Democratic Party Having Serious Problems Raising Money After 2016 Loss

The Democratic Party continues to struggle to raise money after its string of losses, as they continue to alienate liberals and progressives, including  the DNC’s recent purge. Politico reports:

The Democratic National Committee is reeling, facing a turnaround that’s proving a much bigger lift than anyone expected as it struggles to raise enough money to cover its basic promises.

Many donors are refusing to write checks. And on-the-ground operatives worry they won’t have the resources to build the infrastructure they need to compete effectively in next year’s midterms and in the run-up to 2020…

“Donors, small and large, are so over the party,” said Nebraska party chair Jane Kleeb, summing up the problem facing DNC chairman Tom Perez and his counterparts in the states. Kleeb, who is working on grass-roots fundraising efforts for the committee, said she believes the money will come eventually.

“Everybody thinks that some magic three-page document and some magic tagline is going to turn everything around for us,” she added. “But this is very typical work.”

…So with 2018’s midterms presenting a clear opportunity for Democrats to leap forward, the worry is that they simply may not be prepared in time. While the House and Senate Democratic campaign arms — and individual candidates — are having no problem raising funds, the comparatively anemic cash flow at the central committee and state branches could affect organizing efforts on the ground across the country.

The Hill described how bleak the picture is:

The Republican National Committee (RNC) outraised the Democratic National Committee (DNC) by more than $6 million last month, according to federal filings.

Recently released numbers show the DNC raised around $4 million during the month of September, while the RNC raised about $10 million.

The data also showed that the RNC has roughly $44 million in cash on hand, while the DNC has roughly $7 million.

The Democrats have been failing for the past decade with their strategy of moving right to be just slightly less crazy than the Republicans. This has alienated voters on the left while failing to attract voters on the right, who will vote for the true Republican Party rather than the Republican-lite Democratic Party.

Even when Bernie Sanders did show the Democrats that he could both bring in new voters and raise money the DNC chose to essentially hand the nomination to someone as unfit to be president as Hillary Clinton. This cost the Democrats both the White House and an excellent chance at winning the Senate, as many people voted for Republicans down ticket in response to the conventional wisdom that Clinton would be the next president.

The Democratic Party needs to open themselves up to liberal and progressive principles and bring in new leadership. It does not help matters when they make Donna Brazile a member of the rules committee after she cheated in the 2016 primary battle by slipping debate questions to Hillary Clinton, or when Nancy Pelosi says she should remain Speaker of the House because of her gender.

Nancy Pelosi Says She Should Remain Minority Leader Because She Is A Woman

With all of its losses over the last decade it should be clear that the Democratic Party is in need of new leadership at all levels. Nancy Pelosi has a rather weak argument for remaining House minority leader–her gender. AP reports:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Friday she must retain her leadership position in Congress so there is a woman at the table when key decisions are made.

After more than a decade leading House Democrats, Pelosi has faced demands from some lawmakers for leadership changes, particularly after Democrats failed to win back House control last year. A fellow Californian and member of Pelosi’s leadership team, Rep. Linda Sanchez, said earlier this month that it was time for Pelosi and other veteran leaders to step aside and make way for a new generation of party leaders

Pelosi said in an interview on ABC’s “The View” that she was ready to leave had Hillary Clinton become president, putting a woman at the top. But Clinton lost, and so she must remain, Pelosi said, as she recounted a White House dinner last month where she was the only woman at the table.

“And that’s why I have to stay there, to be one of the top women, top people at the table,” said Pelosi, 77, adding that she views one of her mandates as protecting former President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, which she was instrumental in passing as House speaker at the time.

“I was ready to go if Hillary won, have a woman at the top of the table, protecting the Affordable Care Act, which is to me similar to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,” Pelosi said.

Keeping Nancy Pelosi as Minority Leader because she is a woman is fallacious as was nominating Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. People must be judged for their qualifications and record beyond their gender. Would a party leader in any parliamentary system in other countries maintain her position after so many losses?

If female leadership is needed, I can think of another female member of the House to consider–Tulsi Gabbard (although there might be better positions for her than House Minority Leader).

Even Former Clinton Strategist Mark Penn Says That Russia Did Not Win The Election For Donald Trump With Facebook Ads

Clinton and many of her supporters claim that a trivial expenditure by Russia on Facebook ads caused her to lose to Donald Trump. Even her former strategist Mark Penn realizes this is nonsense. Earlier this week Penn wrote an op-ed entitled You Can’t Buy the Presidency for $100,000–Russia didn’t win Trump the White House any more than China re-elected Bill Clinton in 1996. Here is an excerpt:

The fake news about fake news is practically endless. Americans worried about Russia’s influence in the 2016 election have seized on a handful of Facebook ads—as though there weren’t also three 90-minute debates, two televised party conventions, and $2.4 billion spent on last year’s campaign. The danger is that bending facts to fit the Russia story line may nudge Washington into needlessly and recklessly regulating the internet and curtailing basic freedoms.

After an extensive review, Facebook has identified $100,000 of ads that came from accounts associated with Russia. Assume for the sake of argument that Vladimir Putin personally authorized this expenditure. Given its divisive nature, the campaign could be dubbed “From Russia, With Hate”—except it would make for a disappointing James Bond movie.

Analyzing the pattern of expenditures, and doing some back-of-the-envelope math, it’s clear this was no devilishly effective plot. Facebook says 56% of the ads ran after the election, reducing the tally that could have influenced the result to about $44,000. It also turns out the ads were not confined to swing states but also shown in places like New York, California and Texas. Supposing half the ads went to swing states brings the total down to $22,000.

Facebook also counted ads as early as June 2015. Assuming they were evenly spread and we want only those that ran the year of the election, that knocks it down to $13,000. Most of the ads did not solicit support for a candidate and carried messages on issues like racism, immigration and guns. The actual electioneering then amounts to about $6,500.
Now look at the bigger picture. Every day, Americans see hundreds of ads on TV and radio, in newspapers and magazines, on billboards and smartphones. North Americans post to Facebook something like a billion times a day, and during the election many of those messages were about politics. Facebook typically runs about $40 million worth of advertising a day in North America.

Then consider the scale of American presidential elections. Hillary Clinton’s total campaign budget, including associated committees, was $1.4 billion. Mr. Trump and his allies had about $1 billion. Even a full $100,000 of Russian ads would have erased just 0.025% of Hillary’s financial advantage. In the last week of the campaign alone, Mrs. Clinton’s super PAC dumped $6 million in ads into Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

I have 40 years of experience in politics, and this Russian ad buy, mostly after the election anyway, simply does not add up to a carefully targeted campaign to move voters. It takes tens of millions of dollars to deliver meaningful messages to the contested portion of the electorate. Converting someone who voted for the other party last time is an enormously difficult task. Swing voters in states like Ohio or Florida are typically barraged with 50% or more of a campaign’s budget. Try watching TV in those states the week before an election and you will see how jammed the airwaves are.

Considering how absurd the claims are, it is not surprising that, as BuzzFeed News reports, many employees at Facebook feel like they are the victim. Much of the article also plays into the hysteria being spread, but it also points out that:

those with knowledge of Facebook’s ad system say that there’s a solid case to be made that the disclosed Russian ad spend — and even the reported millions of impressions those ads received — pales in comparison to the billions spent by political groups in the run-up to 2016 on Facebook’s ad platform and the hundreds of millions of impressions that the platform delivers daily on all types of paid and unpaid content. Basically: Facebook’s unprecedented scale, when applied to the Russian ads, renders the scandal’s impact far less consequential than news reports would suggest.

The article also notes the problem mentioned by Penn of curtailing basic freedoms on the internet.  I also discussed recently that concern over spreading “fake news” can result in suppression of legitimate discussion. Buzzfeed wrote:

Sources familiar with recent discussions inside Facebook told BuzzFeed News there’s some concern that the strong reaction to 2016 election meddling and the desire for fast reform could push the company to assume a greater role in determining what is or isn’t legitimate news…

Facebook, too, has long been concerned about assuming any sort of media watchdog role and the company’s objection usually takes the form — as it did last week in an interview with Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg — of its well-worn argument that Facebook is a technology company, not a media company. “We hire engineers. We don’t hire reporters. No one is a journalist. We don’t cover the news,” Sandberg told Axios’s Mike Allen.

Antonio Garcia Martinez, a former Facebook employee who helped lead the company’s early ad platform, worries that the momentum to correct for what happened during the 2016 election will push Facebook a step too far. “Everyone fears Facebook’s power, and as a result, they’re asking them to assume more power in form of human curation and editorial decision-making,” he said. “I worry that two or three years from now we’re all going to deeply regret we asked for this.”

Freedom can be messy, including people spreading fake news, and even people from Russia posting on the internet. The alternative to freedom is far worse, including the restrictions on expression by Americans on Facebook which we are already experiencing.

Democratic Party Purges Progressives And Makes Lobbyists Superdelegates

The Democratic Party is further demonstrating that the do not represent the left, and have no serious interest in doing so. NBC News reported on the purge of progressives by the DNC:

A shake-up is underway at the Democratic National Committee as several key longtime officials have lost their posts, exposing a still-raw rift in the party and igniting anger among those in its progressive wing who see retaliation for their opposition to DNC Chairman Tom Perez.

The ousters come ahead of the DNC’s first meeting, in Las Vegas, Nevada, since Perez took over as chairman with a pledge this year to unite a party that had become badly divided during the brutal Bernie Sanders-Hillary Clinton 2016 primary race.

Complaints began immediately after party officials saw a list of Perez’s appointments to DNC committees and his roster of 75 “at-large” members, who are chosen by the chair.

The removal and demotion of a handful of veteran operatives stood out, as did what critics charge is the over-representation of Clinton-backed members on the Rules and Bylaws Committee, which helps set the terms for the party’s presidential primary, though other Sanders and Ellison backers remain represented.

Those who have been pushed out include:

Ray Buckley, the New Hampshire Democratic chairman and longtime DNC official who ran against Perez for chair before backing Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn. Buckley lost his spots on the Executive Committee and DNC Rules Committee.

James Zogby, the president of the Arab American Institute and prominent Sanders backer, is no longer co-chair of the Resolutions Committee and is off the Executive Committee, a spot he has held since 2001.

Alice Germond, the party’s longtime former secretary and a vocal Ellison backer, who was removed from her at-large appointment to the DNC.

Barbra Casbar Siperstein, who supported Ellison and Buckley, was tossed from the Executive Committee.

If the Democratic Party is to be taken seriously by the left it also must end the policies designed to determine their nominees, including superdelegates, front loading southern states, and making rules changes to benefit their preferred candidate–as they did in 2016 to essentially rig the nomination for Hillary Clinton.

The rigging of the Democratic nomination for Hillary Clinton was also exposed in the email released by Wikileaks, with Clinton recently launching an attack with bogus charges against Wikileaks which were debunked per a post yesterday.

Rather than eliminating superdelegates, as some Democrats have called for, they have made matters worse. Bloomberg reports that the Democrats plan to name lobbyists as superdelegates, confirming many of the charges against the party from the left:

The Democratic Party this week plans to name 75 people including lobbyists and political operatives to leadership posts that come with superdelegate votes at its next presidential convention, potentially aggravating old intraparty tensions as it struggles to confront President Donald Trump.

 The new members-at-large of the Democratic National Committee will vote on party rules and in 2020 will be convention delegates free to vote for a primary candidate of their choice. They include lobbyists for Venezuela’s national petroleum company and for the parent company of Fox News, according to a list obtained by Bloomberg News. At least three of the people worked for either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders in 2016 while also casting ballots as superdelegates.

This is exactly the wrong thing to do to give the left any confidence that the party will have a fair nominating process in the future. It also provides further evidence for the criticism that the Democratic Party is indebted to corporate money and is unlikely to behave all that differently from the Republicans.

Much of this is probably motivated by the desire of party insiders to maintain the status quo and their own power. This is also probably also partially motivated by misguided ideas as to how to compete with the Republicans, despite having repeatedly lost elections over the past decade by turning into a Republican-lite party and refusing to stand up for principle.

Of course the Republicans also remain open to charges of hypocrisy and political cowardice as many of them remain silent about the actions of Donald Trump. Matt Bai discussed how Republicans remain silent while “Donald Trump’s presidency imperils the future of his party” in a column today which is also critical of the Democrats.

Voters for neither party are really served by the leadership and insiders in their party who are more concerned with keeping their jobs than serving the voters.

Debunking Misinformation From Hillary Clinton On Wikileaks & The Mainstream Media On Russia

Much of the talk about “fake news” misses the fact that two of the most prominent sources of false information these days are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Despite the belief of seventy-six percent of Republicans (and forty-six percent of the entire sample polled) that the media fabricates stories about Donald Trump, most of what the media publishes about him is generally true, while much of what he says is not. Hillary Clinton might not lie as much as Donald Trump (nobody does), but she has also been frequently caught lying, including repeating the same lies after exposed. The latest fact checking of Clinton worth noting came from Caitlin Johnstone fact checking Hillary Clinton’s recent attack on Wikileaks.

I would recommend reading Caitlin’s entire post as it is extensively documented with links, including from major media sources. She debunked the following lies from Clinton:

  • Lie 1: Claims WikiLeaks never publishes anything about Russia

  • Lie 2: Podesta leaks were timed to eclipse the Access Hollywood “grab them by the pussy” October surprise.

  • Lie 3: Implying that there was nothing incriminating in the Democratic party emails that WikiLeaks published.

  • Lie 4: Julian Assange is “a tool of Russian intelligence” who “does the bidding of a dictator.”

  • Lie 5: Claiming WikiLeaks helped spread lies and is therefore not protected by the First Amendment.

We expect Clinton to lie about Wiklleaks because lying about those who present evidence against her is what Hillary Clinton has done throughout her career. The fifth is the most disturbing as Clinton, who has a terrible history on First Amendment issues, is once again supporting censorship against those who criticize her or express dissent.

While Trump and Clinton are huge distributors of false information, I do not mean to suggest that the media is perfect. While I oppose the attacks on the First Amendment and attempts by Trump and Clinton to censor the media, the media does make mistakes. One has been to fall for Clinton’s fabricated claims blaming Russia for her loss and the other hysteria about Russia being spread. Glenn Greenwald and Tucker Carlson, who generally do not agree on much, discussed how the media is falling for a number of unsubstantiated claims on Carlson’s show last night. Following is an excerpt, with more here:

CARLSON: So, you and I don’t agree on a lot of issues but I think we share the same concern about this story, and that is that American journalists are being manipulated for whatever reason by the intelligence community in the United States, and I’m wondering why after years of having this happen to American journalists, they are allowing this to happen again.

GREENWALD: Well, that’s the thing I would refrain that a little bit. I don’t actually think so much that journalists are the victims in the sense of that formulation that they’re being manipulated. I think at best what you can say for them is they are willingly and eagerly being manipulated.

Because what you see is over and over they publish really inflammatory stories that turn out to be totally false and what happens in those cases? Nothing. They get enormous benefits when they publish recklessly. They get applause on social media from their peers, they get zillions of re-
tweets, huge amounts of traffic, they end up on TV. They get applauded across the spectrum because people are so giddy and eager to hear more about this Russia and Trump story.

And when their stories get completely debunked, it just kind of, everybody agrees to ignore it and everyone moves on and they pay no price. At the same time, they are feeling and pleasing their sources by publishing these sources that their sources want them to publish. And so, there is huge amounts of career benefits and reputational benefits and very little cost when they publish stories that end up being debunked because the narrative they are serving is a popular one, at least within their peer circles.

CARLSON: Gosh! That is so dishonest. I mean, I think all of us and journalism have gotten things wrong, I certainly have. If you feel bad about it, I mean, you really do and there’s a consequence. Do you really think there’s that level of dishonesty in the American press?

GREENWALD: I think what it is more than dishonesty is a really warped incentive scheme bolstered by this very severe groupthink that social media is fostering in ways that we don’t yet fully understand.

CARLSON: Yes.

GREENWALD: Most journalists these days are in Congressional Committees or at zoning board meetings or using — they’re sitting on Twitter talking to one another and this produces this extreme groupthink where these orthodoxies arise in deviating from them or questioning them or challenging, believe me, results in all kinds of recrimination and scorn. And embracing them produces this sort of in group mentality where you are rewarded, and I think a lot of it is about that kind of behavior.

New FBI Information Released On Russian Bribes In Uranium Deal

There’s another major news story today regarding a 2016 candidate colluding with Russia, except this time it is Hillary Clinton and not Donald Trump. The Hill reports:

Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.

Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.

The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.

Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.

The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.

While the American public was left in the dark about these specifics, there have been many reports (such as this one at The New York Times) regarding a Uranium deal and payments to the Clinton Foundation. While there is no documentary evidence of a quid pro quo between Clinton and the Russians (possibly due to to Clinton having destroyed half of her emails from when she was Secretary of State in violation of the laws in effect in 2009), there have been multiple such episodes in which the Clinton have been found to have unethically received payments from parties with decisions before the State Department. This included both donations to the Clinton Foundation and unprecedented payments for speeches to Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton also ignored the ethics agreement she entered into before being confirmed as Secretary of State to disclose such contributions.

Once again we see how little difference there really is between Donald Trump and the Clintons.

FCC Chairman Stands Up To Trump’s Attack On First Amendment

Donald Trump has threatened to revoke the licences of broadcasters which broadcast “fake news,” which often amounts to information which is unfavorable about Trump. While this received considerable condemnation, it was also widely seen as an empty threat. The president does not have the authority to revoke licenses, and the broadcast licenses are held by individual stations, not the networks. The FCC technically does have the authority to revoke licenses from stations. Fortunately FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who was appointed by Donald Trump,  has sided with the First Amendment over Trump. Politico reports:

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai on Tuesday defended the First Amendment and said his agency can’t revoke the license of a broadcaster based on its content, six days after President Donald Trump threatened to pull the licenses of TV networks he dislikes.

“I believe in the First Amendment,” Pai said at a telecom law event in Washington, without mentioning Trump by name. “The FCC under my leadership will stand for the First Amendment, and under the law the FCC does not have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on content of a particular newscast.”

Trump last week lashed out at an NBC News report that he had sought a tenfold increase in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, calling it “pure fiction” and suggesting broadcasters’ licenses should be challenged when they put out “fake news.”

…Asked if there’s a role for the FCC in deciding what is “fake news” and doing something about it, Pai answered, “Traditionally that has not been within the FCC’s jurisdiction,” adding, “I’m a lawyer by training, of course. I tend to hew as closely as I can to the terms of the Communications Act and of course to other applicable legal principles, and so that’s the standard that we adopt, at least, going forward.”

I am not sure why it took Pai almost a week to stand up for the First Amendment, but glad that he ultimately did so.

Claims of “fake news” have increasingly been used to advocate censorship with both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton having called for some form of government action against “fake news.” Of course the First Amendment has no exception for “fake news” and it would be very dangerous for government to determine which news is fake. This is especially the case when both Trump and Clinton appear to consider information critical of them to be fake, regardless of the validity, along with other information spread which is more clearly untrue.

Claims of “fake news” and other hysteria over alleged Russian meddling in the election has also resulted in suppression of the expression of political opinion on Facebook as I discussed yesterday.

Latest Russian Hysteria Says That Russian Trolls Studied House Of Cards

There is yet another article spreading hysteria about Russia which is at least slightly less silly than the recent warnings about the Russians using unknown rappers, puppies, and Pokémon Go. The latest warning is that Russians were using lessons they learned from watching House of Cards.

A central theme of this messaging was demonizing Hillary Clinton by playing up the past scandals of her husband’s administration, her wealth and her use of a private email server, according to the interview with the agency worker, identified only as “Maksim,” with his face concealed.

“Maksim” says he worked for the agency during 2015, the year before the election, when it was already focusing its attention on Clinton.

“The main message is: Are not you, my American brothers, tired of the Clintons? How many have they already been?” Maksim says, adding that he and his colleagues were told to emphasize the Clintons’ past “corruption scandals.”

But more broadly, the instructions given to employees of the English language department were to stoke discontent about the U.S. government and the Obama administration in particular. “We had a goal to set up the Americans against their own government,” he says. “To cause unrest, cause discontent [and] lower [President] Obama’s rating.”

Just how effective “comments” placed on the websites of American news organizations are in influencing public opinion, if they do anything at all, is far from clear. Still, the interview is potentially significant. Although other Russian language trolls who worked in the agency’s domestic departments have spoken out in the past, Maksim appears to be the first member of the highly selective English language section to describe the agency’s meticulous methods. This is the same department that Facebook has said covertly placed over 3,000 messages on its platform — one component in the Russian “influence campaign” during last year’s election that is getting increased attention from the House and Senate intelligence committees.

These scare stories almost always contain a disclaimer, such as this one saying that the effectiveness is “far from clear.” Realistically there is so much material out there from US sources alone on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that adding comments to websites is hardly likely to have any impact on public opinion.

Has anyone ever changed their opinion based upon comments on news organization web sites?

Clinton was hurt during 2016 both because she deserved to be hurt from her scandals, and as she kept these scandals alive by repeatedly lying about them. The Russians did not make Clinton use the private server and lie about it, or make her violate the ethics agreements she entered into before becoming confirmed as Secretary of State.

One sign that factors other than Russian actions affected approval of politicians is that while Clinton’s approval fell (and has continued to fall even after the election), Obama’s popularity increased.

As for using House of Cards, it is not necessary for the Russians to draw the comparison. Series creator Lord Dobbs said back in 2015 that Claire Underwood was based upon Hillary Clinton, and many people have seen the comparisons to the Clintons without needing  Russians to point it out. I also wonder what warped views anyone learning about American politics would have from watching House of Cards, making them more difficult to persuade others in web comments.

Hillary Clinton’s Double Standard On Sexual Harassment

To Hillary Clinton and her apologists, bad things are only bad if done by Republicans, or sometimes other people if the case is strong enough, but are not bad when they do them. We have seen this double standard for years in the acceptance of Clinton’s policies and her unethical conduct in public office. We are seeing another example with the fall of Harvey Weinstein. Hillary Clinton has tried to deflect from the actions of a supporter like Weinstein by comparing his actions to Donald Trump’s. While this is certainly valid, Clinton’s double standard was seen when Bill was mentioned during an interview with the BBC’s Andrew Marr. From the interview (with video below):

HILLARY CLINTON: I was shocked and appalled because I’ve known him through politics, as many Democrats have, he’s been a supporter.

ANDREW MARR, BBC: A funder.

CLINTON: He’s been a funder. For all of us. You know, for Obama, for me, for people who have run for, you know, office in the United States.

So, it was just disgusting and the stories that have come out are just heartbreaking. And I really commend the women who have been willing to step forward now and tell their stories.

But I think it’s important that we not just focus on him and whatever consequences flow from these stories about his behavior but that we recognize that this kind of behavior cannot be tolerated anywhere, whether it’s in entertainment, politics. After all, we have someone admitting to be a sexual assaulter in the Oval Office. There has to be a recognition that we must stand against this kind of action that is so sexist and misogynistic.

MARR: And this depends on women coming forward and the courage to come forward. And yet in your book the three women, brought onto the stage by Trump, attacking your husband and you kind of dismissed them. Was that the right thing to do, are you sure about that?

CLINTON: Well, yes, because that had all been litigated. That was the subject of a huge investigation as you might recall in the late ’90s and there were conclusions drawn and that was clearly in the past. But it is something that has to be taken seriously — as I say for everyone, not just for those in entertainment right now.

Sorry Hillary. If it is valid to bring Donald Trump into the discussion of sexual harassment after Harvey Weinstein’s fall (as you did) then it is also valid to bring Bill Clinton into the discussion (which you falsely claim is not valid as it happened in the past).

It is also rather sad that many Democrats will justify Bill’s actions (as quickly occurred when I first commented on this on Facebook). While Clinton’s hypocritical response is being criticized by some on the right such as Fox and Michelle Malkin (who admittedly would also attack her even if she had not said something wrong), many Democrats will look the other way. (Sometimes sources on the left do hold both Donald Trump and Bill Clinton to the same standard. Back in November, CounterPunch posted that  At Least 40 Women Have Accused Bill Clinton or Donald Trump of Sexual Assault. Vox has also looked into one of the accusations of rape by Bill Clinton volunteer Juanita Broaddrick against Clinton.)

Of course the Clinton double standard extends far beyond Bill’s behavior. Hillary Clinton described the email practices under Bush as shredding the Constitution, and then she went further in violating the law.  Many Democrats will criticize every unethical action under Republican administrations while ignoring how Clinton ignored the ethics agreements she entered into before being confirmed as Secretary of State. Many Democrats who attacked the Iraq war ignore Clinton’s history of lying to promote foreign interventionism. Many Democrats who protested violations of civil liberties under Bush totally ignore Hillary Clinton’s far right wing record on First Amendment issues. Many Democrats who opposed the infringements on separation of church and state by Republicans have ignored Clinton’s support for an increased role for religion in public policy.

Donald Trump Meets With The President Of The Virgin Islands & Other Briefs

Donald Trump is talking about having met with the President of the Virgin Islands (who technically would be himself). He says that tomorrow he will meet with the Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces. He has also suggested that Mike Pence schedule a meeting with the President of the Senate. This is the guy who was boasting about his IQ earlier in the week.

Columbia is talking about hiring Hillary Clinton to be a professor. Can they afford her speaking fees? Do university’s have any form of ethics agreements before hiring someone? If so, they should know that she totally ignored the ethics agreement she entered into before taking her last job as Secretary of State.

Question of the Day: Which organization is more wracked in scandal and chaos: The Weinstein Co. or the Trump White House?

It makes perfect sense that Bernie Sanders was picked instead of Hillary Clinton to speak at the Women’s Convention. Unlike Clinton, Sanders has not promoted bombing of women around the world, has not defended the use of cluster bombs where women live, and has not backed taking welfare benefits away from women.

Eighteen states are suing the Trump administration over stopping the ObamaCare subsidies. The Pottery Barn Rule should now take effect with regards to Donald Trump and the Affordable Care Act–You Break It, You Own It.

I’ve been saying all along that the real Russia story is about the money, not altering the 2016 election results. NBC News is reporting that Paul Manafort had a $60 million relationship with a Russian oligarch.

Quote of the Day: “For the last 24 hours, Donald Trump has been the president of busy town. This morning, he signed an executive order to get rid of some key provisions of Obamacare. For instance, the care part.” –Stephen Colbert