Bernie Won’t Back Off, And His Supporters Will Not Learn To Like Hillary

Sanders Pennsylvania

Bernie Sanders continues to attack Hillary Clinton while campaigning in Pennsylvania. I’m glad that he is not listening to party leaders who think he should back off. This is not a case of one Democrat with similar views running against another Democrat with similar views.  There is a large ideological difference between the candidates, and the fight should continue regardless of how difficult it might be for Sanders to win the nomination.

Former Obama speech writer Jon Favraeu has been writing articles lately about how he learned to like Hillary, and why we should too. Today he wrote, “Primaries are often a clash of personalities and magnified policy differences.” No this is not about personalities (other than Clinton’s dishonesty) and the policy differences are rather major. I have opposed Clinton this year for the same reasons I opposed her in 2008. More significantly, I oppose her for the reasons I opposed the reelection of George Bush in 2004. Her militaristic foreign policy views, conservative views on civil liberties, and opposition to government transparency are little different from the views of the Bush administration, and are unacceptable, regardless of party.

Rather than leading us to learn to like Hillary, we learned, as Conor Lynch discussed, how the Democratic Party does not represent our values. He pointed out areas where Obama has continued the policies of the Bush administration, and Hillary Clinton is significantly to the right of him. He concluded:

How much will partisan Democrats be willing to forgive a Hillary Clinton administration? Many neoconservatives have already admitted that they prefer Clinton over Trump. At this rate, Clinton could fulfill most of Trump’s reactionary platform and still find widespread support among the Democratic faithful.

Earlier this week, the Clinton campaign accused Sanders “of trying to convince the next generation of progressives that the Democratic party is corrupt.” But do progressives really need to be persuaded that the Democratic Party is part of a corrupt political system, or that it is more reactionary than progressive on many issues? This is self-evident, and the Democratic party has done an excellent job over the past few decades making that case itself. The question is: how long will Democratic voters remain blindly loyal to their party?

Hillary Clinton probably could move the country much further to the right than Donald Trump or any Republican can. The same partisan Democrats who would loudly protest conservative actions from Republicans will defend the same actions if promoted by Hillary Clinton. We already saw how much Bill Clinton moved the country to the right when he was president.

Sanders recently warned that his supporters will not necessarily support Clinton. The Washington Post reports today that Sanders said he “would wait to see what Hillary Clinton includes in her platform before deciding how actively to campaign for her in the fall, if she is the party’s nominee.”

“I want to see the Democratic party have the courage to stand up to big money interests in a way that they have not in the past, take on the drug companies, take on Wall Street, take on the fossil-fuel industry, and I want to see them come up with ideas that really do excite working families and young people in this country,” Sanders said.

The problem is that, regardless of what the platform says, Clinton will probably do what she chooses if elected. When hearings were underway to confirm her as Secretary of State there were concerns about conflicts of interest. In response to such concerns, Clinton agreed to divulge the names of all contributors to the Foundation while she was in office. Clinton failed to provide this information, while making unethically making decisions regarding parties which were contributing to the Foundation, or paying Bill unprecedented amounts of money to give speeches. She has continued this pattern of unethical behavior after leaving office. In order to promote increased transparency after the Bush years, Obama instituted stricter rules to limit the use of private email, which Clinton then violated.

If Hillary Clinton failed to abide by rather limited agreements to act in an ethical fashion before she was confirmed as Secretary of State, why should anyone believe she will pay attention to any progressive planks she allows in the Democratic platform in order to obtain the support of Bernie Sanders? She has demonstrated too many times that she cannot be trusted–and certainly should not be trusted with the powers of the presidency.

New York Times Magazine Looks At How Hillary Clinton Became A Warmonger

Liberals-Should-Not-Support-Hillary-Clinton-Shes-A-Neo-Con

The New York Times Magazine features an article on How Hillary Clinton became a warmonger, although they are a little gentler with her, just calling her a hawk. The article began by pointing out how Clinton supported more aggressive military intervention than Obama when she was Secretary of State. She often sided with Robert Gates where others in the Obama administration were less militaristic, surprising Gates as to how conservative she was on foreign policy:

The two quickly discovered that they shared a Midwestern upbringing, a taste for a stiff drink after a long day of work and a deep-seated skepticism about the intentions of America’s foes. Bruce Riedel, a former intelligence analyst who conducted Obama’s initial review on the Afghanistan war, says: “I think one of the surprises for Gates and the military was, here they come in expecting a very left-of-center administration, and they discover that they have a secretary of state who’s a little bit right of them on these issues — a little more eager than they are, to a certain extent.

While Clinton has probably flip-flopped on more issues out of political expediency than any politician other than Mitt Romney, that is not the case with her foreign policy views: “Clinton’s foreign-policy instincts are bred in the bone.” The article ran through Clinton’s biography as related to military matters, including one embarrassing episode:

In March 1996, the first lady visited American troops stationed in Bosnia. The trip became notorious years later when she claimed, during the 2008 campaign, to have dodged sniper fire after her C-17 military plane landed at an American base in Tuzla. (Chris Hill, a diplomat who was onboard that day and later served as ambassador to Iraq under Clinton, didn’t remember snipers at all, and indeed recalled children handing her bouquets of spring flowers.)

The article makes it clear that in any discussion of foreign policy, Hillary Clinton is the most hawkish person in the room, and will be to the right of the GOP candidate should she win the Democratic nomination:

Clinton’s foreign-policy instincts are bred in the bone — grounded in cold realism about human nature and what one aide calls “a textbook view of American exceptionalism.” It set her apart from her rival-turned-boss, Barack Obama, who avoided military entanglements and tried to reconcile Americans to a world in which the United States was no longer the undisputed hegemon. And it will likely set her apart from the Republican candidate she meets in the general election. For all their bluster about bombing the Islamic State into oblivion, neither Donald J. Trump nor Senator Ted Cruz of Texas have demonstrated anywhere near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has.

While there are other issues where Clinton is preferable to Trump and Cruz, the president has far more direct control over whether we go to war than matters such as reproductive rights. Clinton’s foreign policy views, along with her corrupting ties to big money in politics, could be the deciding factor which keeps many Sanders supporters from turning out to vote for Clinton in the general election if she is the nominee.

Kevin Drum, who I have often found to ignore other major faults in Clinton, was disturbed by her foreign policy views:

And Landler doesn’t even mention Libya, perhaps because the Times already investigated her role at length a couple of months ago. It’s hardly necessary, though. Taken as a whole, this is a portrait of a would-be president who (a) fundamentally believes in displays of force, (b) is eager to give the military everything they ask for, and (c) doesn’t believe that military intervention is a last resort, no matter what she might say in public.

If anything worries me about Hillary Clinton, this is it. It’s not so much that she’s more hawkish than me, it’s the fact that events of the past 15 years don’t seem to have affected her views at all. How is that possible? And yet, our failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria and elsewhere apparently haven’t given her the slightest pause about the effectiveness of military force in the Middle East. Quite the opposite: the sense I get from Landler’s piece is that she continues to think all of these engagements would have turned out better if only we’d used more military power. I find it hard to understand how an intelligent, well-briefed person could continue to believe this, and that in turn makes me wonder just exactly what motivates Hillary’s worldview.

On the right, Daniel Larison, whose foreign policy views are far preferable to what is commonly accepted by conservatives, adds:

In virtually every foreign policy debate, Clinton can be counted on to endorse the more aggressive option available, and she is the least likely to favor making significant changes to the way the U.S. acts overseas. Her judgment has been reliably bad because she buys into conventional, wrong assumptions about the U.S. role in the world and the ability of the U.S. to “shape” events in other countries, and when Obama has come around to her view he has made some of the worst mistakes of his presidency. One would be hard-pressed to find a single instance from her time as Secretary of State when Clinton was on the winning side of a major internal policy debate that didn’t produce poor or disastrous results. If Obama had always sided against Clinton’s preferred course of action, he would have had fewer foreign policy failures and embarrassments.

The article also goes into some depth about her relationship with Gen. Jack Keane. Among other things, it was a briefing from Keane on establishing a “no-fly zone” in Syria that won Clinton over to that reckless position. This is one of Clinton’s main weaknesses: she typically assumes that military options are more efficacious and capable of “solving” problems in foreign conflicts than they are, and it doesn’t seem to take much persuading to get her to endorse an aggressive policy. Clinton normally errs on the side of using force or threatening to use it, and because of that she repeatedly takes the wrong side in debates over whether the U.S. should intervene in another country.

Both assessments above are accurate. Another recent article provides an even scarier insight into how Hillary Clinton thinks about foreign policy. Although it was not Obama’s intention, his discussion of Clinton in an interview  in The Atlantic definitely shows that Clinton is unfit to be president and certainly does not consider war to be a last resort. While many thought it was a good thing when Obama was able to negotiate a way to avoid military intervention in Syria, Clinton was one of those who disagreed:

For some foreign-policy experts, even within his own administration, Obama’s about-face on enforcing the red line was a dispiriting moment in which he displayed irresolution and naïveté, and did lasting damage to America’s standing in the world. “Once the commander in chief draws that red line,” Leon Panetta, who served as CIA director and then as secretary of defense in Obama’s first term, told me recently, “then I think the credibility of the commander in chief and this nation is at stake if he doesn’t enforce it.” Right after Obama’s reversal, Hillary Clinton said privately, “If you say you’re going to strike, you have to strike. There’s no choice.”

No Hillary, if you have a way to accomplish your goals without going to war, you should not go to war. And if you cannot accomplish your goals without going to war, it might be time to reexamine your goals.

Utah Declares Porn To Be A Public Health Crisis

Pornography Utah

The authoritarian right loves to legislate what others may or may not do, especially when it comes to sex. Utah is passing a resolution declaring porn to be a public health crisis. USA Today reports:

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert will sign a resolution declaring pornography a “public health crisis” at the Utah state capitol today.

The resolution was introduced by Republican state Senator Todd Weiler in January 2015, to battle the “pornography epidemic harming” the state and the country.

The resolution, which was passed last month, calls for increased “education, prevention, research, and policy change at the community and societal level,” to combat pornography.  Anti-pornography group, the Utah Coalition Against Pornography posted on Facebook that the resolution signing marks a “time to celebrate and recognize this historic moment.”

Weiler maintains that the resolution is not a ban on porn or an attack on masturbation, but the first steps toward creating a plan to protect children and families from it.

“Due to advances in technology and the universal availability of the Internet, young children are exposed to what used to be referred to as hard core, but is now considered mainstream, pornography at an alarming rate,” according to the bill. 

Ian Kerner, a psychotherapist and sex expert, says the anti-pornography movement is rooted in a long history of stigmatizing sex and masturbation.

“So much of the anti-porn movement is based on a sense of alarmism,” Kerner said, adding that the anti-pornography movement has blurred the line between child and adult access to pornography. “In this country, we really bundle together children and teens with consenting adults, and the issues are not the same for children and teens as they are for consenting adults.”

In contrast, the American College of Physicians recently called on doctors to do more regarding a real public health crisis which is ignored by many conservatives–climate change.

Larry Flynt is responding by sending a free issue of Hustler to every member of the Utah state legislature, although I’m not sure why he would want to reward those people (other than for the free publicity).  He also issued this statement:

“[T]he Utah Legislature is obviously confused about what constitutes a public health crisis, so I’ll send them our latest issue and they can see for themselves that we’re no danger to the public, only to the repressed,” Mr. Flynt said in a statement.

“In 1969 President Lyndon Johnson and the President’s Commission on Obscenity and Pornography found that no evidence exists that exposure to explicit sexual materials cause any kind of criminal behavior,” the 73-year-old self-declared smut peddler said. “This report has been gathering dust for over 40 years, and Utah is only dragging out this issue now to satisfy religious zealots.”

The porn website XHamster.com responded in the opposite manner compared to Flynt in protest over the passage of the recent “religious liberties” law in North Carolina. They protested by blocking access to the site from computers located in North Carolina. That probably hurt even more than Bruce Springsteen canceling a concert in North Carolina.

Sanders Warns That His Supporters Will Not Automatically Support Clinton If She Is The Nominee

Sanders Clinton

A big question for Sanders’ supporters has been what to do should Clinton win the Democratic nomination. This nomination battle differs from other recent battles in the vast ideological difference between many of those supporting Sanders and Hillary Clinton. I previously looked at some of the reasons that some Sanders supporters might not vote for Clinton here. The normal pattern is for the losing candidate to endorse the winning candidate. That does not mean that the losing candidate’s supporters will go along, and Bernie pointed out that he realizes his supporters will not automatically support Clinton if she wins:

Bernie Sanders says Hillary Clinton shouldn’t expect his supporters to automatically back her should she win the Democratic presidential nomination.

“It’s a two-way street, the Clinton people are also going to have to listen to what these people are fighting for,” Sanders said during an interview on CNN’s “New Day.

“The Clinton people are going to have to say, well, maybe Bernie has a point that we should not be the only major country on earth not to guarantee healthcare to all people or have paid family or medical leave. And maybe, yes, the billionaire class should start paying their fair share of taxes, and maybe, yes, we should break up Wall Street,” he said.

“It’s not me. I don’t control millions of people, but the Clinton campaign is going to have to make the case to those young people that in fact they are prepared to stand up for some real, fundamental changes in this country, and that’s the case they have not yet been able to make,” Sanders said…

Sanders maintained Monday that while Clinton is the Democratic front-runner and has moved to the left on some issues during the campaign, she has not yet made the case to win over his supporters.

“They’re very good at rhetoric, and certainly she has moved to the left in this campaign in response to many of the initiatives that we have brought forth,” Sanders said.

“The average person understands that when you collect such large amounts of money from Wall Street and other special interests, they have their doubts whether the Clinton people will stand up to these powerful forces,” he added.

Clinton might have moved to the left on selective issues during this campaign, but she is certainly no liberal. Supporting programs to benefit women and children is admirable, but is not sufficient to make one a liberal–especially when she is a warmonger, opposes government transparency, supports the corrupting role of money in government, opposes single-payer health care, ran in 2008 as a self-described pro-gun churchgoer, worked with The Fellowship in the Senate, and supports restrictions on civil liberties. On issues such as trade, the drug war, and foreign intervention, Clinton is even to the right of Republican front runner Donald Trump (who has many faults of his own).

Preventing independents from voting in the New York primary, as well as the other irregularities there, will also not make independents supporting Sanders feel good about voting for Clinton if she wins.

I also wonder if there is more meaning to these words from Sanders. Most likely he will endorse Clinton if she is the nominee, with the understanding that his supporters will make their own decisions. However he has sounded less and less like someone who is willing to support the party if he loses, making me wonder if he is reconsidering his previous statements that he would not run as an independent.

Quote of the Day: Jimmy Fallon & Seth Meyers On The Democratic Race

This Feb. 21, 2013 photo released by NBC shows Jimmy Fallon, host of "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon," on the set in New York. The program was nominated for an Emmy award for outstanding variety series, Thursday, July 18, 2013. (AP Photo/NBC, Lloyd Bishop)

“Hillary Clinton said on ‘Meet the Press’ yesterday that the FBI has not reached out to schedule an interview with her regarding her private email server. When asked how she’d respond to such a request, Hillary said, ‘Oh, I’d delete it.'” –Jimmy Fallon

Bonus Quotes:

“Democratic National Committee head Debbie Wasserman Schultz today denied accusations that she is taking sides in the primary election season, and said, ‘There is no shred of evidence to suggest that I’m favoring Hillary Clinton over Bernie Socialist — I mean Bernie Sanders.'” –Seth Meyers

“The big New York primary, which happens next Tuesday, is looking pretty good for Hillary Clinton. In fact, website FiveThirtyEight says Hillary has a 99 percent chance of winning the primary for New York. When he heard, Bernie Sanders said, ‘My God, I’ve become part of the 1 percent!'” –Jimmy Fallon

SciFi Weekend: Orphan Black; Game of Thrones; The Blacklist; 12 Monkeys; Star Wars The Force Awakens; Doctor Who Spinoff Class; Suicide Squad

Beth (TATIANA MASLANY)

We knew from the preview I posted last week that Orphan Black would begin with a flash back, but it was a surprise that almost the entire episode dealt with Beth Childers and other clones prior to when the series began. Seeing Beth gave a better feel for why she jumped in front of a train in the first episode. Beside seeing her drug problem, we saw far more than we previously knew about her troubles with Mark and how close she was to Art. It was also interesting to see some of the other clones in their younger, more innocent days. Beth, whose primary role appears to be to handle the money for the clones and supply Beth with pills, has not yet shot a gun, and Cosima’s biggest concern is finding a place to live while going to school.

The most important aspect of the episode was probably the introduction of another clone, M.K., who was both more knowledgeable than the other clones about the situation, and (probably justifiably) more paranoid. She says she is only alive because they think she is dead. We don’t get until the present until the end of the episode when M.K calls Sarah, now hiding in Iceland, with the warning: “Neolution knows where you are. They’re coming for Kendall Malone….You need to run. Right now.”

Felix even had a cameo, presumably never looking up to see a clone of Sarah in the police station. Buddy TV has an interview with Jordan Gavaris which reveals that Felix’s relationship with Sarah is strained, and he has more time with the other clones.

Game of Thrones enters new territory this season, going beyond the books, and might be wrapping up sooner than many have predicted. Variety reports:

In an exclusive interview with Variety, showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss said they are weighing wrapping up the Emmy-winning saga of Westeros and the battle for the Iron Throne with just 13 more episodes once this sixth season is over: seven episodes for season 7; six for the eighth and potential final season.

“I think we’re down to our final 13 episodes after this season. We’re heading into the final lap,” said Benioff. “That’s the guess, though nothing is yet set in stone, but that’s what we’re looking at.”

Sources later clarified those exact numbers were premature, given that the showrunners are now just beginning to outline their plans, but said that any upcoming seasons may be shorter than the full 10 episodes of seasons past.

Trailer for the upcoming season is also above.

Blacklist wedding day

I’ve looked at a lot of deaths on genre shows the last few weeks, but the most unbelievable was on The Blacklist. (Major spoiler ahead). Even more so than on Sleepy Hollow, the female lead is too important a character to have die without a major change in the series. Possibly they do plan on a major reboot of the series, which is always possible as long as they have James Spader, but I am quite suspicious that in this case they are faking Lizzy’s death as part of a plan to keep her safe. Perhaps they will use a need for Lizzy to appear dead as a means to prevent her from being with Tom and her baby, which might have limited her actions.

12 Monkeys

Blastr has an interview with the cast and crew of 12 Monkeys and their planned 17-season arc. Here is the start of the interview:

You managed to build a layered, compelling story in the first season, which also featured quite a lot of world-building. Now that you’ve laid that creative groundwork, can you talk about what’s it like to really get to play in this sandbox you’ve built for Season 2?

Terry Matalas: It’s a lot more fun. In a lot of ways, it’s almost like Season 1 is the prequel to Season 2. Things really starts to get going, and we’re moving through time in ways we weren’t able to in Season 1. We’re able to mix and match characters and really try new things. The stakes are higher, and it’s a lot more fun. The show really finds itself in Season 2.

In the early parts of Season 2, Cassie really seems to start taking point in regards to the mission that drives the narrative of the show. In a way, she feels more like the Season 1-era Cole than the character of Cole does now. Can you talk about that change in Cassie, and how her time stranded in the future has affected her?

Amanda Schull: I think it was a slow burn to build this person, but you’re right. Her time in 2044 is what solidifies that very dramatic shift. She had only ever heard of this life that Cole was grappling with, then when she’s forced to live in it, herself, she realizes that intelligence doesn’t necessarily accomplish goals in every scenario, and it won’t help you survive every scenario. She really becomes a product of that world.

Star Wars Rey

There has been a lot of speculation that Luke or possibly Leia and Han are Rey’s parents in Star Wars The Force Awakens. I would not entirely trust anything J.J. Abrams says about character identities after he denied that Benedict Cumberbatch would be playing Kahn in Star Trek Into Darkness, but he gave the impression that these theories about Rey might not be true when he said this about Rey: “Rey’s parents are not in Episode VII. So I can’t possibly in this moment tell you who they are. This is all I will say: It’s something that Rey thinks about too.”

Abrams has since clarified the issue saying: “What I meant was that she doesn’t discover them in Episode VII. Not that they may not already be in her world.” In other words, Luke could still be her father, but she doesn’t learn that in the next movie. Or perhaps she does, and he doesn’t want to give it away.

Abrams has also discussed, once again, the similarities between The Force Awakens and A New Hope:

“[‘The Force Awakens’] was a bridge and a kind of reminder; the audience needed to be reminded what ‘Star Wars’ is, but it needed to be established with something familiar, with a sense of where we are going to new lands, which is very much what 8 and 9 do. The weird thing about that movie is that it had been so long since the last one. Obviously the prequels had existed in between and we wanted to, sort of, reclaim the story. So we very consciously — and I know it is derided for this — we very consciously tried to borrow familiar beats so the rest of the movie could hang on something that we knew was ‘Star Wars.’”

Class cast

The BBC has announced the cast of the Doctor Who spinoff, Class, which takes place at Coal Hill School. Stephen Moffat had this to say about the series:

There’s nothing more exciting than meeting stars that nobody’s heard of yet. We had the read through of the first few episodes last week, and there was a whole row of them. Coal Hill School has been part of Doctor Who since the very first shoot in 1963, but this new show is anything but history. Class is dark and sexy and right now. I’ve always wondered if there could be a British Buffy – it’s taken the brilliant Patrick Ness to figure out how to make it happen.

I wonder what he means by a British Buffy. Is it just a matter of having a cast in this age range, or will there be other similarities?

Suicide Squad

The upcoming Suicide Squad movie will apparently have a lot of Batman, which should increase interest in the movie. There are also reports that the sequel might be R-rated. Deadpool has already done well with an R-rating, and the same is planned with Wolverine 3.

Quote Of The Day: Conan O’Brien & Seth Meyers On Donald Trump And The Republican Nomination Battle

Conan Photo

It’s come out that President Obama has been allowed to see special advance episodes of the new season of ‘Game of Thrones.’ Obama says he watches ‘Game of Thrones’ to remember what it’s like to have reasonably sane people compete for leadership –Conan O’Brien

Bonus Quotes:

It’s being reported that the Democrats have a plan to “shatter the Republican Party.” When he heard, Donald Trump said, “Beat you to it!” –Conan O’ Brian

A farm in Ohio has the words “NO TRUMP” written so large in cow manure that it can be seen by overhead planes. The craziest part — no one asked the cow to do that. –Seth Meyers

Clinton Repeats Old Lies In CNN Debate, Including On Guns And Libya

Last night’s Democratic debate included some of the topics I predicted yesterday, but there were no big new fabrications from Clinton. Instead she once again showed that she does not understand that fact-checkers exist, repeating some of her old lies which have already been debunked. Plus Clinton also showed that she does not understand that there is a permanent record of what she has said in the past as she pretended she has always supported a $15 minimum wage.I can just imagine her as president, going to war with Orwellian claims that We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

Guns came up once again despite fact-checkers having already debunked her distortions of Sanders’ position. As I pointed out on Wednesday, at least three  major fact-checkers showed that she was playing games with the math to blame guns violence in New York on guns purchased in Vermont.  The Washington Post Fact Checker gave her Three Pinocchios for this lie. Factcheck.org and PolitiFact also criticized her for her distortion with selected statistics, especially as guns from Vermont represent less than two percent of guns recovered and traced in New York. Clinton looks further dishonest when attacking Sanders on guns should voters recall that in 2008 Clinton ran as a self-described pro-gun chruchgoer.

PolitiFact also looked at Clinton’s claim that “Bernie Sanders ‘has been largely a very reliable supporter of the NRA'” yesterday and found it to be Mostly False. They even listed his grades from the NRA:

Year Grade
1992 D
1994 F
1996 F
1998 F
2000 F
2002 F
2004 D+
2006 C-
2012 D-

This hardly looks like a reliable supporter of the NRA.

Clinton also repeated her past distortions of Sanders’ position on Libya. This can turn into a major embarrassment or Clinton should more Democrats look at this issue. While Obama has often disagreed with Clinton on policy and ignored her recommendations, he did make the mistake of going along with her policy on Libya. Foreign Policy looked at how she continues to defend a failed policy in an article this week, also pointing out how she is more interventionist than Donald Trump and Ted Kruz. Making matters worse for Clinton, Obama has acknowledged how much a failure the actions were in an interview in The Atlantic, and called the failure to plan for after the intervention to be the worst mistake of his presidency in an interview with Fox.

Clinton’s strategy to reduce the harm from her mistakes in Libya is to falsely claim that Sanders voted for the policy. FactCheck.org debunked this:

The exchange was initiated by Sanders, who cited a New York Times story that identified Clinton as a key voice in convincing President Obama to topple Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. In an interview on Fox News on April 11, Obama said one of the biggest mistakes of his presidency was “probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya.”

During the debate, Sanders said, “Regime change often has unintended consequences in Iraq and in Libya right now, where ISIS has a very dangerous foothold. And I think if you studied the whole history of American involvement in regime change, you see that quite often.”

We took a look at this when the exact same claims were made by both candidates during the sixth Democratic debate. Here are the facts: On March 1, 2011, Sanders cosponsored and voted in favor of Senate Resolution 85. The resolution, which was nonbinding and passed by unanimous consent, called on Gadhafi “to desist from further violence, recognize the Libyan people’s demand for democratic change, resign his position and permit a peaceful transition to democracy. …” So Sanders is correct that the resolution did not explicitly authorize or advocate for military action, though it did call for Gadhafi to resign his position.

In an interview with Fox News in March 2011, Sanders made clear that he was wary of military intervention. “Look, everybody understands Qaddafi is a thug and murderer,” Sanders said. “We want to see him go, but I think in the midst of two wars, I’m not quite sure we need a third war, and I hope the president tells us that our troops will be leaving there, that our military action in Libya will be ending very, very shortly.”

However, as Clinton said, the resolution Sanders cosponsored also urged the United Nations Security Council “to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.” Indeed, a couple weeks later, the Security Council did approve a resolution calling for a no-fly zone and calling on members “to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country.”

This is hardly the same as supporting the type of overthrow of a government by force and regime change which was supported by Clinton. Like with Clinton’s support for the war in Iraq and increased US intervention in Syria, Clinton’s policy in Libya was quite different from Sanders’ foreign policy views. Clinton should defend her own views and record, not pretend that Sanders either had the same position (as in Libya) or distort Sanders’ position (as on guns).

What To Watch For In Tonight’s Democratic Debate (If Clinton’s Lips Are Moving, She Is Probably Lying)

Sanders Clinton CNN

Sources from CNN to Common Dreams are discussing what might come up on tonight’s Democratic debate. This includes Clinton’s Wall Street ties and her support for fracking. CNN points out that it could get difficult for Clinton to continue to defend her role in Libya after Obama has called this the worst mistake of his presidency during a Fox interview. Obama also undermined Clinton’s foreign policy views in another recent interview in The Atlantic.

Clinton will probably try to bring up the interview with The New York Daily News in which the interviewers botched the facts but managed to get the media to repeat their false claim that it was Sanders who had difficulties with the questions.

Besides the issues, we should watch the tone of the debate. Sanders has already rejected the use of terms like “Democratic corporate whores.” Of course, Democratic corporate sell-outs remains on the table. I do agree with with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz that referring to Clinton as a corporate whore would be outrageous and inappropriate.  I also think that Hillary Clinton’s influence peddling is outrageous and inappropriate. (Paul Song has since said he was referring to Congress and not Clinton, which does not make Clinton’s influence peddling any less outrageous and inappropriate.)

Here are some other tips for watching the debate. Watch for when Hillary Clinton’s lips move. It means she is lying. Some of her top lies of the campaign are listed here.

Also watch out if she gets to make the closing statement after Sanders. That is when she throws in lies which Bernie has no opportunity to defend himself  against. Of course she might throw in lies earlier, and count on the moderators to shut down Bernie before he gets a chance to answer.

Finally, under no circumstances let anyone turn watching the debate into a drinking game and make your drinking words “Wall Street” or “Top One Percent.” That could be fatal.

Democratic Strategists Finally Realizing There Is Danger In Nominating A Candidate Who Is Disliked and Distrusted Like Clinton

clintonfavorabilitygraphic

Some Democrats (such as Bill Curry) have realized for a long time that Hillary Clinton had serious problems as a candidate. While this should have been obvious since at least 2008, it appears that some are just catching on now, with The Hill running a story entitled Clinton’s dismal approval ratings prompt Dem fears.

Hillary Clinton’s favorability ratings are historically low and increasingly a concern for her supporters.

Clinton is now viewed unfavorably by 55 percent of the electorate, according to the HuffPost Pollster average, which tracks findings from 42 different polling outfits. Only 40.2 percent of people view her favorably, according to that average.

An Associated Press/GfK poll released last week also found 55 percent giving Clinton an unfavorable rating. In the most recent Gallup poll, released late last month, her unfavorable number was 53 percent versus only 42 percent who saw her favorably.

Even Democrats acknowledge those findings are a problem.

“They’re pretty bad,” said Democratic strategist Brad Bannon, who connected the poor poll numbers to separate findings that show a broad number of Americans don’t trust Clinton.

“The No. 1 reason that her favorability is so bad is that you have large numbers of Americans who say they don’t trust her,” he said. “I could make it sound more complicated than that, but that’s really what it is. Voters see her as the ultimate politician, who will do or say anything to get elected.”

The historic comparisons are stark. At this point in the 2008 presidential cycle, then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was seen favorably by 62 percent of voters and unfavorably by just 33 percent.  Even in February 2012, the closest comparable point in his re-election campaign, he had a net positive favorability rating in the Gallup poll of 2 percentage points, compared to Clinton’s current net rating of minus 11.

In March 2000, then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush (R) was viewed favorably by 63 percent of respondents in the Gallup poll and unfavorably by 32 percent.

The article points out that her low favorability ratings might not matter if running against a candidate as weak as Donald Trump, but there are still risks of low turnout among Democratic-leaning voters affecting the results as seen in 2014. It would be far safer to run with a candidate who receives more enthusiasm among the general population as opposed to primarily older, hardcore Democratic voters. The Hill went on to say:

But independent observers note that, while a general election is by its nature comparative, the capacity of each candidate to inspire supporters and thus drive turnout can also be crucial.

“Where it becomes a problem is the question of turnout and enthusiasm,” said Grant Reeher, a professor of political science at Syracuse University. Reeher added that, in the Democratic primary, Clinton’s rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), “is generating quite a bit of enthusiasm. In that sense, he is overperforming, even though he’s losing. She, I think, is underperforming in terms of turnout and enthusiasm.”

As The Hill noted, much of Clinton’s lack of support is based upon her dishonesty. I recently listed some of her major dishonest statements during the campaign here. In another recent post on Clinton’s dishonesty, I quoted  The New York Times, chastizing her for her dishonesty:

Even with a double-digit lead before the primary, she failed to avoid the type of negative tactics that could damage her in the long haul. A new Washington Post-ABC poll says that nationally, Mrs. Clinton’s margin over Bernie Sanders has shrunk: she polls at 49 percent compared with 42 percent for Mr. Sanders; in January her lead was more than double that. If she hopes to unify Democrats as the nominee, trying to tarnish Mr. Sanders as she did in Michigan this week is not the way to go.

Mrs. Clinton’s falsely parsing Mr. Sanders’s Senate vote on a 2008 recession-related bailout bill as abandoning the auto industry rescue hurt her credibility. As soon as she uttered it in Sunday’s debate, the Democratic strategist David Axelrod registered his dismay, tweeting that the Senate vote wasn’t explicitly a vote about saving the auto industry. Even as reporters challenged her claim, she doubled down in ads across the state. As The Washington Post noted, “it seems like she’s willing to take the gamble that fact-checkers may call her out for her tactic Sunday — but that voters won’t.”

…The Clinton machine should stop trying to tie Mr. Sanders to the National Rifle Association. Though Mr. Sanders has a D-minus from the N.R.A., in Michigan Mrs. Clinton’s operatives took to Twitter touting the N.R.A.’s tweets supporting Mr. Sanders’s statement that making manufacturers liable for gun violence would destroy gun manufacturing in America. On Tuesday, her campaign issued a news release saying that the mothers of Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis, two African-American shooting victims, “are speaking out about Senator Bernie Sanders’ comments on guns and African-Americans in Sunday’s Democratic primary debate.” Mr. Sanders, like Mrs. Clinton, has spent decades working against racial discrimination, poverty and gun violence. To suggest otherwise is wrong.

This did not keep Clinton from continuing to lie about Sanders’ gun record while campaigning in New York. Among her many lies is to attack Sanders with claims that guns from Vermont are a major source of gun violence in New York. This distortion is based upon playing games with the numbers based upon the population of Vermont. The Washington Post Fact Checker gave her Three Pinocchios for this lie. Factcheck.org and PolitiFact also criticized her for her distortion with selected statistics, especially as guns from Vermont represent less than two percent of guns recovered and traced in New York. Clinton looks further dishonest when attacking Sanders on guns should voters recall that in 2008 Clinton ran as a self-described pro-gun chruchgoer. This only reinforces the fact that Clinton will say anything go get elected.

As The Washington Post pointed out, Clinton gambles that people will not pay attention to the fact checkers. There certainly are a number of partisan Democrats who will overlook all her lies, but the majority of independent voters, along with many Democrats, realize that if Hillary Clinton’s lips are moving, she is probably lying. So, yes, if some Democratic strategists are now starting to become fearful that many voters will not turn out to vote Democratic if  Hillary Clinton is the nominee, they are right.