Insight Into Two Top Trump Advisers: Jared Kushner & Steve Bannon

jared-kushner-forbes

While we approach Donald Trump’s presidency with some dread, at least this stage is more interesting than it would be if Clinton had been elected. Rather than what would be a fairly predictable list of old Clinton cronies, Wall Street insiders, and the interventionist foreign policy establishment, we are seeing people new to politics. While Donald Trump is new to politics, he has a long public record. Perhaps the key member of the next administration that we know the least about is his son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Kushner out-smarted the old Clinton political experts, and pulled off a victory in the electoral college with both less money and no political experience. Forbes has interviewed Kushner. The full article is worth reading, but here is an excerpt to show how Kushner changed how political campaigns are run to take advantage of social media and ideas from Silicon Valley:

“I called some of my friends from Silicon Valley, some of the best digital marketers in the world, and asked how you scale this stuff,” Kushner says. “They gave me their subcontractors.”

At first Kushner dabbled, engaging in what amounted to a beta test using Trump merchandise. “I called somebody who works for one of the technology companies that I work with, and I had them give me a tutorial on how to use Facebook micro-targeting,” Kushner says. Synched with Trump’s blunt, simple messaging, it worked. The Trump campaign went from selling $8,000 worth of hats and other items a day to $80,000, generating revenue, expanding the number of human billboards–and proving a concept. In another test, Kushner spent $160,000 to promote a series of low-tech policy videos of Trump talking straight into the camera that collectively generated more than 74 million views.

By June the GOP nomination secured, Kushner took over all data-driven efforts. Within three weeks, in a nondescript building outside San Antonio, he had built what would become a 100-person data hub designed to unify fundraising, messaging and targeting. Run by Brad Parscale, who had previously built small websites for the Trump Organization, this secret back office would drive every strategic decision during the final months of the campaign. “Our best people were mostly the ones who volunteered for me pro bono,” Kushner says. “People from the business world, people from nontraditional backgrounds.”

Kushner structured the operation with a focus on maximizing the return for every dollar spent. “We played Moneyball, asking ourselves which states will get the best ROI for the electoral vote,” Kushner says. “I asked, How can we get Trump’s message to that consumer for the least amount of cost?” FEC filings through mid-October indicate the Trump campaign spent roughly half as much as the Clinton campaign did.

Just as Trump’s unorthodox style allowed him to win the Republican nomination while spending far less than his more traditional opponents, Kushner’s lack of political experience became an advantage. Unschooled in traditional campaigning, he was able to look at the business of politics the way so many Silicon Valley entrepreneurs have sized up other bloated industries.

I wonder who will get the movie rights to this story.

While Kushner’s political views are not clear, he does not appear to be a doctrinaire conservative. The anti-nepotism laws written after JFK made Bobby Kennedy his Attorney General might prevent Kushner from having a formal role in the Trump administration. I think we are better off with Trump continuing to listen to Kushner and hope this can be circumvented. Even if he cannot have an actual position, Trump will probably continue to receive advice from him.

During the interview Kushner defended Steve Bannon from accusations of being anti-Semitic based upon the hate speech often found at Breitbart. While this is hardly enough to make Bannon look acceptable, there was another sign today that Bannon might be more complex than he is portrayed. IndieWire reports that previously Bannon had been involved in the distribution of independent films which differ from the world view he is now involved with:

Ten years ago, Bannon oversaw the distribution of independent films released by Wellspring Media, a company that supported a wide range of international cinema as well as gay-themed and other “transgressive” titles. Movies acquired and released under his tenure include the experimental LGBT documentary “Tarnation” and “Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry,” a pro-Kerry documentary that opened during the 2004 election. According to one insider who dealt with Bannon at this time, he directly approved and often supported several of these films with great enthusiasm.

It’s a history that raises fascinating questions about the newly minted White House staffer’s motives: Did Bannon, whose alt-right allegiances have turned him into a leading proponent of nationalism, shelve his personal beliefs for the sake of perceived business opportunities? Did those beliefs — and a tolerance for the hate groups drawn to the alt-right movement — come later? Or does he, as so many have theorized about the president-elect, only believe in himself?P

Hopefully we will see a new version of Bannon in the White House, but this will not negate all of the hate speech he has spread in more recent years. The same can be said of President Trump as compared to candidate Trump.

FBI Twitter Feed Gone Rogue?

fbi_logo_twitter_400x400

Following the controversy regarding James Comey after last week’s announcement, there was a much stranger development as an FBI twitter feed started dumping links to a large amount of old material. This included material related to Donald Trump’s father and Bill Clinton’s controversial pardon of Marc Rich, along with a large amount of other material. Many pro-Clinton sites posted misleading accounts making it appear that the feed was releasing links related to Clinton alone.

While there were legitimate reasons for Comey to have sent the letter to Congress regarding new evidence related to Hillary Clinton’s email, there would be no legitimate reason to release information related to Bill Clinton’s pardon of Rich at this particular time. This is old news and the release could have been kept separate from the election. The question is whether this is an intentional attempt to harm Hillary Clinton or some sort of misguided release of large amounts of information to the public at an inopportune time.

If intentional, this would also strengthen an argument I previously made that Comey could not have avoided discussion of the resumption of the investigation into Hillary Clinton as it was likely the information would have come out regardless of what Comey had done.

The FBI has responded to questions regarding the Twitter releases with a statement: “Per the standard procedure for FOIA, these materials became available for release and were posted automatically and electronically to the FBI’s public reading room in accordance with the law and established procedures.” However, that does not explain the timing.

Think Progress reports that the FBI is initiating an investigation, as it should. It would be improper, and very likely a crime, if someone did release this old information now with the intent to affect the election.

Besides coming during the debate over Comey’s announcement, there are also a number of questions being raised about inside disputes between the Department of Justice and the FBI, reportedly with disagreements between career and political appointees as to whether Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted. This infighting includes  questions surrounding the Clinton Foundation in addition to the email scandal. While Clinton clearly violated the ethics agreements she entered into before being confirmed as Secretary of State, it is a different question as to whether her actions, and actions of others at the Foundation, could be successfully prosecuted. Bret Baier of Fox News claims that “sources in the FBI have told him that indictment is likely in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation” unless prevented by the Justice Department. This cannot be independently verified.

Clinton And Many Democrats Fail To Understand Importance Of Opposing Interventionism And Defending Civil Liberties

johnson-stein-freedom

The lack of concern for Hillary Clinton’s neocon record on foreign policy, and her far right record on First Amendment issues, by so many Democrats is really disappointing. It is as if they didn’t they learn anything from the horrors of the Bush years. Hillary Clinton appeared clueless when she campaigned for the millennial vote. As I discussed last week, and as David Weigel reported today, Clinton is losing a substantial amount of support to third party candidates.

When George Bush was president, Democrats showed concern for matters such as avoiding unnecessary wars, civil liberties, and government transparency. Now that they have nominated a candidate who is far to the right on these matters, they no longer show any concern. For example, Paul Krugman made a pitch today for millennial voters who are voting for Gary Johnson, but ignored these issues. It makes absolutely no sense to seek the support of those considering Gary Johnson without addressing the main issues which are causing Clinton to lose support to Johnson, along with Jill Stein.

Krugman also resorted to the bogus Ralph Nader argument. If the 2000 election turned out badly (as it did) because of George Bush becoming president, it makes no sense to use this to support a neoconservative such as Hillary Clinton who supports the so many of the same policies as George Bush.

Just as bad is the manner in which Kevin Drum dismissed concerns over military interventionism and civil liberties: ” Unless you’re basically a single-issue voter on civil liberties and military force, it’s hard to see why any lefty of any stripe would even think of supporting Johnson.”

Drum is right in his post in arguing that it would make more sense for Bernie Sanders supporters to support Jill Stein than Gary Johnson, but he certainly diminishes the importance of several issues with the phrase, “single-issue voter on civil liberties and military force.”

These are two of the most important matters considering both the expansion of the warfare/surveillance state since 9/11, and considering which areas fall most directly under the control of the president. Plus these encompass multiple issues.

Civil liberties mattered to Democrats eight years ago. During the 2008 campaign Hillary Clinton was the only Democrat who refused to sign a pledge to restore Constitutional liberties. All the Republican candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, also refused to sign.  As I’ve discussed previously, Clinton’s poor record regarding civil liberties and separation of church and state includes her support for the Workplace Religious Freedom Act , a bill introduced by Rick Santorum and opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union for promoting discrimination and reducing access to health care, leading a campaign to censor video games and introducing a bill making flag burning a felony. Her views mocking freedom of speech when supposedly fighting terrorism sound alarmingly similar to those expressed by Donald Trump. Issues such as the drug war and opposition to the policy of mass incarceration she supported is yet a different issue which leads many to support Johnson and Stein over Clinton.

Similarly there are multiple foreign policy issues. These include her support for intervention in Iraq, Libya and Syria. In other parts of the world, there are her views on Russia, and record in Honduras. There’s also her history of joining with the Republicans in opposing a ban on cluster bombs in civilian areas. There’s her threats to obliterate Iran. Her past statements on the use of nuclear force against terrorist groups sound similar to those expressed by Donald Trump.

While Drum has consistently ignored the facts regarding the email scandals, the State Department Inspector General report verified accusations that Clinton violated the rules put into effect to promote transparency, showed that she tried to cover up her actions, and that she failed to cooperate with the investigation. This is just one aspect of the scandals involving Clinton which give millennial voters, and others, reason to distrust Clinton and vote for a third party candidate.

The numerous issues involved here contradict Drum’s mischaracterization of Clinton’s opponents as a single-issue voter. By the same logic, many of the issues which he backs Clinton for could also be lumped together as a single issue. It is no surprise that Gary Johnson is taking votes away from Clinton when he is more liberal than her on military interventionism, civil liberties, the drug war, social issues, and government transparency. There are also several problems with Johnson’s views, making Jill Stein an even better choice for those on the left.

Clinton Supporters Can Attribute Any Criticism To Sexism

Peter Daou Press Conference

Among the many disturbing things we are seeing from the Clinton camp is their attribution of almost all criticism to sexism, along with their hostility towards the free press. Peter Daou, a  former Clinton adviser, who continues to push heavily for her, showed how ridiculous they can be with this tweet: “Make no mistake: the media’s obsession with forcing a #Hillary press conference is ALL ABOUT HER GENDER.”

Yes, attribute it to sexism when Clinton avoids answering questions, despite two recent reports which have demonstrated that she has been lying to the American people about major scandals for over a year. Both the the State Department Inspector General report and the FBI director’s statement on the investigation demonstrated that Clinton violated the rules in effect when she became Secretary of State, she acted to cover up her actions,  and that many of the statements she has made since the scandal broke have been false. Fact checkers have pointed out how Clinton has repeatedly lied not only about the scandal, but about what these findings against her demonstrated.

Anyone who is likely to become the next President should be willing to answer questions from the press. Someone tainted by scandals to the degree Hillary Clinton is should especially be questioned. That has nothing to do with her gender. It is a fundamental principle of democracy.

Today The New York Times editorial board discussed the ethical issues involving the Foundation. I imagine that those in the Clinton camp see only sexism, and not questions of ethics. Emma Roller elaborated further on the Opinion Page. Is she also sexist?

Even beyond the recent scandals, Hillary Clinton Clinton has a long history of opposing government transparency, along with a terrible record on First Amendment issues. Objecting to her record on government transparency and First Amendment issues have nothing to do with her gender.

Daou acts as though Clinton is being singled out, but in reality both Clinton and Trump have been criticized by the media for the ways in which they are hindering press coverage. It has nothing to do with gender. Daou acts as though the criticism is all from sexist male reporters, but the criticism has come from journalists and others regardless of their gender. Last month, Carol Lee, president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, argued that both Trump and Clinton are a threat to press freedom. Again, her criticism has nothing to do with gender.

Hillary Clinton is likely to become the next president despite having been wrong on virtually every major decision of her career, and despite Hillary and Bill having spent years playing fast and loose with the standards others are held to, both to increase their influence and to amass a huge personal fortune. It is no surprise that Hillary Clinton is not trusted, and that people believe she has a lot of questions to answer.

It Is Sad To See Some Sanders Supporters Acting Like Clinton Supporters & Republicans

Sanders Clinton CNN

We are accustomed to seeing Clinton supporters spread misinformation, ignore facts, and try to prevent those they disagree with from expressing their views. It is a shame to see some Sanders supporters using the same tactics.

There are many valid sources of information about Hillary Clinton which are relevant to the campaign. There are also right wing sources which spread misinformation which Sanders supporters would be wise to stay away from. I recently found a Sanders supporter spreading bogus claims about Clinton, claiming that being on Coumadin should disqualify her from being president.

The claims were written by Jerome Corsi, one of the writers who spread the Swift Boat Lies against John Kerry. The article they linked to was one of many on the same topic posted by him at World Net Daily. The source is a second reason for Sanders supporters to be skeptical.The article uses pseudo-science to make claims which are contrary to current standards of medical care. The source of the information is a quack physician who lost his license due to holding views which could jeopardize the lives of his patients.

As both a physician and long-time Sanders supporter I attempted to correct this misinformation after it was reposted in the Progressive BERN Party Facebook group. Besides noting the medical fallacies in the argument and how untrustworthy the source was, I pointed out that if Sanders had a medical condition which required the use of such a medication we would be defending his ability to still be president.

There are enough valid arguments against Clinton being president. There is no benefit in repeating  bogus claims from the far right. This is true of this particular argument, as well as many others from right wing sources which are sometimes repeated by Sanders supporters.

The reaction at the Progressive BERN Party Facebook group was to ban me from the group after pointing out the medical facts. That is certainly an intellectually dishonest and cowardly way to respond to being corrected on the facts. We might expect such thinking from Clinton supporters, and from Republicans. Unfortunately it is also seen in some Sanders supporters. Besides, if the goal is to really promote a new political party along the lines of Sanders’ views, and in opposition to Clinton’s views, what sense does it make to ban someone who has been promoting such views for quite a long time? Sanders supporters should be seeking to broaden their groups, not play games such as this.

Mainstream Media Reporting On Monday Night Attacks On Pro-Sanders Facebook Pages

Content Unavailable

On Monday night those of us going pro-Sanders Facebook pages found that some were not available, seeing the message above. Word quickly spread that people believed to be Clinton supporters were posting porn on the pages and then, in a coordinated attack, multiple people would file complaints with Facebook, leading to the sites pages being taken down.

The sites did return later on Monday. Since then, many have changed from public to private groups, and some have restricted posting to prevent unknown members from repeating this tactic.

The attacks are believed to be from Clinton supporters considering that posts from Clinton supporters were found bragging about the attack. In addition, similar tactics had already been used on Facebook on a smaller scale. Clinton supporters would harass Sanders supporters in attempts to receive hostile responses, and then report responses from Sanders supporters in attempts to have their Facebook accounts restricted or terminated.  This also follows reports of the the pro-Clinton Super PAC Correct the Record, which has been coordinating with the campaign, paying people to “push back” against progressives opposing Clinton on social media.

Heavy.com reported:

Supporters were concerned about potential Clinton PAC involvement because, according to the Daily Beast, a pro-Clinton Super PAC is spending $1 million to counter people on sites like Instagram, Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter. The group is Correct the Record’s “Barrier Breakers.” According to the PAC’s press release, the digital task force will share positive content and “push back” against online progressive communities to counter “false narratives” and negative attacks. The Super PAC openly coordinates with Clinton’s campaign, Daily Beast reported.

However, there’s no proof of any connection between that PAC and this attack, and definitely no proof of any connection between the PACs and the pornography posts, which were likely from unrelated trolls and spammers.

They also included screen grabs which do suggest that Clinton supporter were behind this action.

The story was picked up by the mainstream media. The Hill reports:

Multiple Facebook pages supporting Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders were abruptly removed from the social media network late last night following a cyberattack.

The pro-Sanders pages — which include Bernie or Bust, Bernie Believers and Bernie Sanders is my HERO — were collectively followed by over a quarter-million supporters of the Vermont senator, and many had been operating continuously since Sanders launched his campaign last year.

The attack began around 9 p.m. EDT and lasted until just after midnight, when most of the pages recovered their accounts…

According to eyewitness reports, the pages were flooded with pornographic images in what appeared to be coordinated fashion and then flagged for obscene content, prompting Facebook to remove them.

“We had what looked like a kiddie porn posted in one of our groups today,” said Sanders supporter Erica Libenow, according to Heavy.com. “I reported that one. Seriously made me want to vomit.”

A Facebook spokesman confirmed to The Hill that a number of pro-Sanders groups as well as other pages “were inaccessible for a brief period” due to the company’s automated policies being “applied incorrectly.”

“We corrected the problem within hours and are working to improve our tools,” the spokesman said.

At least one Facebook user linked to the pro-Hillary Clinton group Bros 4 Hillary was reported to have participated in the attacks.

The Bros 4 Hillary team disavowed the user in a statement posted Tuesday morning, which condemned any “harmful or offensive rhetoric or harassing behavior targeting supporters of any other candidate in the race.”

Several websites and online forums and website attempted to draw a connection between the attacks and Clinton ally David Brock’s social media initiative, Barrier Breakers 2016, after noting that the former Bros 4 Hillary member had recently “liked” the initiative on Facebook.

In a statement to The Hill, Correct the Record denied any involvement in the attacks.

“Correct the Record’s Barrier Breakers 2016 had nothing to do with this,” said Elizabeth Shappell, the group’s communications director. “Currently, Barrier Breakers is exclusively engaged in positive messaging supporting Hillary Clinton.”

Former right-wing hit-man turned Clinton hit-man David Brock is one of the slimiest people in politics, but the desire to prevent opposing viewpoints from being discussed has been a hallmark of many Clinton supporters during this campaign. I doubt that the campaign itself was directly involved, and there is no way to know whether David Brock and his group were involved, or if this was organized by other Clinton supporters. Regardless of who was involved, the prospect of seeing so many Democrats turning into thought police to defend Clinton’s conservative views is one reason why many on the left think that electing Clinton would be even more dangerous to liberal and progressive principles than a Republican president.

There is more at AOL News and New York Magazine. The later shows a tie to the Bros4Hillary group, but also presents an alternative conspiracy theory blaming Donald Trump. While not impossible that the Trump campaign did this to further divide Democrats, I have seen a lot of cases of Clinton supporters trying to suppress discourse from Clinton’s opponents, while I have not encountered any similar on-line premise from Trump supporters. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have expressed a similar disregard for freedom of speech in the recent past.

Carly Fiorina Takes Pandering To A New Low During Rose Bowl

The Rose Bowl got peripherally involved in politics for second reason, in addition to the skywriter who wrote “Trump is Disgusting” over the Rose Parade. Carly Fiorina showed that she might be the worst panderer of all among politicians. Before the Rose Bowl, in which Iowa played against Stanford, Fiorina tweeted: “Love my alma mater, but rooting for a Hawkeyes win today.”

She is saying she is rooting against her own school to pander to Iowa voters. It is one thing to live in a state and extol its virtues (even if we don’t really believe the candidate believes what they are saying), or even alter their accent depending upon where they speaking as Hillary Clinton does. It is a little more questionable ethically, but not unexpected, for a candidate to alter their positions based upon regional issues. However, to betray one’s school in such a manner will fool nobody and is far more likely to result in distrust and contempt than support.

I know several alumni of my alma mater’s rivals at Ohio State and Michigan State. I don’t expect them to do anything but support their teams and they don’t expect me to do anything but support Michigan. Needless to say, responses on Twitter were overwhelmingly negative.

And congratulations to Jim Harbaugh on his tenth win of the season, the first of many bowl victories in the Citrus Bowl, and a possible top ten finish in his first year back home in Ann Arbor.

#goblue

Greater Enthusiasm Seen For Sanders On Social Media Might Propel Him To Victory

Anyone on social media will not be surprised by this. The Washington Post displayed two word clouds from Zignal Labs showing what is being said about the candidates. The top is obviously on Hillary Clinton, and the bottom on Bernie Sanders:

Word Cloud Clinton

Word Cloud Sanders

The words used to describe Clinton are quite different than those used in relation to Sanders, with the largest words being unethical, behavior, fired, and lies for Clinton. According to the article, “It’s driven by the intense dislike for Clinton by activists on the left and the right, but mainly the right. Their constant drumbeat of criticism overwhelms any positive buzz that the Democratic frontrunner gets from her fans.”

The situation is far different for Bernie Sanders:

Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders actually garnered more attention online than Clinton during the past month. The Vermont senator was mentioned more than 2.8 million times across all forms of media, compared with 2.2 million mentions for Clinton.

And the Sanders mentions tended to be more positive.

It is not surprising that Sanders is both receiving more attention and this his favorable attention outweighs the negative.

It is also not surprising that the situation is different with regards to television coverage:

The race continues to look sharply different on television than it does on social media. While Sanders received 57 percent of the Democratic chatter on Twitter, compared with 42 percent for Clinton, the former Secretary of State received 54 percent of the month’s television mentions among the Democratic candidates, compared to Sanders’ 35 percent.

The greater quantity and more favorable view of social media comments on Sanders likely relates to the greater enthusiasm for Sanders, which could have a major impact both in the primaries, and in getting out the Democratic vote in the general election.

Bud Budowsky discussed this factor at The Hill in a post entitled Sanders can win Iowa and New Hampshire

He was not referring specifically to the above data, but his impression is the same:

…Sanders has two things that are pure gold in presidential politics. First, he has intensely devoted and idealistic supporters who are passionately committed to his cause and will turn out in droves on caucus and primary days. Second, he has powerful means of communications through social media, the Internet generally, and word of mouth among his devoted supporters that drive his message, his small-donor fundraising and his statewide organizations in ways that are not visible on political television and poorly understood by political pundits.

The truth is that, whatever her many virtues, Democratic rival Hillary Clinton does suffer from an enthusiasm gap. This is one reason she has underperformed among small donors compared to Sanders and why she should be worried about her supporters not turning out in droves on caucus and primary days.

By contrast, there is close to a 100 percent relationship between citizens who passionately support Sanders and those who will turn out to vote for him. They care, they believe and they will vote in very large numbers because they, like Sanders, are fighting for a cause they believe in and a vision of an America they dream of building together.

It is certainly too early to predict the actual outcome, but I am optimistic that the degree of enthusiasm seen for Sanders will help him outperform the polls, which are generally quite unreliable prior to primaries and caucuses. Democrats should also keep this in mind when deciding which candidate has the best chance to get people out to vote in the general election.

Update:

The Hill also looked at the problems with Clinton’s lack of likability in a subsequent article:

Allies of Hillary Clinton are confident she will win the Democratic presidential nomination, but they are worried about one big thing: her likability problem in the general election.

Clinton has rebounded from a rough spring and summer with a strong fall. And while her eyes remain on the primary, she is already testing general election themes against her possible GOP opponents as they do battle in what could be a drawn-out Republican primary.

Presidential elections are often decided on personality instead of specific policies. Along those lines, people in Clinton’s orbit are worried she doesn’t pass the would-you-like-to-have-a-beer-with-her test.

This is probably one of the reasons why Clinton polls so poorly among independents and in the battle ground states, and why Bernie Sanders does as well as Clinton or better in head to head match-ups against Republicans despite lower name recognition.

Why Moderates Support Bernie Sanders

Moderates for Bernie

While the media narrative would simplify  the Democratic race to describing Bernie Sanders as a challenger from the left, he has also received a tremendous amount of support from independents, and from voters in the battleground states where Clinton is weak. The Moderates for Bernie Community is one of the largest pro-Sanders groups on Facebook with over 72,000 following them at the time this is posted. They recently posted this statement regarding why they support Sanders despite being more moderate on economic issues, reposted with their permission:

WHY WE SUPPORT BERNIE SANDERS DESPITE DISAGREEING WITH HIM

How can a moderate support a socialist? Isn’t Bernie Sanders too extreme? Won’t this commie [insert expletive here] destroy the American way of life? We’ve gotten these questions so many times that we thought it would be easier just to write this post.

Let’s start with a radical concept: we don’t have to 100% agree with a candidate to support him. Sure, Bernie and a majority of Americans agree on many, many issues. But not all. We ourselves don’t fully agree with all of Bernie’s proposals, and we suspect that many of the people reading this don’t either. In fact – surprise! – some of the other candidates have some policies we actually like better than Bernie’s. Don’t tattle on us.

Saying we only like some of Bernie’s proposals is not exactly a resounding endorsement. So why do we support him? What got us excited enough to create this Facebook page and deal with the endless barrage of Internet trolls day after day? And why should you care, especially if you disagree with Bernie even more than we do? Fortunately, there is something that 90+% of us do agree on, the one issue above all others:

Congress sucks.

Whether you believe the Democrats or the Republicans are primarily responsible for the catastrophic dysfunction currently plaguing Washington, hopefully we can agree that it has to stop. A political pragmatist like Hillary Clinton or an experienced negotiator like Donald Trump might be able to temporarily restore functionality (and sanity) during their administrations. However, a permanent solution requires permanent institutional change. The person by far most likely to make that happen is Bernie Sanders.

Here’s why:

1. CAMPAIGN FINANCE: The first step is to separate money from politics by switching to publicly financed elections. Bernie has advocated for that for years. And who do you trust more to make this happen: a populist with an average donation of ~$30 or a corporate-sponsored, Super PAC-backed politician-for-hire?

2. CHARACTER: Bernie is the “un-politician politician.” He has had more consistency over his multi-decade career than any other candidate. And he has Trump’s candor without Trump’s crassness. Frankly, it’s refreshing. But more than that, it guarantees that Bernie’s stated desire to reform Washington is a sincere goal rather than a mere ploy to acquire votes.

3. CLASS: Clinton calls Republicans her enemy. Trump has called just about everyone his enemy. Sanders has no enemies… beyond the ruling class. Instead he sees only partners and potential partners. The destructive denigration that’s all too common in politics – and that prohibits future collaboration — is beneath him. More importantly, Bernie has gone further than any other candidate to reach all Americans, not just his base. Indeed, he spat on the modern political paradigm when his spoke at an Evangelical university. Only those willing to journey into “enemy territory” have any hope of bridging our divides enough to enact real change.

4. CREDIBILITY: Some particularly entrenched or dogmatic politicians will not cooperate no matter what…unless their careers depend on it. And politicians’ job security depends on their constituents. That’s why politicians take it so seriously when they receive 100s of letters from their voters in support of an initiative. Bernie, who has had by far the largest rallies and largest social media presence, seems like the candidate most likely to leverage this potent weapon against Washington.

(Note: Obama had similar mass market penetration during his elections, but for some reason he somewhat disengaged from the people once elected. Bernie has vowed not to repeat that mistake.)

5. COMPETENCE: Simply put, Bernie has had more legislative success at the national level than any other candidate. In addition, his tenure as mayor of Burlington, VT places him within the top echelon of candidates in terms of executive credentials; his dramatic rejuvenation of Burlington has served as example for many once-struggling cities throughout the country.

So yes, President Bernie Sanders will destroy the American way of life—at least the part of it where politicians use dysfunction and chicanery to stay in power. Many candidates have claimed to be able to fix Washington, but Bernie is the first in a long time who might actually do it.

Let’s realize that a working government is better than a broken government, even if we don’t agree with all of its policies. Once that happens, the decision becomes clear: Bernie Sanders is the right choice, the sensible choice, the only choice.

Press & Bloggers Show Sanders Was Right In Accusing Clinton Of Practicing Revisionist History On DOMA

The Clintons have never been very supportive of social liberalism, and now that the liberal views they often showed little regard for during Bill’s presidency have become mainstream in the Democratic Party (and much of the country), Hillary is trying to rewrite history. Bernie Sanders pointed this out at the Jefferson Jackson dinner last weekend. His statement is being backed up by the press, bloggers, and people on Twitter who remember the truth.

The Washington Blade wrote:

Sen. Bernard Sanders isn’t the only one taking Hillary Clinton to task over her recent assertion that the Defense of Marriage Act was a “defensive” measure to prevent worse discrimination against LGBT people.

A number of gay rights activists took to Twitter to say Clinton engaged in historic revisionism during her appearance Friday on “The Rachel Maddow Show” when she said DOMA was a means to stop the enactment of a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage entirely. Many of those activists also tempered their objections by saying Clinton is generally doing right on LGBT rights during her campaign…

The notion DOMA was passed to stop passage of a Federal Marriage Amendment has been disputed by Hillary Clinton supporter and former Human Rights Campaign chief Elizabeth Birch, who wrote an op-ed saying “there was no real threat” of a constitutional measure in 1996.

Bloomberg Politics also sees this as revisionist history:

Bill Clinton’s aides and confidants admitted to the New York Times in 2013 that he knew DOMA was wrong and discriminatory toward gays and lesbians. His former press secretary Mike McCurry said: “His posture was quite frankly driven by the political realities of an election year in 1996.” Democratic consultant and Clinton ally Hilary Rosen added: “In my conversations with him, he was personally embarrassed and remorseful.”

Neither said it was a strategic move to prevent something worse. And indeed, that might have been difficult. The Federal Marriage Amendment wasn’t introduced until 2002. It didn’t become part of the Republican Party platform until 2004…

Prominent figures in the LGBT community, meanwhile, rejected Clinton’s recollection of history.

“Hillary’s version of DADT and DOMA is so wrong. The only ‘defensive posture’ was for their personal politics not LGBT,” activist David Mixner said on Twitter. He added: “The LGBT community should NEVER allow any politician to revise our noble and courageous history for political purposes.”

Radio host and HuffPost Gay Voices editor-at-large Michelangelo Signorile called Hillary Clinton’s version “revisionism” and said on Twitter that it was “simply not true that DOMA was signed to stop something worse.” He continued, “Hillary doesn’t need to re-write Bill history to make her better. She’s fine, has promised a lot.”

Bill Clinton even resorted to using ads opposing gay marriage when running for reelection. While Hillary’s positions do sound much better today, we cannot count on positions she has taken for political expediency to persist if the next poll or focus group suggests she should take a different position.

AmericaBlog also showed that this is not the first time the Clintons have resorted to this type of historical revisionism, along with noting that, “Sanders is a co-sponsor of the Equality Act in the Senate, and has opposed anti-gay discrimination laws going back to his campaigns for mayor in the 1970s.” Last month PolitiFact ruled that a statement from Chuck Todd was true that Bernie Sanders was “there” on same sex marriage twenty years ago.

Hillary Clinton’s conservative social views, seen in her membership in religious right organization, The Fellowship (also known as The Family) while in the Senate, makes many liberals wary of trusting her on social issues (along with economic issues, civil liberties, and foreign policy). The American Humanist Association has noted how much she is like the Republicans in pandering to religion:

American Humanist Organization Religious Pandering

They also noted that Bernie Sanders has expressed views in line with theirs:

American Humanist Organization Sanders Humanism

It comes down to a difference in their philosophies which as led Sanders to take the correct fork in the road, while Clinton has so often been wrong, whenever there have been big decisions during their careers. We need a president who makes the right choices at the time, not one who will admit her mistakes and change her views years down the road.