or as a strategist or anything else. I have contributed to her campaign, and am convinced she would be a great President. But I am not joining the campaign in any form or fashion.
Again, I know how busy you are, but I'd sure appreciate you checking with me before you go with a story about me. This email is always a good way to reach me.
Thanks a lot.
All best,

Paul Begala

________________________________


From: Garrett, Major
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 2:31 PM
To: Begala, Paul
Subject: Re: N.H.D.


Paul:
I genuinely appreciate the e-mail.
I will take it under advisement.
And I look forward to discussing all aspects of the campaign with you in the future.
All best,
Major

Major Garrett, Congressional Correspondent, Fox News


----- Original Message -----
From: Begala, Paul
To: Garrett, Major
Sent: Tue Jan 08 15:18:16 2008
Subject: RE: N.H.D.

Major,

Just heard you say I was on a conference call with Hillary's campaign yesterday. That's not true. I was not on any conference call with Hillary's campaign - and have had no contact with her campaign for months. No one from her campaign has contacted me -- nor have I contacted them -- and I am not joining in any capacity, paid or unpaid, official or unofficial. I feel like that old Lorrie Morgan song, "What part of 'no' don't you understand?"

I have a lot of respect for you, and I like you, but I've got to ask you again to check with me before you go with a story about me. Someone is misleading you, and it is not me.

Again, I know the challenges of 24-hour news, and this is a crazy environment, but you can almost always reach me at this email address.

All best,

Paul

From: Garrett, Major
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 3:32 PM
To: Begala, Paul
Subject: Re: N.H.D.

Paul:
You know me well enough to know I am not trying to screw you.
You also know, or should know, that I'm careful and don't have a reputation for pulling stories out of my ass.
I'm not now. The sourcing is strong, very strong, or I wouldn't go with it.
I appreciate your e-mails and I redouble my efforts with each one I receive.
Please feel free to call me at any hour of any day.

Best,
Major

Major Garrett, Congressional Correspondent, Fox News


----- Original Message -----
From: Begala, Paul
To: Garrett, Major
Sent: Tue Jan 08 15:41 2008
Subject: RE: N.H.D.

Major,

Thanks so much for getting back to me. I do know you, and I like and respect you. You know me as well, and I would not lie to you, would not mislead you. And I am telling you that whoever told you I was on a conference call with Hillary's campaign was wrong. I'm quite sure that you're not making this up, so please don't misunderstand me. No doubt someone is telling you this stuff about me. It's just not true.

If my wife hears one more report that I'm joining Hillary's campaign I'm going to have to go in the Pundit Protection Program.

Thanks,

Paul

You just can't make this stuff up. Well, apparently not unless you're Fox Noise.

#

Quote of the day: James Carville pays fitting tribute to the fair-and-balanced folks at Fox Noise

"Fox was, is and will continue to be an asinine and ignorant network."
--James Carville, as reported by Greg Sargent on TPM Election Central

An e-pal passed this item along with the note: "Every now and then Carville reminds me of why I used to love him."

James Carville Emphatically Denies That He's Going To Work For Hillary
By Greg Sargent - January 8, 2008, 12:43PM

Fox News just reported that James Carville and Paul Begala will be re-entering the Clinton orbit by coming in to work for Hillary as senior campaign volunteers as early as tomorrow -- the idea being that they're being brought in to right Ship Hillary in the wake of.her Iowa loss and possible New Hampshire one.

The storyline of choice here, obviously, is that Bill's Bad Boys of 1992 are riding back in to rescue his wife from electoral disaster.

I just reached Carville on his cell. Here's what he had to say about this:

"Fox was, is and will continue to be an asinine and ignorant network. I have not spoken to anyone in the Clinton campaign about this. I have not done domestic political consulting since President Clinton was elected. I'm not getting back into domestic political consulting. If I do go back, it would be safe to say that I'm the biggest liar in America."

Asked if he knew whether Begala would be coming back, Carville continued:

"To the extent that I know anything, as of nine this morning, no he is not."

Oh, well. There goes that narrative.

Late Update: Ben Smith gets a denial from Begala, too: "As I say to the boys: N.H.D. Not Happenin' Dude."

#