The Nation Gives Rare Endorsement To Sanders As He Surges In The Polls

Bernie Sanders Endorsement The Nation

On top of the favorable news for Sanders we have already seen this week, yet another poll shows that Clinton has lost most of her lead over Sanders. The Des Moines Register/Bloomberg poll found that Clinton’s lead is down to two points, within the margin of error. Other polls this week have showed the race close, with Sanders leading in some. There has been a similar tightening in the national polls and Sanders maintains his lead in New Hampshire. While either candidate can still win, this is feeling increasingly like 2008.

In addition, Sanders received a rare endorsement from The Nation. The last time they endorsed a candidate in a primary battle was in 2008 when they endorsed Obama over Clinton. The full editorial includes praise for Sanders and a comparison of their economic views,  but the most important considerations are the warnings they give about Clinton’s record and their differences on foreign policy:

the limits of a Clinton presidency are clear. Her talk of seeking common ground with Republicans and making deals to “get things done” in Washington will not bring the change that is so desperately needed. Clinton has not ruled out raising the Social Security retirement age, and her plan falls short of increasing benefits for all. She rejects single-payer healthcare and refuses to consider breaking up the big banks. We also fear that she might accept a budgetary “grand bargain” with the Republicans that would lock in austerity for decades to come.

On foreign policy, Clinton is certainly seasoned, but her experience hasn’t prevented her from getting things wrong. Clinton now says that her 2002 vote to authorize George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a mistake, but she apparently learned little from it. Clinton was a leading advocate for overthrowing Moammar El-Gadhafi in Libya, leaving behind a failed state that provides ISIS with an alternative base. She supported calls for the United States to help oust Bashar al-Assad in Syria, an approach that has added fuel to a horrific civil war. She now advocates a confrontation with Russia in Syria by calling for a no-fly zone. Her support for President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran was marred by an explicit rejection of better relations with that country and bellicose pledges to provide Israel with more arms. If elected, Clinton will be another “war president” at a time when America desperately needs peace.

Sanders’s approach is different and better. The senator hasn’t talked as much as we would like about global challenges and opportunities, and we urge him to focus more on foreign policy. But what he has said (and done) inspires confidence. An opponent of the Iraq War from the start, he criticizes the notion of “regime change” and the presumption that America alone must police the world. He rejects a new Cold War with Russia. He supports the nuclear-weapons agreement with Iran, and he would devote new energy to dismantling nuclear arsenals and pursuing nonproliferation. He has long been an advocate for normalizing relations with Cuba and for reviving a good-neighbor policy in the hemisphere. Sanders’s foreign policy would also create conditions for rebuilding a broadly shared prosperity at home. He would lead an international effort to end the crippling austerity that threatens to create another global recession, and he would champion a green New Deal to combat climate change. And as a leader of the opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, he would undo the corporate-defined trade regime that has devastated America’s middle class.

Critics of Bernie Sanders dismiss him as an idealist (he is!) on a quixotic crusade. Meanwhile, the corporate media has paid shamefully little attention to his campaign’s achievements, instead lavishing attention on the latest outrageous pronouncements by Donald Trump and the Republican candidates struggling to compete with him. Nonetheless, polls show that Sanders—even as he still introduces himself to many voters—is well poised to take on the eventual GOP nominee, frequently doing better than Clinton in these matchups. Moreover, in contrast to the modest audiences at Clinton’s campaign stops, the huge crowds at Sanders’s grassroots rallies indicate that he’ll be able to boost turnout in November.

Whether his candidacy, and the inspired campaign it fuels, will spark a “political revolution” sufficient to win the Democratic nomination and the White House this year remains to be seen. We do know that his run has already created the space for a more powerful progressive movement and demonstrated that a different kind of politics is possible. This is a revolution that should live on, no matter who wins the nomination.

Bernie Sanders and his supporters are bending the arc of history toward justice. Theirs is an insurgency, a possibility, and a dream that we proudly endorse.

 

Clinton Shows Desperation With Dishonest Attacks Against Sanders On Health Care & Guns

Clinton Attacks Sanders

A common characteristic of a Hillary Clinton campaign is to distort the views of her opponent and lie about the facts as opposed to engaging in an honest exchange of ideas. We saw this when she ran against Barack Obama eight years ago, and have repeatedly seen this in the past several months. She appears to have stepped up her smear campaign now that she is losing her lead in the polls.

Democracy For America has also issued a response to what they refer to as Clinton’s “bald-faced lies” on Sanders’s gun record and “right-wing attacks” on healthcare. Their response can be found here.

The Clinton campaign has been attacking Sanders with distortions of his views on health care and gun control this week, having Chelsea deliver some of the attacks on health care:

“Sen. Sanders wants to dismantle Obamacare, dismantle the CHIP program, dismantle Medicare, and dismantle private insurance,” she said during a campaign stop in New Hampshire. “I worry if we give Republicans Democratic permission to do that, we’ll go back to an era – before we had the Affordable Care Act – that would strip millions and millions and millions of people off their health insurance.”

This attack, similar to the attacks from Hillary Clinton during the last Democratic Debate, greatly distorts Sanders’ proposal for Medicare For All. Rather than dismantle Medicare, Sanders proposes providing Medicare for everyone as it provides better coverage at a lower cost than any other system we currently have. It would further expand the number of people covered, and not take away health coverage from millions.

The Week also responded to what they call Hillary Clinton’s dirty attack on Bernie Sanders:

Hillary Clinton took aim at Bernie Sanders’ single-payer health care plan on Monday, characterizing it as “turning over your and my health insurance to governors,” specifically naming Republican Terry Branstad. It’s a pretty clear reference to the many conservative states that have refused ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion — implying that Sanders would allow conservative states to opt out of his plan, and hence partially destroy all federal health insurance programs.

This is absolutely false.

After showing how Clinton is lying about Sanders’ plan, the article concluded with what is obviously happening: “In any case, it’s obvious what’s happening here. Clinton has been flagging in the polls of late, and as usual she’s turned to fighting dirty.”

Clinton’s use of such dirty attacks on Sanders’ support for a true universal health care plan is quite a flip-flop considering that in 2008, while also launching dishonest attacks on Obama’s health care plan, Clinton equated any disagreement with her plan with the tactics of Karl Rove. The Sanders campaign issued this response (with the video above):

Hillary Clinton once said it “undermined core Democratic values” and gives “aid and comfort” to the special interests and “their allies in the Republican Party” for Democrats to attack each other’s health care plans. Today, in another flip-flop, she’s doing exactly what she once decried.

In the wake of new polls showing that Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign is gaining ground or leading in the Iowa caucuses, Clinton’s campaign has stepped up attacks on Sanders and his health care proposal. The most recent volley is an attack on Sanders’ plan to create a Medicare-for-all health care system for all Americans.

Clinton’s attacks on a Democratic Party rival over universal health care marks a very public flip flop by her and her campaign. She is now using the same Karl Rove tactics she once decried in this video.

Clinton is also repeating her dishonest attacks on Bernie Sander’s record on guns. She is basing this on votes from several years ago, ignoring the fact that bills have a lot of components and Sanders’ votes based upon some aspects of a bill does not indicate an opposition to gun control.

In reality, Sanders has received a lifetime grade of D- from the NRA (along with at least one F) due to gun control measures which he has supported, including bans on assault weapons, restrictions on concealed weapons, ending the “gun-show loophole,” and expanded background checks, plus opposing shortening waiting periods. Democracy for America has dismissed Clinton’s attacks on Sanders’ gun record by saying “talk like that is so absurdly false it’s almost funny.”

Clinton has also been far to the right of her current position on gun control in the past, such as when she debated Barack Obama in 2008. Clinton has taken multiple positions on gun control over the years, campaigning even further to the right at times in 2008 when she described herself as a “pro-gun churchgoer.” Despite her major flip-flops on guns, Clinton also sent out a dishonest flier attacking Obama on guns, just one way she is repeating the same dishonest tactics employed in her unsuccessful 2008 campaign.

Clinton’s dishonest attacks on Sanders so far appear to be backfiring, as donations to Sanders have increased in response to these attacks, which is not the first time Sanders has raised money off dishonest attacks from the Clinton campaign. Plus opposition to the nomination of Hillary Clinton appears to be getting stronger among liberals. Charles Chamberlain, the Executive Director of Democracy for America, concluded his response to Clinton’s lies on Sanders record with this:

“…regardless of who wins our nomination, the goal of Democrats holding on to the White House in 2016 is being made more difficult every second the Clinton campaign continues to distort the facts on Bernie Sanders’s strong record against gun violence and attack a core progressive idea like universal healthcare.

“Bernie Sanders and any Democrat can beat right-wing attacks when they’re leveled by Republicans, but Democrats taking those same swings only hurts our ability to unite the Democratic coalition we need to win in November.

Update: Clinton’s lead down to two points in Des Moines Register poll (withing margin of error).

More Good News For Sanders As Clinton Gets Desperate (& Dirty)

Clinton Support Iowa

This week Bernie Sanders has continued to improve in the polls, received the endorsement from MoveOn, and favorable comments from Joe Biden, while Hillary Clinton’s campaign has become increasingly dirty. Or perhaps the fact that Sanders is talking about the issues while Clinton is slinging mud is why Sanders is surging in the polls.

The week started with Sanders showing a jump in the polls, including taking a three point lead in Iowa, which I discussed here. Subsequently Public Policy Polling showed Clinton losing six percent of her support and Sanders gaining six percent, but still remaining behind Clinton. Better yet, Quinnipiac showed Sanders leading by five points in Iowa, compared to a Clinton lead of eleven points last month. As Philip Bump wrote, Hillary Clinton’s trend line in Iowa polling should scare her campaign

Sanders is also maintaining his lead in New Hampshire, with the strongest lead coming in a Monmouth University poll showing Sanders ahead by fourteen points, while other polls showed a closer race. Clinton’s support is also dropping in the national polls. As I mentioned in the earlier post, the IBD/TIPP Poll has Clinton’s lead over Sanders nationally at 4 points, down from an eighteen point lead. The New York Times/CBS News Poll shows Clinton’s lead having decreased from twenty points in early December to seven points now. If Sanders should win in Iowa and New Hampshire, most likely he will receive a large bounce in the national polls.

Sanders also picked up the endorsement of MoveOn.org, with the number one reason being, “Bernie’s lifelong commitment to standing up to corporate and 1% interests to fight for an economy where everyone has a fair shot.” Foreign policy was also a strong factor, or as MoveOn put it, “He’ll say no to permanent war.” Clinton’s claims of greater electability also did not fool the members of MoveOn, who backed Sanders with 78.6 percent of the vote. Another reason for the endorsement was, “Electability: This election will hinge on turnout, and Bernie is inspiring and mobilizing the communities it’ll take to win.”

Sanders previously received the endorsement of Democracy for America. The endorsements from these two groups show the strength of Sanders’ support among liberals and in the netroots. Opposition to the policies of George W. Bush previously energized such groups, and therefore it is hardly surprising that such groups would oppose Hillary Clinton, who share’s many of Bush’s views on foreign policy, restrictions on civil liberties, and excessive executive power. This might also be related to the generational divide in the party. While I do not have the age breakdown of these organizations, I suspect that their endorsement is also consistent with the New York Times/CBS News poll showing “primary voters under 45 favoring Mr. Sanders by a roughly 2-to-1 ratio.”

While it would be a surprise if Joe Biden made an endorsement, he has made his disdain for Hillary Clinton clear on several occasions, including when he announced his decision not to run. Biden took another opportunity to praise Sanders and question Clinton’s record earlier this week. From CNN:

Vice President Joe Biden offered effusive praise for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders Monday, lauding Hillary Clinton’s chief rival for doing a “heck of a job” on the campaign trail and praising Sanders for offering an authentic voice on income inequality.

And while Biden said Democrats had a slate of “great candidates” running for president, he suggested Clinton was a newcomer to issues like the growing gap between rich and poor.

Sanders might have also benefited from being in the Senate for Barack Obama’s final State of the Union Address. While flipping through the channels after the debate I saw extended interviews with him on  MSNBC and CNN, and it is possible he also received coverage elsewhere. Besides discussing his economic message, this gave him an opportunity to respond to a dishonest ad on gun control which Clinton released tonight.

As I cautioned in the previous post, the polls can still move quite a bit in each direction over the next few weeks. This does seriously hurt Clinton’s strategy of campaigning based upon inevitability. Instead her campaign has become increasingly desperate, including further distortions of Sanders’ views on guns and further attacks on Sanders’ health care plans from the right, also in a quite dishonest manner. I will discuss this in further detail in a follow-up post.

Sanders Surging In Polls Both In Iowa And Nationally

Sanders Clinton

As she tried, and failed, eight years ago, Hillary Clinton has been running a campaign based upon inevitability. There’s no need to pay any attention to the young/old guy running against her as there was no chance she would lose. Just look at her big lead in the polls. Except now that lead has dwindled away.

The first sign of bad news for Clinton came over the weekend with the NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist College poll showing Clinton only slightly ahead in Iowa and Sanders holding a slight lead in New Hampshire. This led to headlines this morning such as Bernie Sanders In Striking Distance.

As Iowa is a caucus and not a primary, I also wonder what would happen with Martin O’Malley’s supporters as, assuming this poll result holds, he would not have enough support to meet the fifteen percent threshold. His supporters would have to go to their second choice. If a majority of his supporters go to Sanders, this could be enough to give Sanders the victory.

Or maybe he won’t need to pick up O’Malley’s support. An American Research Group poll has Sanders leading Clinton 47 percent to 44 percent. He also leads in New Hampshire by the same margin.

Previously I though that Clinton would maintain her lead in the national polls until the Iowa or New Hampshire votes and then Sanders would start moving up nationally if he won there. He might not even need to wait for this. The IBD/TIPP Poll has Clinton’s lead over Sanders nationally at 4 points, down from an eighteen point lead.

The IBD/TIPP Poll shows that regionally, Clinton saw her support drop most in the Northeast (where it fell to 36% from 50%) and the West (37% down from 49%). Sanders now holds the lead in both places. Clinton support also tumbled among suburban voters, dropping to 39% from last a month’s 50%. And she has lost backing among moderate Democrats, falling to 44% from 58%. Sanders picked up 10 points among moderates, to 37%.

Polls before primaries have a poor track record of predicting the winner, and the final results could be quite different from what we are seeing today. I also wouldn’t be surprised to see both candidates moving up and down in the polls over the next few weeks.

What this does show is that the this is a race either candidate can win, and a Clinton victory is not inevitable. The growing number of polls which show Sanders doing better than Clinton in head to head match-ups against Republicans further undermines Clinton’s argument.

Donald Trump Flip Flops On Neo-Nazis (Now Likes Pat Buchanan)

Trump Buchanan

Many pundits have compared Donald Trump’s campaign to that of Patrick Buchanan in 1992, including both in the mainstream media and in this analysis at National Review. Xenophobia has been prominent in both campaigns. Donald Trump previously criticized Buchanan’s views, even saying, “Clearly he has a love affair with Adolf Hitler, and that’s sick.” Now Buzzfeed reports that Donald Trump Praises Man He Once Called A Neo-Nazi.

Buzzfeed cited a tweet from Trump saying, “Pat Buchanan gave a fantastic interview this morning on @CNN – way to go Pat, way ahead of your time!”

Further examples of Trump flip-flopping were described:

Trump wrote in his 2000 campaign book The America We Deserve, “Pat Buchanan has been guilty of many egregious examples of intolerance. He has systematically bashed Blacks, Mexicans, and Gays.”

Trump, oddly enough, said Buchanan had said too many outrageous things to be president.

“Simply put, Pat Buchanan has written too many inflammatory, outrageous, and controversial things to ever be elected president,” wrote Trump in his book.

As previously noted by BuzzFeed News, Buchanan’s 2000 platform was identical to Trump’s in a number of ways. Buchanan was a protectionist on trade, used harsh rhetoric on immigration, wanted to limit donor influence in politics, and spoke loudly against Washington corruption.

On CNN on Saturday, Buchanan praised Trump saying, “Trump has raised the very issues I raised in the early nineties..”

In one Los Angeles Timesop-ed titled “Buchanan Is Too Wrong to Correct,” The Donald said that Buchanan was a very dangerous man” saying on “slow days, he attacks gays, immigrants, welfare recipients, even Zulus.”

And, speaking with The Advocate in 1999, Trump called Buchanan’s past works “disgusting.”

“I used to like Pat,” said Trump in the interview. “I was on Crossfire with him. I thought he was a nice guy. Then I read the things he had written about Hitler, Jews, blacks, gays, and Mexicans. I mean, I think it’s disgusting. That speech he made at the ‘92 Republican convention was a disaster. He wants to divide Americans. Clearly, he has a love affair with Adolf Hitler, and that’s sick. Buchanan actually said gay people had chosen ‘satan[ism] and suicide’ Now he says he welcomes gay people into his campaign. The guy is a hypocrite.”

As scary as it is to contemplate, a Trump victory is not impossible. He is clearly basing his message at this point in the campaign on attracting a segment of the Republican base which he believes could give him a victory for the nomination. There is no doubt that he will change his message for the general election, and many voters have a short enough attention span to allow a showman like Trump to get away with it. Two recent polls, here and here, also show that Trump could beat Clinton. Another recent poll shows both Clinton and Sanders beating Trump, with Sanders winning by a bigger margin. Sanders was not polled against Trump in the two more recent studies.

Jim Webb and Gary Johnson Taking Steps Towards Independent Runs For The Presidency

Jim Webb

Jim Webb continues to talk about an independent run for the presidency, and has now hired former Draft Biden finance director Sam Jones to handle fund raising should he decide to run.

It is doubtful that such a third party candidacy will receive any meaningful support nationally, but The Washington Post notes that “polling suggests he could have a significant effect on the race in his home state of Virginia, taking between 13 and 19 percent of the vote from the two major candidates.”

Should Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination there we will have a situation where the Democratic candidate is at least as hawkish, and very likely more hawkish, than the Republican candidate–and we have seen how the Republicans cannot be trusted on foreign policy.

Webb would be preferable to Clinton or any likely Republican candidate on foreign policy, having disagreed with Clinton on her support for both the Iraq war while in the Senate and her push for regime change in Libya as Secretary of State. Both of these policies supported by Clinton have resulted in disasters. While Donald Trump also has a better track record than Clinton regarding regime change, he has far too many other negatives to be seriously considered as commander in chief.

Having Webb in the race could theoretically provide a counter to the likely neocon policies of both Clinton, should she defeat Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination, and most Republican candidates, Webb is otherwise too conservative to provide a meaningful choice. As any vote for a third party would amount to only a protest vote, other possibilities look far more intriguing. At this time, should I make a protest vote (which is easier not living in a battle ground state), I lean towards Jill Stein of the Green Party.

Gary Johnson, who also ran in 2012, has also announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Party nomination. Considering that Clinton’s record on civil liberties is also extremely conservative, I might also consider him as a protest vote should Clinton win the Democratic nomination. Entrepreneur Austin Petersen and cybersecurity expert John McAfee have also announced candidacies for the Libertarian Party nomination. Jesse Ventura has also expressed interest, which might make the race even more interesting.

Sanders Comes Close To Clinton In Fund Raising For Second Consecutive Quarter Despite Depending On Small Donors

Sanders Contributions

Bernie Sanders has raised over $33 million dollars in the fourth quarter, nearly matching Clinton’s reported contributions of $37 million, without the big money donors she has. While Clinton got off to an earlier start in 2015, Sanders has come close to her in the past two quarters. The Washington Post reports:

Sanders’s fundraising, which continues to be fueled largely by small online donations, ensures that he will be in a position to compete, however, with the party’s front-runner through the first several nominating contests, which begin next month in Iowa and New Hampshire…

Aides to Sanders touted a figure showing that 99.9 percent of Sanders’s financial supporters have given less than the legal maximum of $2,700, meaning they can be tapped again if Sanders performs strongly in the early caucuses and primaries. To date, they said, more than 1 million people have given to the campaign of the self-described democratic socialist, who was initially written off as a fringe candidate when he entered the race.

“What we are showing is that we can run a strong, national campaign without a super PAC and without depending on millionaires and billionaires for their support,” said Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver. “We are making history, and we are proud of it.”

Sanders entered the new year with $28.4 million in the bank for his primary campaign, compared to the nearly $38 million the Clinton campaign said it had on hand as of Dec. 31…

Aides said Sanders has built a stable of 1 million donors more quickly than any other White House candidate. In 2008, Barack Obama did not report receiving a contribution from his one millionth donor until Feb. 27 of the election year, they said.

CNN added information on how Sanders has spent the money he has raised:

The final quarter of 2015 also saw Sanders dramatically increase his spending. According to aides, the campaign ended 2015 with $28.4 million cash on hand. That is only $2 million more than the $26.2 million the campaign had in the bank at the end of the third quarter of 2015, meaning Sanders’ operation spent the bulk of what they raised in the fourth quarter.

Much of that spending, according to aides, was focused on building infrastructure in early primary states, including deploying organizers to South Carolina and Nevada, and building the campaign’s already existing organization in Iowa and New Hampshire.

For the year, Sanders’ campaign spent 61% of the money it brought in.

As in the third quarter, when Sanders finished slightly behind Clinton in fund raising, Sanders raised his money primarily from small donations. I don’t have specifics yet for this quarter, but in the third quarter 17.6 percent of Clinton’s donations were from small donors compared to 76.7 percent for Sanders. This could pay off if the nomination battle continues into the spring as Sanders supporters can continue to contribute while far more of Clinton’s contributors have reached the maximum. This might not actually hurt Clinton considering the unprecedented (and possibly illegal) degree to which she coordinates with her super PAC.

The unprecedented number of individuals donating towards the Sanders campaign demonstrates a commitment towards changing the status quo, as opposed to continuing the politics of Hillary Clinton and her Republican opponents. This hopefully indicates that many more new voters will also turn out in the caucuses and primaries than the pollsters are predicting.

Many polls use screens such as having participated in the last two votes to determine whether someone is a likely voter, excluding many Sanders supporters, especially those not old enough to vote eight years ago. This is just one of several reasons why polls of primary races quite often differ substantially from the actual result. On the one hand, Sanders is behind Clinton in the polls for the nomination (while often out-performing her in general election match-ups against Republicans). On the other hand, Sanders is in a position quite similar to the one Obama was in heading into the Iowa caucus. He does face greater challenges in some respects compared to Obama, but Clinton also has even more baggage to defend now than eight years ago, including scandals, the hawkish positions she has taken both as Secretary of State and during the campaign, and her attacks on Sanders from the right on domestic policy.

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

Trump Is Disgusting, And Other Bad News For Donald

Iowa voters might not like how the Rose Bowl game is going, and Donald Trump probably does not like this message  which was written in the sky over the Rose Parade: “America is great. Trump is disgusting. Anybody but Trump.” This was paid for by a donor for Marco Rubio, who says there’s more to come.

While none of this will necessarily impact the Republican nomination, this isn’t the only bad news for Trump. Buzzfeed reports that the co-writer of Trumps’s 2000 campaign book will not vote for him:

The co-author of Donald Trump’s 2000 campaign book says the Republican front-runner is a “no class” person whose political beliefs are difficult to pin down…

When asked if he would vote for Trump, Shiflett said no.

“I’ll tell you what really bugs me about him, where it really ripped it with me and Trump was the stuff he said about McCain,” he said. “McCain suffered severely and I had a son who did two tours in Middle East during the last war and we had kids from here who went over there and some of them got hurt. They ain’t gonna be the same.”

“That’s gonna come back to haunt him. For a guy who never served, to say something like that is just..,” he continued.

Asked about Trump calling people losers, Shiflett said, “It’s just no class, what it boils down to. What’s the point of doing that? He doesn’t have to do that.”

He also pointed out how progressive Trump’s past political beliefs were.

Trump mistakingly blames Barack Obama for one of his problems:

Donald J. Trump appears to be more concerned about the quality of his hair than the quality of the air.

Mr. Trump has offered little in the way of an environmental policy during his presidential campaign, but on Wednesday he said that President Obama’s concerns about the environment were infringing on his rights as a consumer. More pressing than saving the ozone layer, he suggested, was the freedom to buy aerosol hairspray.

“You can’t use hairspray because hairspray is going to affect the ozone,” Mr. Trump said during a rally in South Carolina. “They don’t want me to use hairspray, they want me to use the pump.”

Trump is as mistaken in this attack on Obama as in many of his other attacks:

Aerosol sprays were actually phased out in the United States in the 1990s, years before Mr. Obama was president, and the ban resulted from the Montreal Protocol in 1987, signed by President George H. W. Bush, which sought to curtail the damage aerosol products did to the disappearing ozone layer. Since then, the hairspray industry has been able to find substitutes that produce the same misty effect of CFCs and aerosol.

Related: Carly Fiorina Takes Pandering To A New Low During Rose Bowl

Throwback Thursday: Young Hillary Clinton Video Mocked Clinton’s Dirty Campaign Tactics In 2008

We have already seen signs of Hillary Clinton getting dirty in this year’s campaign against Bernie Sanders, but so far this has been rather tame compared to her 2008 campaign against Barack Obama. During the early primaries there was already criticism of Clinton  in the liberal blogs for her dirty campaign tactics, with matters getting worse as the campaign progressed. Her campaign played fast and loose with primary laws while her allies, such as Sidney Blumenthal, waged a vicious smear campaign against Obama.

Clinton’s corruption as Secretary of State subsequent to this campaign is likely to be a major campaign issue next fall. The Wall Street Journal has foreshadowed what to expect in an article this week on how “more than two dozen companies and groups and one foreign government paid former President Bill Clinton a total of more than $8 million to give speeches around the time they also had matters before Mrs. Clinton’s State Department.” Clinton also failed to abide by an agreement to release information on all donors to the Foundation when Secretary of State.

The above video, Young Hillary Clinton, which I posted in May 2008, captures the type of dishonesty seen by Clinton throughout the 2008 campaign, humorously speculating on  how such behavior might have stemmed from her childhood.

Related Posts:

Throwback Thursday, January 1, 2008: Barack Obama: Hillary Clinton ‘is just like Bush’
Throwback Thursday: Hillary 1984