Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Friday, April 8, 2016
Begging the Bros
Joan Walsh is being very gentle. And since a vote is a vote, working hard not to burn bridges is the right affect. Still, it's beyond galling to have to keep coaxing these misogynist babies to grow up. Again and again, backwards and in heels.
Meanwhile, the good perfesser once again tells it like it is.
Meanwhile, the good perfesser once again tells it like it is.
Thursday, April 7, 2016
Lyin' Bernie - updated
Desperate times demand desperate measures, I guess. The Bern is banging its shins on reality and on mathematics, and they're panicking. The result is to start projecting wildly. Everything they're feeling, they're attributing to Hillary ("She's getting nervous"). Everything they're saying, they're claiming she said first ("She said I'm unqualified! Well, SHE'S unqualified!!"). Everything they're doing, they're justifying as a response to her -- while denying that they're doing it. Witness this post attributed to Bernie himself, though really from Jeff Weaver, on Reader Supported News.
Need one point out that this CNN "report" is from an anonymous source?Need one point out that Hillary didn't somehow trick Bernie into embarrassing himself before the editorial board of the NY Daily News? That he didn't and doesn't have an idea how to enact the things he is proposing? That despite having been in the House and Senate for decades, he hasn't had enough interest in action to know some basic facts about how these processes work, much less about the facts on military or defense engagements or foreign affairs? Need one point out that many observers, including that same editorial board, found his performance borderline disqualifying? Need one point out that Hillary twisted herself into a pretzel to avoid having "unqualified" come out of her mouth when Joe Scarborough persistently pressed her to say it?
And now he's giving himself license to resurrect old rightwing slurs against her by claiming, falsely, that she started it. Not, it turns out, a good guy.
Update: A study in contrasts. Bernie doubles down on the whining attacks. Hillary doubles down on refusing to say he's unqualified -- saying, instead, that he's obviously preferable to a Republican.
Update 2: The White House has weighed in, supporting Hillary. Bernie has really stepped in it. He has shown that not only doesn't he have the skills or mindset to do this job, he also doesn't have the temperament. He's all-rant, all-the-time, a petulant, thin-skinned, narcissistic whiner. If you don't permit him to talk over you, if you force him to go off script -- as the Daily News editorial board did, by pressing him to explain "how"-- he lashes out.
Need one point out that this CNN "report" is from an anonymous source?Need one point out that Hillary didn't somehow trick Bernie into embarrassing himself before the editorial board of the NY Daily News? That he didn't and doesn't have an idea how to enact the things he is proposing? That despite having been in the House and Senate for decades, he hasn't had enough interest in action to know some basic facts about how these processes work, much less about the facts on military or defense engagements or foreign affairs? Need one point out that many observers, including that same editorial board, found his performance borderline disqualifying? Need one point out that Hillary twisted herself into a pretzel to avoid having "unqualified" come out of her mouth when Joe Scarborough persistently pressed her to say it?
And now he's giving himself license to resurrect old rightwing slurs against her by claiming, falsely, that she started it. Not, it turns out, a good guy.
Update: A study in contrasts. Bernie doubles down on the whining attacks. Hillary doubles down on refusing to say he's unqualified -- saying, instead, that he's obviously preferable to a Republican.
Update 2: The White House has weighed in, supporting Hillary. Bernie has really stepped in it. He has shown that not only doesn't he have the skills or mindset to do this job, he also doesn't have the temperament. He's all-rant, all-the-time, a petulant, thin-skinned, narcissistic whiner. If you don't permit him to talk over you, if you force him to go off script -- as the Daily News editorial board did, by pressing him to explain "how"-- he lashes out.
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
Just the facts, ma'am - updated
This kind of thing just never happened in 2008. The slime was never cleared from the surface.
Update: More facts.
Update: More facts.
Monday, April 4, 2016
Astroturf - updated
A Berning pile of crap in the Times, this article purports to be a critique of Sanders's campaign missteps, but is nothing more than butter-wouldn't-melt hagiography. He was too pure and too naive to go after Hillary and to campaign hard (because he was so, so dedicated to his job as Senator), and that's why he's losing.
What a crock. First of all, he did, too, go after her -- as the article itself has to admit, he began complaining about the Goldman speeches in January, a month before the first votes were cast.
Second, he did, too, campaign hard in the Super Tuesday states -- as Maddow and others have noted, he was on the ground there before Hillary with more people, and he spent more than she did. His inability to win minority votes was not a matter of campaign tactics or timing. The article uncritically accepts the Sanders campaign's claim to the contrary, which has already been debunked.
Third, the unstated premise of the entire piece is that momentum would have mattered, would have changed everything. It's like a college friend used to say: If we had any ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had any eggs. There has been no Bernie momentum, despite the media's hunger for it. With one notable exception (not counting his home-court-advantage states), he has won lily-white states with caucuses, period. This has decidedly not been a "momentum" campaign. It has been a campaign that has followed the smart money's expectations from the get-go, with Hillary's strengths not being seriously challenged.
Nice work,Times. And spare us, Berners, from your complaints about media bias. If Hillary had gotten anything like the kind of cheerleading coverage in '08 that Bernie has this cycle, we'd be talking about her as a lame duck president now.
Update: The perfesser weighs in.
What a crock. First of all, he did, too, go after her -- as the article itself has to admit, he began complaining about the Goldman speeches in January, a month before the first votes were cast.
Second, he did, too, campaign hard in the Super Tuesday states -- as Maddow and others have noted, he was on the ground there before Hillary with more people, and he spent more than she did. His inability to win minority votes was not a matter of campaign tactics or timing. The article uncritically accepts the Sanders campaign's claim to the contrary, which has already been debunked.
Third, the unstated premise of the entire piece is that momentum would have mattered, would have changed everything. It's like a college friend used to say: If we had any ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had any eggs. There has been no Bernie momentum, despite the media's hunger for it. With one notable exception (not counting his home-court-advantage states), he has won lily-white states with caucuses, period. This has decidedly not been a "momentum" campaign. It has been a campaign that has followed the smart money's expectations from the get-go, with Hillary's strengths not being seriously challenged.
Nice work,Times. And spare us, Berners, from your complaints about media bias. If Hillary had gotten anything like the kind of cheerleading coverage in '08 that Bernie has this cycle, we'd be talking about her as a lame duck president now.
Update: The perfesser weighs in.
Saturday, April 2, 2016
The Grist Mill
Lots of good stuff today -- here, and here, and here, and here. And while I'm at it, I'll also park Markos's true-but-hypocritical takedown of Bernie -- another What a Difference Eight Years Make special.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)