Amy Kennedy Is Besting New Jersey Turncoat Jeff Van Drew. Is That Any Reason To Celebrate?

What's worse? This or supporting another dynast?

 

The New Dems, even more so that the withered and impotent Blue Dogs, are the heart of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. They are Wall Street and corporate-America sell outs and have more in common with Eisenhower-era Republicans than they do with progressive Democrats. They vote badly but, worse yet, they prevent progressive legislation from ever getting to the floor, even in a Democratically-controlled House.

DCCC Chair Cheri Bustos quietly resigned from the Blue Dogs to become a New Dem when she decided to work towards become Speaker. She has worked diligently and successfully to knock out progressives where ever possible to make sure Democratic Party nominees would be New Dems. The New Dems themselves have endorsed 25 candidates so far this cycle-- and have 6 others on their website as "Candidates to watch." They may be better than Republicans-- but only because the GOP has moved so far right that they can now be classified as a fascist party. The New Dems today are what the Republicans were previously-- not racist, misogynistic or homophobic, but virulently pro-corporate and anti-working class.

The new Dem leadership, chaired by Derek Kilmer (WA), is basically putrid: Ann Kuster (NH), Scott Peters (CA), Terri Sewell (AL), Suzane DelBene (WA), corrupt coke freak Pete Aguilar (CA), Kathleen Rice (NY), Ami Bera (CA), Chrissy Houlahan (PA) and Mikie Sherrill (NJ). These are cowardly careerists, not leaders. There can be no progress as long as they dominate the Democratic House caucus.

Here's dozen of their worst recruits this cycle: the Democrats who will guarantee-- along with Biden's White House and Schumer's Senate-- that there is a massive red wave in 2022.

The worst of the New Dem recruits have also been endorsed by the Blue Dogs: Eugene DePasquale (PA), Margaret Good (FL), Jackie Gordon (NY), Christina Hale (IN) and Sri Kulkarni (TX), a future Pete Aguilar pal. Both organizations are very careful with their endorsements. Believe me-- no progressives, none, never. So... when people were rejoicing at the Monmouth poll released yesterday showing former Blue Dog/New Dem/DCCC recruit, NRA hero Jefferson Van Drew-- now a devoted Trumpist and officially a Republican-- being defeated by Amy Kennedy, I wondered how many Democratic voters know what to expect from her.

Oh, she'll be a bit of an improvement over Van Drew for sure. But I would suggest you use your psychic energy to help elect these men and women, not another New Dem.

Obama won NJ's 2nd district with around 53.5% both times he ran. In 2016, Trump beat Hillary 50.6% to 46.0%. The seat opened up in 2018 and the DCCC and Blue Dogs and New Dems recruited the absolute worst member of the New Jersey state legislature, Jefferson Van Drew. He ran against a clown the GOP didn't support, Seth Grossman. Grossman spent $299,475 to Van Drew's $1,877,531. The DCCC and it's allies spent another $1.1 million bolstering Van Drew and attacking Grossman.

This cycle, Kennedy has raised $1,529,882, most of which she spent in the primary, to Van Drew's $2,548,688. But... the DCCC and it's allies have already spent nearly $2 million on Kennedy, while a Trump PAC has spent around $260,000 defending Van Drew.

Monmouth reported that "Among all registered voters, Kennedy is supported by 49% and Van Drew is supported by 44%. Another 1% say they will support a third party candidate and 5% are undecided. Among likely voters in a high turnout scenario, Kennedy holds a 50% to 44% edge. She maintains that lead in a lower turnout model with 51% supporting her to 44% for Van Drew. It should be noted that these leads are all within the survey’s margin of error. Kennedy holds a 94% to 1% advantage among Democratic voters while Van Drew has an 89% to 8% lead among his now-fellow Republicans. Independents prefer Kennedy by a 50% to 40% margin... In the presidential election, Joe Biden holds a small lead over Donald Trump in the district-- 48% to 45% among all registered voters, 50% to 45% among likely voters in a high turnout election, and 49% to 45% in a low turnout election."

Meanwhile... this powerful, incredibly well-articulated and unprecedented video by a former First Lady may upset a White House occupant trying to keep his blood pressure from spiking and killing him. All the worst of luck, Pig Man!

Poll: Michelle Obama Would Be Frontrunner in 2020 If She Ran

Michelle Obama in New York signing copies of her $65 million memoir. To date it has sold more than 10 milliion copies. Photograph: Richard Drew/AP (source)

by Thomas Neuburger

It's no secret that the Democratic Party establishment wants nothing more than to eliminate the possibility of a rebel ("change") candidate getting into the general election under its banner. That means, no one like Bernie Sanders — not Sanders himself, nor Elizabeth Warren, nor anyone else who would actually implement policies of broad, real, Sanders-like "change" — will be allowed to represent the Party in 2020.

Faux-Change candidates, yes. No-Change candidates, yes. But no actual rebels. The history of the 2016 primary, plus the histories of any number of races interfered with by the DCCC, the DSCC and the DNC, attest to this fact. We could expand on that, and will, but not here.

Which means that the current leaders and controllers of the Democratic Party have a problem, a Sanders (or Sanders-like) problem, since Sanders-like policies are extremely popular with actual voters.

So how could these leaders defeat the Sanders-like candidate? There can only be two ways: A) find a corporate-friendly Faux-Change or No-Change candidate who can acquire more delegates than any of the rebel candidates, then let the superdelegates confirm her on the second ballot; or B) prevent a front-running rebel candidate from winning enough delegates to win on the first ballot, then let the superdelegates select a "compromise" none-of-the-above candidate and confirm her. 

• With the current field of candidates, it's hard to imagine the first option occurring. Look at the polling below.

If Biden enters the race then falls below Sanders, he won't be able to recover. People now think as well of Biden as they will ever think. As soon as the truth about Biden starts getting splashed in people's faces and they start really paying attention, they'll turn away. None of that truth is good.

Who among the rest of the candidates can overtake Sanders, or Warren should she surge? Top cop Kamala Harris, lingering well below the leaders, the hardnosed California prosecutor who proudly and coolly bragged about smoking dope, then jailed anyone else who did the same? How does that play to millennials? Cory "Don't be mean to Bain" Booker? The fast-rising Mayor of South Bend, Indiana? Robert Francis O'Rourke, the fossil-fuel-friendly, corporate candidate in JFK clothing? Amy "Clean my comb" Klobuchar? She's tied for seventh tied "Someone Else" and the needle for her isn't rising at all.

• Which leaves option B: Keep the Sanders-like candidate's delegate count below 50%, then introduce a "compromise" candidate, someone acceptable to both corporate Democrats and the voting public, to take the nomination (reluctantly of course) on the second, third, or fourth ballot.

Yet who has enough popularity, and clean enough hands, to pull that off? Certainly no one on the list above.

Enter (reluctantly, of course) Michelle Obama.

Michelle Obama would be tied with Biden as frontrunner if she ran in 2020, poll shows

Former first lady Michelle Obama tied with former Vice President Joe Biden as the top choice among Democratic voters when asked who should be the party's nominee in 2020.

A Hill-HarrisX poll released Tuesday [February 19] found that 25 percent of Democrats said they would back Obama in the party primary over nine other declared or potential candidates, including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas).

Obama has said she is not running[.]

And there, I think, is the knight in neoliberal armor, someone widely popular with the Democratic voting public, acceptable to return-to-the-status-quo independents, and more than acceptable to pro-corporate Party leaders. No other surprise, waiting-in-the wings candidate has this combination of qualities, not one, and I've looked at the whole list, from Oprah to Stacy Abrams to Tammy Baldwin.

The only question, of course, is how to manage the switch without leaving the country in shock and filling "change" voters with rage. That will be the subject of a longer piece. Stay tuned.
 

George W. Bush Or Donald J. Trump?

-by Noah

When President Obama was elected, Republicans howled. Immediately, billboards of George W. Bush’s smirking countenance sprang up that read “Miss me, yet?” It wasn’t so much that a Democrat had won the White House. Those things happen. No, it was more about which Democrat had won. Republicans, racists to their core, could not mention Barrack Obama’s name without saying “Kenya” and spitting out Obama’s middle name, Hussein (which actually means ‘blessing’), in an effort to push their alternative facts that President Obama is a Muslim, and, he wasn’t even a citizen of our country. Most Republicans will still do the same thing at the drop of a hat. After all, it was Karl Rove who famously told reporters that the Bush administration would determine what reality was.

But what of Donald Trump? Kellyanne Conartist has moved beyond Karl Rove when it comes to spinning webs of deceit and lies. In fact, she, “Spicy” and Sarah Huckabee Sanders have just taken Rove’s ball and run with it and, in a manner to be expected; in a much less sophisticated way. That’s what happens when you lower the bar. Someone comes along and lowers it even further, if not just lay it on the ground.

I hated George W. Bush. I still do and always will. I will never miss him. I don’t care that the Obama’s literally embrace the man. George W. Bush is and was a war criminal. That will not change with time. He was every bit the war criminal that Nixon and his flunky Henry Kissinger were. Trump, of course, appears at least as treasonous as the latter.

I don’t have warm and fuzzy feelings about most of the presidents in my lifetime. I hated Nixon. I hated LBJ and it would be very hard for me to muster any affection at all for Bill Clinton, but, with each of those men, yes, even Nixon, I can come up with something positive, even if it’s just a very small thing, to say, and I would, except this post isn’t about those presidents or any of the others I have witnessed. Bush is another matter. He even out did Reagan and maybe the 19th century’s James Buchanan when it came to the horrible president sweepstakes. Talk about your low bars!

George W. Bush surrounded himself with despicable advisors. He was the least competent person to have ever held the office of President in modern times, until Trump that is. He was Beavis to Trump’s Butthead, or is it the other way around?

There are differences, mostly differences of degree, between the two men though. Bush is more likable as a human being, less coarse than Herr Gropenfuhrer. As evidenced by the photo of Michelle Obama, Bush would never cringe at the touch of an African-American, at least not overtly. Does Bush harbor racism down in his soul? Surely some of his policies and how he won Florida by denying African-American citizens of their voting rights strongly suggest so. But, can you imagine Trump smiling if Michelle or any other accomplished black woman tried to give him a hug? No, Trump would go off on one of his patented “Low IQ” and “Stupid” tirades as he does with other accomplished African-American women such as reporter April Ryan or Rep. Maxine Waters. Besides, if he didn’t, it would hurt him with his supporters. Trump will always outdo Bush when it comes to manifesting overt racism. In fact, he leaves Bush, bad as he was, in the dust.

Putin? Bush said he looked into Putin’s eyes and saw a good soul. Trump went ten better.

“They” always say that Bush is the kind of guy one would have a beer with. Well, Republicans will say the same thing about newly-minted “Supreme” Court justice Brett “Keg Meister” Kavanaugh. But, yes, I would have a beer with Dubya (but not Kavanaugh). Does that shock you? It shouldn’t. You see; I would have a good reason. I would bring Bush the gift of pretzels: lots and lots of pretzels, bags of ‘em! Hey, George, buddy! Let’s watch a football game! Just you and me, buddy! Have a pretzel, dude!

Yeah, like that’ll ever happen. But, let’s make a little list of grievances with Bush, a refresher course, if you will; but notice how so much of this ties in with Trump. The common thread is that both men share a Republican/conservative world-view. Trump is simply building upon that view, horrifically.

• Stealing Florida through the aforementioned racial disenfranchisement. Bush didn’t invent such things but the blatant racism in 2000 did do a good job of harkening back to the pre-Voting Rights legislation Jim Crow days, a time that all Republicans gaze back upon with nostalgia. Bush will always be loved by his party for that. Dishonorable mention goes to his brother Jeb, the then Governor of Florida for implementing the plan.

• Now, that the Roberts “Supreme” Court (Chief Justice John Roberts was nominated by Dubya and endorsed by democrat Chuck Schumer) has, in an open act of judicial activism, given us the post voting rights world, Trump and his minions are following the George W. Bush election handbook to a T and then some. Cases in point: Georgia and, once more into the breech, Florida. Trump is taking it further, of course. He and other republicans are screaming “fraud” and calling for stopping the counting of even the votes of military personnel. Remember what I said about once you lower the bar?

• The invasion of Iraq: Books are still being written about this one. The toadies of both parties voted for this but one man, George W. Bush, despicably using the dead of 9/11 for his purposes of himself and his backers, pushed them to do it. It was naked politics all the way; that and daddy issues, I suppose. We all know the story by now. People with brains knew it then. Bush destabilized the Middle East and turned a nearly contained al Qaeda in Iraq into ISIS. To this day, Trump will tell his gullible cultists that ISIS was created or invented by Barrack Hussein Obama and/or, depending on the day and what medication he is on, Hillary Clinton. If we were going to do anything back then, we could at least thrown everything we had at Afghanistan and Pakistan. Instead, we’re still there and back in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of civilians are dead, maybe 1 million. Iraqis will never look upon us with anything but hate, and, we have created a new generation of America-hating terrorists who will replace al Qaeda and ISIS. Well done, sir! Oh, and did someone mention war crimes? And, thanks for Dick Cheney, a man as insane as Trump, a man who would fit right in with today’s White House. Kellyanne, in fact could be the love child of Cheney and Trump who now follows Putin’s lead. Who cares about dead and maimed soldiers and dead and maimed civilians and contaminated land when there’s money to be made by war profiteers?

• The economic collapse of 2008: Bush went for the typical Republican economic policies and gave them a shot of steroids. It was like Herbert Hoover 1929 all over again. Only some quick thinking, half-realized quick remedies and a president who, owned by many of the same corporate masters, realized that there would be no future and no gravy train for anybody unless some brakes were applied to the madness of the Jamie Dimons of the world. Remember, it was Dimon who supported Obama’s candidacy. So, that’s another lesson about one president is better than another. Always consider the concept of ‘compared to what’ or you’ll fall into the trap of acceptance.

• Trump has now removed the brakes the Obama administration put in place and we are now headed for an even bigger crash. Keep in mind that the crash of 2008 took Bush the better part of 8 years and Trump has only been in office for 2 years. A sensible calculation for the start of the next crash doesn’t arrive at 8 years. Since Trump is almost twice as bad with economics as Bush, why not figure on 4 years ‘till doomsday, or less, much less? We’re already in a bull market on most days. Once again, the middle and working classes will bear the brunt. What a surprise! Meanwhile, just like in 2008, the conservative element In our society is, and will, call it all a “correction” instead of a crash.

I won’t be reading Michelle Obama’s book. The picture with Bush is enough for me. There are already to many much more meaningful books I’d love to have time to read, so hers won’t make my list. I’ve heard enough about it to know that she has no time for Trump and can respect Bush. That says enough. We have to be extremely wary of the trap of thinking that someone who was a horrid joke is now somehow better now because someone even worse has come along. That’s a form of appeasement. Trump is simply a descendant of Bush. In the same way, Stalin was worse than the Tsar. Too harsh? Give it time. It’s clear that Trump has totalitarian aspirations and no one is doing a thing to stop him, even when he’s obviously more mentally unstable by the day. I wonder if he likes pretzels.

Tired Of Losing Yet?

As we pointed out this morning, the U.S. economy grew just 0.7 percent since Señor Trumpanzee's kleptocracy took over the Oval Office, the weakest showing in 3 years. And when he whined that the job-- of president-- was harder than he had ever imagined, former Mexican President Vicente Fox trolled him on twitter: "Being president ain’t easy... just go back to golfing."

But Trump did accomplish one thing that is sure to tickle the heart and soul of his base-- or at least will on Monday. The clownish new Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue will promulgate a new rule to make sure the kiddies in Trump counties as obese as their parents who voted Trump into the White House. Outsider Southern blackbelts the most obese counties in each state didn't just vote for Trump, they voted for Trump as though their next meal depended on it. I promise to come back to Perdue's "Let's Make America Fat Again" plan in a minute, but let's look at the obese counties full of Trump voters. Florida's most obese county is Calhoun, where 40.7% of the people are clinically obese. 76.6% of the voters there went for Trump. Breathitt is the most obese county in Kentucky (42.9%) and 69.6% of them voted for Trump. 41.4% of the folks in Washita Co., Oklahoma are obese and they went for Trump massively-- 83.2%. Campbell Co., Wyoming is the Trumpiest obese county in America. 33.6% over-do the eating thing and 88.0% voted for Trump. Logan County played a similar role in West Virginia, where 41.2% of the folks are obese and 80.1% voted for Trump. Thurston County, Nebraska has an obesity rate of 40,8% and 60.3% voted for Trump. Caldwell County, Missouri has an obesity rate of 39.2% and 75.0% went Trump. Similar story in Indiana's most obese county, Jackson (39.3%), where 73.3% went Trump You get the picture, right? Let me add Kansas in here. The most obese county is Cherokee County (38.7%), significantly higher than the state's overall obesity level (30.2%). Statewide, Kansas went for Trump 57.2% to 36.2% for Hillary. Cherokee County was far Trumpier-- 71.8% to 23.4%. I'm not sure if that's where Perdue is hooking up with Kansas Senator Pat Roberts Monday but the two of them will be announcing another Trump era WIN!

Republicans have long been trying to dial back the standards that became a pillar of former first lady Michelle Obama’s initiative to curb childhood obesity in the U.S.

Roberts introduced legislation with Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) last year to give schools two more years to meet new reductions on sodium, but the bill never passed.

Renewed efforts to ease the federal standards came as disappointing news to some advocates.

The American Heart Association was quick to push back. In a statement, the group’s CEO, Nancy Brown, said the current standards are already working and that 99 percent of schools are in compliance.

“Improving children’s health should be a top priority for the USDA, and serving more nutritious foods in schools is a clear-cut way to accomplish this goal,” she said.

“Rather than altering the current path forward, we hope the agency focuses more on providing technical assistance that can help schools get across the finish line, if they haven’t done so already.”

What more could anyone want from their president-- more diabetes and heart disease in their childrens' future-- coupled with less and less healthcare. That's winning in Trump's America!

She Stole The Election Fair And Square... Is It Fair To Hate Her? (Trump, Trump, Trump)

Someone from Bernie's campaign says Hillary didn't steal the election. Stealing an election is different from 7 or 8 people on an e-mail thread. This some real misdirection there. She totally stole the election, state by state by state. She cheated in every state and people who pay attention and keep an open mind know it. As Matt Taibbi pointed out at Rolling Stone yesterday, "the primary season was very far from a fair fight. The Sanders camp was forced to fund all of its own operations, while the Clinton campaign could essentially use the entire Democratic Party structure as adjunct staff. The DNC not only wasn't neutral, but helped with oppo research against Sanders and media crisis management. DNC chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign as a result of this mess." Then go state by state and examine how the party bosses stole and cheated and sabotaged and did whatever they had to do to keep the barbarians from getting through their gates.

Taibbi adds that "down the road, someone will have to address the problem of a Democratic Party structure that effectively had no internal advocates for a full 43 percent of its voters. As we've seen with the Trump episode on the other side, people don't much like having to fight against the party claiming to represent them."

I loved Sarah Silverman at the convention Monday, but no one likes being boo-ed and she tartly said, "to the Bernie or best people: you're being ridiculous," while Al Franken drooled over her shoulder like the jackass and hack he's turned into over the last 6-7 years. But what else could they do? Let Trump in? It really comes to that. You're either for the horrible, cheating, lying Hillary or you're for the even worse-- yes, yes, much worse-- Trump. Or you're of a state of mind where you feel comfortable saying "FUCK OFF with your corrupt system, go choke on it; I won't participate." (That would be me. I may sound like I'm rooting for Hillary on Twitter, but I'm not. I'm rooting against Trump, mostly holding my mouth shut about her-- even trying to see a saving grace-- but I'll never vote for her. Never. The Chuck Schumer/Debbie Wasserman Schultz Democratic Party deserves Trump; they've earned him and the horrors he'll bring.

I just had an argument with my air-conditioning and heating guy, who I've known for a decade and am very friendly with. He's an immigrant-- from Israel-- and he's voting for Trump. I tried to persuade him not to. But, there's something strange about me trying to persuade someone else to vote for her when I never will. Michelle Goldberg, writing at Slate this week tried to delve into what makes people hate her so. Sally Quinn, Democratic hostess with the mostess, told Louis Gates for his 1996 "Hating Hillary" piece in the New Yorker that "[T]here’s just something about her that pisses people off. This is the reaction that she elicits from people." Goldberg claims that "over the last two decades, the something that pisses people off has changed."

Peggy Noonan isn't the only observer who found Hillary to have "an air of apple-cheeked certitude... political in its nature and grating in its effects... an implicit insistence throughout her career that hers were the politics of moral decency and therefore those who opposed her politics were obviously of a lower moral order."

Goldberg's man on the street interviews yielded these reviews:

• "Bill without the charisma... programmed and almost robotic. I don’t think her recent move to the left, or being more populist recently, is part of who she is but more of a reaction to Sanders in the race."

• "She is disingenuous and she lies blatantly, but that’s what a lot of politicians do. It’s definitely more of a policy issue for me... I don’t like her support for the Iraq war. She didn’t support same-sex marriage until it became a popular issue. Her email stuff-- she is the only one that would not testify, and I think that’s bullshit. I don’t like her friendship with Netanyahu. I think they’ve destroyed the Middle East with Iraq. I don’t like that she takes money from big banks. She doesn’t support universal health care. For all those reasons. I think she’s more a Republican than a Democrat, and I refuse to vote for Republicans, ever."

• "I don’t think she has a clue what people in my position need in life and certainly wouldn’t stoop to, quote unquote, my level. If I could make her a profit she’d be my best friend, but I can’t, so she doesn’t know I exist... If she was moving her lips she was probably lying about it."

• "I think that Hillary Clinton is a sociopath, so I think that her main interest is in her pocketbook, and I think that’s obvious from looking at the Clinton Foundation"

• "I think she’s trying to tell people, 'Vote for me because I’m a woman.' Ignore the fact that I have accomplished practically nothing significant in my whole career in the public eye, but I’m a woman, so vote for me."

A lot of that is pretty crazy stuff. "Some who loathe Clinton," wrote Goldberg, "see her as the living embodiment of avarice and deception. These Clinton haters take at face value every charge Republicans have ever hurled at her, as well as dark accusations that circulate online. They have the most invidious possible explanation for Whitewater, the dubious real estate deal that served as a pretext for endless Republican investigations of the Clintons in the 1990s. (Clinton was never found guilty of any wrongdoing, though one of her business partners, James McDougal, went to prison for fraud in a related case.) Sometimes they believe that Clinton murdered her former law partner, Vince Foster, who committed suicide in 1993. They hold her responsible for the deadly attack on the American outpost in Benghazi, Libya. Peter Schweizer’s new book Clinton Cash has convinced them that there was a corrupt nexus between Clinton’s State Department, various foreign governments, and the Clinton family’s foundation. Most of Schweizer’s allegations have either been disproven or shown to be unsubstantiated, but that hasn’t stopped Trump from invoking them repeatedly. In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, he accused Clinton of raking in 'millions of dollars trading access and favors to special interests and foreign powers.' As former New York Times editor-in-chief Jill Abramson wrote, 'I would be dead rich... if I could bill for all the hours I’ve spent covering just about every "scandal" that has enveloped the Clintons.' After all that investigation, Abramson concluded that Clinton 'is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.' But the appearance of perpetual scandal surrounding Clinton can make it seem as if she must be hiding something monstrous, especially to those who are predisposed against her."

It could be that the reasons people give for disliking Clinton have changed simply because she herself has changed. She entered the White House as a brashly self-confident liberal. Early on, some of the president’s advisers sought to undermine her plans for health care reform because they were thought to be insufficiently business-friendly; in response, Carl Bernstein, one of her biographers, quotes her snapping at her husband, “You didn’t get elected to do Wall Street economics.” Then, after the epic repudiation of the 1994 midterms, in which Republicans won a House majority for the first time since 1952, she overcorrected-- becoming too cautious, too compromising, too solicitous of entrenched interests. As she would say during her 2000 Senate campaign, “I now come from the school of small steps.”

In other words, people hated Hillary Clinton for being one sort of person, and in response to that she became another sort of person, who people hated for different reasons. But this doesn’t explain why the emotional tenor of the hatred seems so consistent, even as the rationale for it has turned inside out. Perhaps that’s because anti-Hillary animus is only partly about what she does. It’s also driven by some ineffable quality of charisma, or the lack of it.

No doubt, this quality is gendered; Americans tend not to like ambitious women with loud voices. As Rebecca Traister wrote in her recent New York magazine profile of Clinton, “It’s worth asking to what degree charisma, as we have defined it, is a masculine trait. Can a woman appeal to the country in the same way we are used to men doing it?” Elizabeth Warren’s forthright authenticity is often favorably contrasted with Clinton’s calculated persona, but when Warren was running for Senate against Scott Brown, she was also widely painted as dishonest and unlikable.... This fits a broader pattern. Marianne Cooper, a sociologist at Stanford’s Clayman Institute for Gender Research and the lead researcher on Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In, says that women who are successful in areas that are culturally coded as male are typically seen as “abrasive, conniving, not trustworthy, and selfish.”

What’s happening to Clinton, says Cooper, “happens to a lot of women. There are millions of people who will say about another woman: She’s really good at her job, I just don’t like her. They think they’re making an objective evaluation, but when we look at the broader analysis, there is a pattern to the bias.”

Among hardcore Trump supporters, the misogyny often isn’t subtle. The Republican National Convention seethed with a visceral, highly personalized, and highly sexualized contempt toward Clinton. Men wore T-shirts that said, “Hillary Sucks but Not Like Monica” on one side and “Trump That Bitch” on the backs. Buttons and bumper stickers read, “Life’s a Bitch: Don’t Vote For One.” One man wore a Hillary mask and sat behind a giant yellow sign saying “Trump vs. Tramp.” Another, an RNC volunteer, was dressed up like Septa Unella from Game of Thrones and held a naked blowup doll with Clinton’s face attached, re-enacting a scene in which Cersei Lannister, a murderous queen, is stripped naked and marched through the streets before jeering throngs. The right-wing fantasy of seeing Clinton degraded and humiliated has rarely been performed so starkly.

Most Americans, however, are not frothing partisans. For many of them, something in addition to sexism is at work in Clinton’s unpopularity-- some mystery of mass media connection. There’s a reason actors do screen tests: Not everyone’s charm translates to film and video. For as long as Hillary Clinton has been in public life, people who’ve met in her person have marveled at how much more likable she is in the flesh than she is on television. “What’s remarkable isn’t that she can be funny, spontaneous, and mischievous, and has a loud, throaty laugh; what’s remarkable is the extent to which she has sequestered her personality from the media,” Gates wrote in 1996.

Twenty years later, Traister discovered a similar disconnect. “The conviction that I was in the presence of a capable, charming politician who inspires tremendous excitement would fade and in fact clash dramatically with the impressions I’d get as soon as I left her circle: of a campaign imperiled, a message muddled, unfavorables scarily high,” she wrote. “To be near her is to feel like the campaign is in steady hands; to be at any distance is to fear for the fate of the republic.”

Republican strategist Katie Packer sees parallels between Clinton and Mitt Romney, for whom Packer served as deputy campaign manager in 2012. “In a lot of ways her weaknesses are very similar to Mitt’s weaknesses,” Packer tells me. “She’s somebody who is kind of a policy nerd, somebody who is very solution-oriented. She just does not have great people skills. Because of that, whenever something goes wrong, people don’t give her the benefit of the doubt. They don’t trust her.” Politically, this is a hard dynamic to overcome; Clinton’s efforts to appear relatable only make her seem more calculating. “It comes across as stilted and staged and for a purpose, so it defeats the purpose,” says Packer.

For Democrats, the silver lining is that Clinton’s running against Donald Trump. “I think she won the lottery ticket,” Packer says. According to Packer, there’s a way to make independent and moderate Republican women soften toward Hillary Clinton: Go after her husband’s infidelity. “One thing that causes them to come to her defense is when they feel like she’s being blamed for her husband’s bad behavior,” Packer says. Trump has done exactly that, attacking Hillary as an “enabler” of her husband’s sexual misdeeds. “The one Republican who is incapable of not bullying her is going to be her opponent,” says Packer. “The one Republican who is incapable of showing any empathy in his own right is going to be her opponent.”

That makes it more likely that many voters will do what Brian Greene did and vote for Clinton despite their distaste. Should that happen, it remains to be seen if Hillary hatred shapes her ability to govern. Cooper thinks it’s possible that once she’s no longer explicitly competing for power, the widespread public dislike of her might ebb. “When she announces she’s running for something, her unfavorability increases,” Cooper says of Clinton. “When she’s in a role, her favorability starts to creep up again.” Figures from the Pew Research Center bear this out. Clinton’s favorability ratings fell to 49 percent when she was running for Senate in 2000, then went up to 60 percent when she entered office. They’ve fallen below 50 percent during both presidential campaigns but reached 66 percent when she was secretary of state.

The Democratic Establishment stole the nomination for her-- whether a little or a lot-- and that was a boneheaded move because they may well lose to Trump. Like I said, people like Wasserman Schultz and Chuck Schumer deserve Trump. Their discomfit is even more of a reason for me to vote for Jill Stein. As Darlene Glanton wrote in the Chicago Tribune yesterday, "Bernie Sanders' supporters have a right to be angry. The leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee apparently confirmed what they have said all along-- that the political system was rigged against their candidate in favor of Hillary Clinton. Top Democrats essentially dismissed Sanders as a viable candidate during the primaries, attempted to undermine him with voters and even took steps to derail his campaign, according to hacked emails that were recently made public by WikiLeaks. In doing so, Democrats tarnished the electoral process and alienated a large constituency of voters that they will need to help lift Clinton to victory in November... [T]he email controversy has contributed to suspicion and mistrust many voters already had toward Clinton... It's unlikely Sanders supporters will switch courses and go all the way over to the other side. But this is the sort of thing that could make some voters stay home in November."

Two Ways of Looking at a Plagiarism

"Winter Blackbird," linocut by Lisa Hooper (source; click to enlarge)

by Gaius Publius

Among twenty snowy mountains,
The only moving thing
Was the eye of the blackbird.

–Wallace Stevens, "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird"

Sometimes the thing that matters is not the thing seen, but the way of seeing it. Thus it is, I think, with Melania Trump's plagiarism of Michelle Obama's words in a speech Trump gave before the Republican national convention.

What They Said

Melania Trump (quoted here and here; my emphasis):

"From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise, that you treat people with respect. They taught and showed me values and morals in their daily life. ...

"Because we want our children in this nation to know that the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them."

Michelle Obama:

"And Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: like, you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond, that you do what you say you're going to do, that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don't know them and even if you don't agree with them. ...

"Because we want our children — and all children in this nation — to know that the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them."

Now for two ways of looking at this event, we turn to two "blackbirds," writers who've examined the story in some detail.

David Frum: "Plagiarism draws attention to content of the passage plagiarized"

David Frum reacted to this clear literary theft by focusing on Trump. In a piece in The Atlantic entitled "Ten Reasons Why Melania Trump’s Speech Will Have a Lasting Impact," he wrote this...

9) Plagiarism draws attention to content of the passage plagiarized. In 2008, Michelle Obama summed up the values that she had learned from her parents and that she and Barack Obama now tried to instill in their children: work hard; tell the truth; keep your promises; treat others with dignity and respect. Donald Trump epically does not tell the truth, does not keep his promises, and does not treat others with dignity and respect. A plagiarized speech (and the failure to detect the plagiarism) pretty strongly confirms that the Trumps do not much care about hard work, either. "Thine own mouth condemneth thee, and not I: yea, thine own lips testify against thee.”

...which proves, to my mind, that he missed his own point: "Plagiarism draws attention to content of the passage plagiarized." The eye of his blackbird, in other words, looked at the subject, then looked away. We need to consider what both of these women actually said, the actual message.

Is What Michelle Obama Said a True Statement?

Consider for a second the bare statement — "the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them" (Obama's version). Is this true? Is it true that if you dream big enough and work hard enough, the "limit to the height of your achievements" disappears?

Obviously not. As a young high school graduate, working summers in a General Motors assembly plant to earn college money, I saw hundreds of men and women, many the lowest of the low, the sweepers, for example, whose lives mark "lie" to that statement. The next time you stay in a hotel, look at the woman who cleans your room and ask if she's where she is because she won't work hard. Most people like these are trapped, the way billions are trapped around the world, working in powerless service to others for the scraps those others allow them?

Oren Nimni: Obama's statement "is an insult to every tomato-picker and hotel cleaner in the country"

The fact that Michelle Obama's statement is blatantly false (and that a woman of color in the United States said it) is revealing. Current Affairs writer Oren Nimni on that (emphasis in original):

If anything, the whole plagiarism scandal reflects somewhat poorly on Michelle Obama. One reason Obama’s words were able to play so well at the RNC was that in the lifted passages, Obama was speaking using the conservative language of “bootstrapping.” Obama’s sentence, that “the only limit” to one’s achievements is the height of one’s goal and the “willingness to work” toward it, is the Republican story about America. It’s the story of personal responsibility, in which the U.S. is overflowing with opportunity, and anyone who fails to succeed in such a land of abundance must simply not be trying hard enough.

People on the left are supposed to know that it is a cruel lie to tell people that all they need to do is work hard. There are plenty of people with dreams who work very hard indeed but get nothing, because the American economy is fundamentally skewed and unfair. This rhetoric, about “hard work” being the only thing needed for the pursuit of prosperity, is an insult to every tomato-picker and hotel cleaner in the country. It’s a fact that those who work the hardest in this country, those come home from work exhausted and who break their backs to feed their families, are almost always rewarded the least.

Far from embarrassing Melania Trump and the GOP, then, it should be deeply humiliating for Democrats that their rhetoric is so bloodless and hollow that it can easily be spoken word-for-word in front of a gang of crazed racists. Instead of asking “why is Melania Trump using Michelle Obama’s words?” we might think to ask “why is Michelle Obama using the right-wing rhetoric of self-reliance?”

This is, of course, the myth of "meritocracy" that Thomas Frank has exposed with scalpel-like precision in his latest book Listen, Liberal. It's clear that the Democratic Party, at its core, believes with Michelle (and Barack) Obama the comfortable and self-serving lie that no individual has anyone to blame but herself if she fails to achieve high goals. She should just have reached higher; she should just have worked harder.

It's not only a lie, it's a "cruel lie," as Nimni says. So why is she, Michelle Obama, telling it? Clearly it serves her interests, her husband's interests, her party's interests, to tell the "rich person's lie," that his or her achievement came from his or her own efforts. To call most people's success a product of luck (right color, right gender, right country, right neighborhood, right schools, right set of un-birth-damaged brain cells) or worse, inheritance (right parents), identifies the fundamental unfairness of our supposed "meritocratic" system of allocating wealth and undercuts the "goodness," if you look at it writ large, of predatory capitalism. By that measure, neither the very wealthy themselves (Charles Koch, Jamie Dimon) nor those who serve them (Barack Obama et al) are "good" in any moral sense.

(The idea of the supposed "goodness" of the successful capitalist, by the way, his supposed "greater morality," goes all the way back to the 18th Century attempt of the wealthy to counter the 17th Century bleakness of Protestant predestination. How could people, especially the very rich, know whether they are among the "elect" or the damned? God gives them wealth as a sign of his plans for them, just as God gives them morally deficient poverty-wage workers to take advantage of.)

A Third Blackbird

There's a third issue arising from all this: What happens now that the Democrats and Republicans are in obvious and complete agreement? Under normal circumstances, not much more than has been happening. But with the rise of Trump, we are not looking at normal circumstances. Do the Democrat see an opportunity?

Answering my question involves a third blackbird, a very political one, with a third way of looking at this story.

I was of three minds,
Like a tree
In which there are three blackbirds.

It involves another attempt to take over the Republican Party, this time by the Clinton-led Democratic leadership. I'll discuss that in greater detail in a future piece, but it's pretty clear by now that the Democratic Party thinks that if they attract all but the most crazed Republican voters, they can leave the Republican organization itself to rot, a half-empty shell useless for winning elections for a generation, for whoever may want it.

Blackbird number three says, of course they're wrong and they'll pay a price for that, win or lose in November. "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad." But more on that thought later.

GP
   

It's press corps vs. press handlers (again!) -- plus a "Loop" contest update and reminder

by Ken

The lead item in today's Washington Post "In the Loop" column begins by referring back to "a recent play-by-play" by Politico's Dylan Byers, "illustrating the cat-and-mouse games the White House plays with the press," so I thought we would start with the Dylan Byers post, from last week, called "The most transparent administration, cont.":

A quick look at how the sausage gets made, or doesn't...

On Tuesday night, The New York Times reported that no reporters would be traveling with First Lady Michelle Obama to China, and that she would be giving no interviews while there. Nicholas Kristof, the Times columnist, called the First Lady's decision "a mistake," and said it "signals weakness or fear of coverage." Several conservative outlets picked up the Times report, including the influential Drudge Report, which linked to a Weekly Standard article about it.

Shortly after noon on Wednesday, I reached out to the First Lady's office to inquire about the decision. A spokesperson for the First Lady responded to my inquiry but declared the response "off the record," meaning I wasn't allowed to use the information therein. When I told the spokesperson that I needed a response I could use, the spokesperson replied with another off-the-record statement regarding the First Lady's trip.

The spokesperson then wrote, "If you need something attributable, you can take this on background from a White House official..."

The statement that followed did not address my original inquiry. Instead, it offered a formulaic explanation about "the power and importance of education" and "reaching people," followed by an explanation that the First Lady would participate in open press events and take questions online and in forums.

By now it was 5 p.m. ET, nearly five hours after my initial inquiry. When I told the spokesperson that I did not see why the quote needed to be anonymous and attributed to "a White House official," the spokesperson said if I needed something on the record I could refer to the First Lady's travel guidance and a transcript of a press call regarding the trip. These documents did not contain an answer to my question regarding why no reporters would be traveling with the First Lady.

Now, I'll leave frustration over Michelle Obama's trip to The New York Times, Nick Krisfof, The Weekly Standard and Drudge Report (a motley crew right there). What I want to know -- and what I've wanted to know since last October -- is why the spokesperson in the First Lady's office didn't want to give me a name I could put on a harmless, formulaic quote?

Actually, I think the October post to which Dylan B refers back is worth looking at too, to understand better the kind of thing he's complaining about. It was called "The problem with Washington:"

The following email just landed in reporters' inboxes:

FROM A WH OFFICIAL: Today, the President and the Vice President will meet with the bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Leadership (Majority Leader Reid, Minority Leader McConnell, Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi) at the White House at 3:00 pm. With only a few days until the government runs out of borrowing authority, the President will make clear the need for Congress to act to pay our bills, and reopen the government.  The President will also reiterate our principles to the leaders: we will not pay a ransom for Congress reopening the government and raising the debt limit. The President continues to urge Congress to pass a bill that raises the debt ceiling and lends the certainty our businesses and the economy needs.

Why does an official White House statement sent to every media outlet in the Beltway and beyond need to be attributed to an anonymous official? Can't someone put their name on it? Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, is probably going to reiterate these exact same points at the daily press briefing. Can't he sign off on them now?

We can debate anonymous sourcing to the ground -- I'll defend it, in many instances -- but we're hitting rock bottom when the White House can't even put a signature on a statement about its principles.

Now back to today's "In the Loop" follow-up to Dylan's post from last week. In the wake of that post, we're told, "frustrated reporters took to Twitter recounting their favorite response lines from administration officials with the hashtag #TweetYourAnonymousFlackQuotes."

This friction is, of course, nothing new. Past White Houses and government agencies have certainly been evasive. But judging from the frequent complaints we hear, the lack of transparency is worse than ever.

Our colleagues have found that a number of truly unhelpful responses have become standard at many agencies. Now, as a Loop public service, we include some of the most common -- and egregious -- examples (with some suggested reporter responses).

1. "Why is this a story?" (Because I say it is.)

2. "Who told you that?" (A person who sits in your building.)

3. "Where did you get that?" (From the e-mail you sent out to your colleagues this morning.)

4. "That's not accurate." (And what exactly is not accurate?)

5. "You're way off base." (Am I?)

6. "I have nothing for you on that." (So, "No comment?")

7. "You'll have to contact [another agency, which happens to be in the midst of an ‘all hands' conference in Vegas]." (I did. They told me to call you.)

8. "So, what's the question?" (Repeat the same question.)

9. "No comment." (Thanks -- that's helpful.)

10. "Who are you? Politico?" [In other words, insulting a fine news organization by implying you're asking a trivial question.] (Defend Politico and/or ignore and repeat the same question.)

11. "Off the record, no comment." [Most people not in the business intend this to mean "Don't use my name" or "on background," or "Don't use my name or agency," meaning "deep background." The beauty of this one is that you can't use the "no comment."] (Just say the agency "declined to comment.")

12. Their final tactic, when they realize their efforts to stop the story have failed: "We are going to point out that this is wrong." (Go ahead. Then you'll be lying to a lot more people than me.)

13. Then: "!@#$&*." (Hang up.)

GOOD NEWS FOR "LOOP" FANS

It may just be my crazy impression, but in recent years it has seemed as if the editors of the Washington Post have been doing everything they could think of to marginalize and hide the "In the Loop" column overseen by our pal (event though we've never met or communicated) Al Kamen. Which has been all the more strange in that all evidence has indicated that it's one of the paper's most unequivocally loved features. Today's column however, was preceded by this "editor's note":

In the Loop resumes its four-day a week print schedule, publishing Tuesday through Friday. We're stepping up the pace with the help of our new colleague Colby Itkowitz, formerly the Washington correspondent for the Morning Call in Allentown, Pa., and transportation reporter for Congressional Quarterly.

Indeed the column is now running under the joint byline "by Al Kamen and Colby Itkowitz."


"IN THE LOOP" CONTEST UPDATE AND REMINDER

I've already passed on tidings of one pending "Loop" contest, the "Loop Obamacare Enrollment Contest," which closes at noon this Friday, the 28th: "Simply guess the number of first-year sign-ups" by the no-penalty sign-up deadline on March 31. The 10 closest entries get both a coveted (by me, anyway) "In the Loop" T-shirt "and lifetime bragging rights." Follow the same entry procedures as for the other contest, below, but use the subject line "Obamacare." (And, again, "Those in the administration or on the Hill may enter 'on background.' ")

As to that other "Loop" contest, of which I haven't yet spread word, here's today's recap:

It takes a contest?

Hillary Clinton told a publishers group in New York last week that she still hadn't come up with a title for her forthcoming memoir and turned to the Loop for guidance.

"Helpfully, about a year ago, The Washington Post asked readers to send in suggestions," she said. “For example, one possibility was 'It Takes a World,' a fitting sequel to 'It Takes a Village.' Another plays off my love of all things Tina Fey: 'Bossy Pantsuit,' although we can no longer say one of those words."

She continued: " 'The Scrunchie Chronicles: 112 Countries and It's Still All About My Hair.' That actually is a keeper -- that's on the shortlist."

But she's still stumped. So we're relaunching the contest! Send suggestions to intheloop@
washpost.com with the subject line "Hillarycontest." The top five winners will receive a highly coveted "In the Loop" T-shirt.

Please provide your name, profession, mailing address and T-shirt size (M, L or XL). Also include a phone number. Deadline is April 4. Good luck!

#

Michelle Obama vs The Hopelessly Rotund Republican Caucus

Grotesquely rotund Republicans like James Sensenbrenner (R-WI, 375 lbs) and Rush Limbaugh get hysterical about Michelle Obama's anti-obesity campaign. They take it very personally... although they call it something different. They call it socialism or something absurd like that. Undermining American school children by wanting schools to offer healthy alternatives! Imagine! Now we don't just have a Republican War on Education; we have a Republican War on Healthy School Lunches.

Something tells me right-wing fatties like Sensenbrenner and Limbaugh will be pissed off at CREDO Action's new campaign-- but that the First Lady will be pleased by it.

So-called pink slime is a beef-like product created by grinding together connective tissue and beef scraps normally used in dog food, and treated with ammonia hydroxide to kill salmonella and E. coli.

It is "not meat" according to a 35-year veteran USDA microbiologist, and was recently rejected by the likes of McDonalds, Taco Bell and Burger King.

So it's pretty disturbing that the USDA continues feeding this stuff to kids, and plans to buy seven million pounds of it for school lunches.

Tell the USDA: Stop putting pink slime "Lean Beef Trimmings" in kids' school lunches.

In an all too familiar story, despite concerns raised by USDA inspectors and minimal safety inspections, the USDA approval of Beef Products Incorporated's "Lean Beef Trimmings" was pushed through by USDA undersecretary JoAnne Smith, a George H.W. Bush appointee and former president of the National Cattleman's Association.

The USDA allows beef products like hamburgers to contain up to 15% of the Ammonia-treated, meat-ish stuff, but inadequate labeling requirements prevent parents from knowing if it's included in the meat being served at their kids' school.

Tell the USDA: Don't buy any more pink slime for school lunches.

Aside from the lack of nutritional value, pink slime raises a number of health and safety concerns. The New York Times exposed in 2009 that despite being treated with ammonia, three E. coli contaminations and four dozen salmonella contaminations occurred between 2005 and 2009, during which time school lunch officials three times temporarily banned hamburger makers from using pink slime from one facility in Kansas.

Ammonium hydroxide is itself of course harmful to eat, and can potentially turn into ammonium nitrate, a common ingredient in home made explosives.

Kids need nutritious food to be able to learn in school, and many of the tens of millions of kids who rely on school lunches come from low income families where they are less likely to get a healthy diet. While pink slime is a nutritionally inferior and potentially risky product, the school lunch program saves only three cents per pound of ground beef by continuing to put this filler in kids hamburgers.

Over the past few months, numerous fast-food chains have rejected the product and say they no longer use it. School lunch officials should clearly follow suit.

There are a number of excellent and dedicated doctors running for Congress this year and one of the best and brightest is David Gill (IL-13), who's in a tight primary race with some conservative schlemiel. Dr. Gill is very concerned with children's nutrition and with the crap kids are getting in school. "As an E.R. doctor," he told me this morning, "I've cared for children critically ill from the diarrhea caused by E. coli and salmonella. It's an agonizing illness, and the federal officials who permit this type of 'food' to be served to our children should have been dismissed from their positions long ago. This is yet one more glaring example of what happens when we turn our government over to representatives who are funded by Corporate America. I'm proud that in my Congressional campaign, I refuse to accept a single penny from the corporations and Wall Street banks that are rotting our democracy from the inside out." Sound like your kind of candidate? Please help him win his primary here at our Blue America page. (At the bottom of this post I embedded Dr. Gill's new radio ad. It goes right to the real problem here: a bribed Congress. Give it a listen.

Meanwhile, gluttonous Republicans keep attacking Mrs. Obama for being a Stalinist or Hitler or whatever nonsense pops into their heads. This week she did an interview with Topanga Sena, age 11, a reporter for Scholastic News in Florida.



Uh oh... now she wants to focus on physical fitness-- and moving-- another enemy of the Limbaugh-Sensenbrenner set.

“‘Let’s Move!’ is not about having government tell people what to do, because government doesn't have all the answers. A problem that's this big and affects so many people requires everyone to step up. So we're asking everyone to step up.”

She can probably count on Sensenbrenner for the part about eating french fries everyday.

She added that she loves french fries. “I wish I could eat french fries every single day,” she said. Some conservative pundits have specifically singled out french fries as a food they say Obama’s nutrition campaign would ban.

One of the accomplishments Obama celebrated with her second anniversary tour was the USDA’s new school meal regulations, implemented in January 2012, which seek to ensure public schools serve more fruits, vegetables and whole grains and less sodium, saturated fat and trans fats. According to the White House, the new mandatory standards for federally subsidized school lunch programs are the first major changes in school meal regulations in over 15 years. Republicans in Congress recently pushed back against the new regulations by attempting to drop them from a 2012 spending bill.

The first lady explained that the “Let’s Move!” program is an attempt to make sure government does “its part" to support others' choices.

“Parents have to make some changes at home, you know, but they need the information to be able to make those choices, and they have to have access to affordable foods in their communities, fresh and healthy foods. We need government to do its part, but we need businesses to do their part as well,” she explained. “If we're going to solve this problem, we need everyone to step up. And there's no one solution. … People have to figure out what works best for their family, their budget, their lifestyle, their community."

The first lady launched the anti-obesity initiative in February 2010. In the interview, she touted the support she’s seen from community centers such as the YMCA and YWCAs, Girl Scouts, childcare facilities, the video game industry and faith communities.

Sugar Kills-- But Congress Is Addicted To Sugar Industry Bribes, So...

Not cocaine, not heroin... but just as deadly

Lamb's Grill in Salt Lake City bills itself as "Utah's Oldest Most Famous Restaurant," which it is. At the time the Mormans massacred Christians at Mountain Meadows there were no restaurants in the territory that 4 decades later became the sugar-addicted Beehive State. It wasn't for another couple decades after that that Lamb's was founded (1919). It's menu is as American as apple pie, which they serve ($2.25, add $1.25 for a la Mode). They serve old classics that have largely disappeared from restaurant menus-- Finnian Haddie with a boiled potato, Fresh baby Beef Liver, 2 Jumbo Frankfurters with a choice of potato salad, home-style baked beans or sauerkraut... and desserts to die for, especially a 5-layer chocolate cake. And if you eat enough of it, you will die. It's full of sugar, probably the biggest cause of death among Americans, bare none. Not just Utahns. It's especially bad for the poor Mormons who can't drink alcohol, tea or coffee and wind up overdoing it in the sugar department big time. If you know anyone in Mormonville you probably know someone insane about candy-- as well as someone with severe if not debilitating candidiasis.

The average American consumes an astounding 2-3 pounds of sugar each week, which is not surprising considering that highly refined sugars in the forms of sucrose (table sugar), dextrose (corn sugar), and high-fructose corn syrup are being processed into so many foods such as bread, breakfast cereal, mayonnaise, peanut butter, ketchup, spaghetti sauce, and a plethora of microwave meals.

In the last 20 years, we have increased sugar consumption in the U.S. 26 pounds to 135 lbs. of sugar per person per year! Prior to the turn of this century (1887-1890), the average consumption was only 5 lbs. per person per year! Cardiovascular disease and cancer was virtually unknown in the early 1900's.

The "glycemic index" is a measure of how a given food affects blood-glucose levels, with each food being assigned a numbered rating. The lower the rating, the slower the absorption and digestion process, which provides a more gradual, healthier infusion of sugars into the bloodstream. On the other hand, a high rating means that blood-glucose levels are increased quickly, which stimulates the pancreas to secrete insulin to drop blood-sugar levels. These rapid fluctuations of blood-sugar levels are not healthy because of the stress they place on the body.

One of sugar's major drawbacks is that it raises the insulin level, which inhibits the release of growth hormones, which in turn depresses the immune system. This is not something you want to take place if you want to avoid disease.

An influx of sugar into the bloodstream upsets the body's blood-sugar balance, triggering the release of insulin, which the body uses to keep blood-sugar at a constant and safe level. Insulin also promotes the storage of fat, so that when you eat sweets high in sugar, you're making way for rapid weight gain and elevated triglyceride levels, both of which have been linked to cardiovascular disease. Complex carbohydrates tend to be absorbed more slowly, lessening the impact on blood-sugar levels.


...Here's a list of ways sugar can affect your health:

• Sugar can suppress the immune system.

• Sugar can upset the body's mineral balance.

• Sugar can contribute to hyperactivity, anxiety, depression, concentration difficulties, and crankiness in children.

• Sugar can produce a significant rise in triglycerides.

• Sugar can cause drowsiness and decreased activity in children.

• Sugar can reduce helpful high density cholesterol (HDLs).

• Sugar can promote an elevation of harmful cholesterol (LDLs).

• Sugar can cause hypoglycemia.

• Sugar contributes to a weakened defense against bacterial infection.

• Sugar can cause kidney damage.

• Sugar can increase the risk of coronary heart disease.

• Sugar may lead to chromium deficiency.

• Sugar can cause copper deficiency.

• Sugar interferes with absorption of calcium and magnesium.

• Sugar can increase fasting levels of blood glucose.

• Sugar can promote tooth decay.

• Sugar can produce an acidic stomach.

• Sugar can raise adrenaline levels in children.

• Sugar can lead to periodontal disease.

• Sugar can speed the aging process, causing wrinkles and grey hair.

• Sugar can increase total cholesterol.

• Sugar can contribute to weight gain and obesity.

• High intake of sugar increases the risk of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.

• Sugar can contribute to diabetes
.
• Sugar can contribute to osteoporosis
.
• Sugar can cause a decrease in insulin sensitivity
.
• Sugar leads to decreased glucose tolerance.

• Sugar can cause cardiovascular disease.

• Sugar can increase systolic blood pressure.

• Sugar causes food allergies.

• Sugar can cause free radical formation in the bloodstream.

• Sugar can cause toxemia during pregnancy.

• Sugar can contribute to eczema in children.

• Sugar can overstress the pancreas, causing damage.

• Sugar can cause atherosclerosis
.
• Sugar can compromise the lining of the capillaries.

• Sugar can cause liver cells to divide, increasing the size of the liver.

• Sugar can increase the amount of fat in the liver.

• Sugar can increase kidney size and produce pathological changes in the kidney.

• Sugar can cause depression.

• Sugar can increase the body's fluid retention.

• Sugar can cause hormonal imbalance.

• Sugar can cause hypertension.

• Sugar can cause headaches, including migraines.

• Sugar can cause an increase in delta, alpha and theta brain waves, which can alter the mind's ability to think clearly.

• Sugar can increase blood platelet adhesiveness which increases risk of blood clots and strokes.

• Sugar can increase insulin responses in those consuming high-sugar diets compared to low sugar diets.

• Sugar increases bacterial fermentation in the colon.

In the western hemisphere approximately 75% of females are affected at some time in their life with candida, a yeast infection usually associated with too much sugar. There's no reason to assume that men are any less impacted.

You've probably guessed by now that we're not big Obama fans here at DWT-- as Krugman articulated so well over the weekend, the Incredible Shrinking President seems "willing, even eager, to join up with Republicans in cutting Social Security benefits and raising the retirement age so he can look-- for the jackasses and vultures Inside-the-Beltway-- like a "Very Serious Person." Michelle Obama, on the other hand, is someone we do admire around here. She's not trying to look like a Very Serious Person (the way right wing nutjob Katie O'Beirne is. She's just trying to do the work of one-- saving America's school children from the sugar scourge.

Over the weekend my favorite follower of the cash in politics, OpenSecret.org did a little look at what the Sugar Industry does with it's political money. I felt like Christmas had come early!

Sugar is the only industry in the entire agribusiness sector that has consistently supported Democrats during the past two decades. Sugar cane is grown in southern states such as Florida, while sugar beets are primarily grown in the upper Midwest and Great Plains and converted into a number of sugar products.

Individuals and political action committees associated with the sugar industry have contributed nearly $32.8 million since 1990, with about 60 percent going to Democrats. During the 2008 campaign cycle, the industry contributed more than $4.2 million, with 65 percent going to Democrats.

The top contributor by far was American Crystal Sugar, whose PAC contributed about $1.8 million to federal candidates during the 2008 cycle, with more than 60 percent going to Democrats [overwhelmingly to Blue Dogs].

On the lobbying front, the sugar industry spent $7.5 million in 2009, up from $4.5 million just two years before. The majority of the sugar industry’s lobbying expenditures come from three groups, and much of the increase in the industry’s lobbying can be attributed to their spending habits.

...One of the most important issues to the industry is U.S. trade policy, particularly treaties like the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which the industry claims cause it serious economic harm. Sugar producers have also been fighting the imposition of government subsidies, unlike much of the agribusiness sector. Currently, sugar is still profitable without subsidies, and the industry fears it may lose political clout if it receives government assistance.

The top 10 recipients currently serving in the House of thinly disguised bribes from Big Sugar include 5 Blue Dogs, 3 Republicans and 2 normal Democrats:

Charlie Melancon (defeated Blue Dog-LA)- $269,017
Earl Pomeroy (defeated Blue Dog-ND)- $268,428
Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- $261,595
Alcee Hastings (D-FL)- $172,250
Allen Boyd (defeated Blue Dog-FL)- $163,735
Dave Camp (R-MI)- $149,030
Tim Holden (Blue Dog-PA)- $139,450
Mike Simpson (R-ID)- $135,750
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)- $130,299
Frank Lucas (R-OK)- $122,000

As I've said many times before, the Blue Dog caucus has controlled food policy in America for a very long time, much to the detriment of Americans. In the 2010 cycle almost all the biggest recipients of Sugar sugar are either extremely conservative-- like Blanche Lincoln, Dave Camp and Walt Minnick-- or extremely corrupt-- like Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

I just stumbled across this. It's the best anti-candida video evah... and so much better than this limp Republican garbage: