whereisjustice
whereisjustice's JournalOverheard...
An apolitical teenage daughter and her dad are listening to NPR on the way home.
"Who's that?", she asks, looking up from the four inch portal of a smart phone.
"Hillary Clinton. She's giving a victory speech", replies the dad, clearly delighted by the engagement.
"She sounds phony...", she remarks.
They listen for a bit.
Suddenly, Hillary breaks into a working class affect to refer to union plumbers in her speech and the daughter laughs out loud.
"She's trying so hard, she sounds so fake!"
Her father didn't raise a fool.
We know exactly who Hillary would put on the Supreme Court...
The people she admires and respects, of course.
Goldman Sachs
JP Morgan
Citibank
Henry Kissinger
John McCain
Morgan Stanley
Time Warner
Lehman Bros
Hillary Clinton had a great night on Saturday. The Democratic Party had a terrible one.
Exit polling showed that Clinton won every demographic tracked except voters under 30. Even here, she was far more competitive with Sanders than in prior contests, losing just 54 percent to 46 percent. She even won a higher share of the black vote than Barack Obama did in 2008.
But Democratic Party elites shouldn't be high-fiving each other. They should be very, very worried.
In primary after primary this cycle, Democratic voters just aren't showing up. Only 367,491 people cast a ballot for either Clinton or Sanders on Saturday. That's down 16 percent from the 436,219 people who came out in 2008 for Clinton and Obama. Factor in the 93,522 people who voted for John Edwards back in the day, and you can see the scope of the problem. Democrats in 2016 are only getting about two-thirds of the primary votes that they received eight years ago.
Republican turnout in the South Carolina primary, by contrast, was up more than 70 percent from 2008.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrat-turnout-south-carolina_us_56d2e392e4b03260bf77247f
By shoving Clinton down our throats, the DNC is cutting off its nose to spite its face.
Super-predators? Hilllary is right.They do exist. I can think of a few...
Bill and Hillary Clinton, for example.
Oh, and Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, PhRMA, Monsanto, GE
Yes, Hillary, they are out there.
The danger is real. Stay safe.
"Dear Debbie,"
Hope you are well. As you know, things have been a little rough these past few weeks. For some reason our message just isn't resonating with anyone in America who doesn't live in lower Manhattan. We're sinking faster than that joke I told about wiping servers with a cloth (I handled that pretty well, don't you think? Bill, thought I sounded arrogant, pffffft, he should talk).
Anyhoo, you know that little backdoor DNC rule change we talked about, the one that could potentially unleash a flood of corporate money into my campaign? I think its time to pull the trigger. Now, I know you might be wondering, as one of the world's wealthiest women, how is it that I don't have enough money to run my campaign? Well, you know Bill. Davos on Monday, Bimini on Tuesday, drinks, dinners, hotels, Gucci, Speedo... he's my little money badger, lol.
Anyway, how about it?
Yours truly,
Hillary
p.s. know anyone who might be interested in a chief of staff position? I bet I do! 
Women like him. Men like him. Whites, Blacks, most minorities and even Green Party likes him.
Liberals like him and even independents like him. Republicans who swore they'd never vote Democratic in a million years like him. Looks like Bernie Sanders is someone we can vote for who can actually unites people around solving the most important problems of our generation and the next.
Is what's her name still running? Last I heard she was lost in a snow storm up north somewhere.
There's a special place in hell for politicians who don't look out for the middle class and below...
man or woman.
New York Times calms Clinton supporters with moderate editorial stroking.
On a recent front-page edition of the NYT website, I noticed the following three headlines lined up like doggies in the window.
Hillary Clinton Sharpens Focus After Democratic Debate Tussles
In Democratic Debate, Hillary Clinton Paints Bernie Sanders’s Plans as Unrealistic
Hillary Clinton Is Calm, Cool and Effective
Since then, they can be found here, with the second two in the margin:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-sharpens-focus-after-democratic-debate-tussles.html?ref=politics
From there I believe it went to Trump and Cruz. You know, Hillary, Trump and Cruz. The three candidates running for president.
The New York Times continues to enjoy (and flout) an unhealthy relationship with the political and financial king-makers. Given the well documented cause and effect relationship between the disruptive policies promoted by Hillary Clinton and our worsening crisis of inequality, such incestuous and public displays of affection should make everyone uncomfortable. Maybe it's just valentine's day.
There is no doubt NYT would lose the much cherished access to the inner workings of our political elite if Hillary were to lose the primary. Good. The absence of media transparency is exactly the problem at the center of our dysfunctional political system.
The proxy war of cut and paste...
I would like to make a broad point about how compartmentalized I believe the site has become. Rather than exchanging opinions (good and bad) and passionate writing (good and bad) it seems we've become obsessed with correctness and message structure, perhaps out of fear of being banned for exposing a bit of color and personality.
I believe that's why third party quotes and points of view are lobbed back and forth with such ferocity. Pundit bombing. Someone wants to advance a strong point of view, but they have to find someone politically acceptable to present it for us.
It's the safest thing, I guess. You can still ban someone for posting the opinion of someone else, of course. But it's far less likely than being banned or attacked for a 1st person essay. I've seen people make a well reasoned, very logical conclusion only to be met with demands that the mortal author supply a reference from someone on TV (or otherwise famous) who agrees with their conclusion in order that their well reasoned original opinion may be considered valid. A good old-fashioned catch-22.
Keep in mind that technocratic conformity by approved sources isn't really very interesting in the long run. Yes, there's a template/pattern being followed and it is consistent and non-provocative in an immediate sort of way. But it lacks the authority that comes with authenticity and originality. It is possible to present a compelling viewpoint even if you aren't appearing on MSNBC once a day.
Seems like a lot of emotion is bottled up in this proxy war of 3rd party pundits. Maybe we need a "why I support my candidate in my own words" or "why I don't like ... in my own words" section right on the front page where real people can be encouraged to write about their own experiences and world-view.
There used to be more original opinions and creative writing. I really miss it. Are we strong/smart enough to support anything less than market-tested messaging and talking points from so-called scholarly know-it-alls?
Clinton is so cynical about the American public that she is gleefully feeding us shit, convinced
that we'll stand in line to tell her how good it tastes.
Profile Information
Member since: Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:43 PMNumber of posts: 2,941