Type to search

Clinton’s America Never Stopped Being Great

Featured Post Memo Pad National News Politics Top News

Clinton’s America Never Stopped Being Great

Share
Clinton rallies with supporters at Wood Museum of Springfield History in Springfield, Massachusetts

Sometimes, you take your laughs where you find them. For me, the funniest moment in an otherwise dreary and intermittently scary election year came when Candidate Trump visited the old state fairgrounds in Little Rock. A character seemingly straight out of a Charles Portis novel provided the most incisive commentary.

The author of “True Grit” is the state’s best novelist, a master of deadpan comedy in a tone-perfect Arkansas twang.

According to the newspaper, a Trump supporter carrying a “Make America Great Again” sign encountered a young man on his way into the arena to bask in the Great Braggart’s eerie orange glow.

“America’s already great, you dumb-butt!” the kid said.

He could have been Portis’s Norwood Pratt, the would-be country singer traveling the country with Joann the Wonder Hen, the College Educated Chicken. An ex-Marine, Norwood wasn’t one to mince words.

So there was Hillary Clinton on the night of her thunderous win over Sen. Bernie Sanders in the South Carolina primary.

“We don’t need to make America great again,” she said. “America never stopped being great. But we do need to make America whole again. Instead of building walls, we need to be tearing down barriers. We need to show by everything we are in this together.”

Ain’t that the truth? Maybe not in Trump World, where voters who never tire of proclaiming their holiness are voting for an aging playboy who brags about the married women he’s seduced. (In his book The Art of the Deal.) But he’s going to put Them back in their place, isn’t he?

Yeah, well, good luck with that.

Anyway, I suspect Hillary has found a winning theme.

Meanwhile, pundits seem oddly reluctant to say so, but Bernie’s candidacy imploded due to a classic political blunder when he accused his opponent of pandering to African-American voters by supporting President Obama.

“Hillary Clinton now is trying to embrace the president as closely as she possibly can. Everything the president does is wonderful. She loves the president, he loves her and all that stuff,” Sanders said sarcastically. “And we know what that’s about. That’s trying to win support from the African-American community, where the president is enormously popular.”

Never mind that she was Obama’s Secretary of State. Bernie delivered these remarks in an interview with BET’s Marc Lamont Hill on February 18. His poll numbers have plummeted like a stone ever since.

In early February, Gallup reported that Sanders’ net favorable rating stood at 57 percent to Clinton’s 44. By the March 1 “Super Tuesday” primaries, those numbers were reversed. Bernie dropped thirteen points as Clinton rose.

I wouldn’t presume to speak for black voters, but they tend to be very acute about being patronized. Indeed, 81 percent of Democrats generally have a favorable opinion of President Obama, along with a reported 97 percent of black voters in South Carolina.

Sanders’ remarks weren’t merely insulting, but tone deaf and objectively dumb. As South Carolina’s Rep. Jim Clyburn put it, “I don’t know how you can look at Mrs. Clinton’s history—she was not running for president in the 1970s when she came to South Carolina to work with those African-American juvenile detainees or juvenile inmates trying to better their conditions, when she went to work with Marian Wright Edelman, a native of Bennettsville, South Carolina, to come down here working with her trying to better the lives of children…So, what was she doing? Who was she pandering to back then?”

Not Barack Obama, Clyburn noted, who was in junior high school.

But then the Sanders campaign’s idea of a South Carolina surrogate was Princeton professor and controversialist Cornell West, author of this immortal trope:

“I think my dear brother Barack Obama has a certain fear of free black men. It’s understandable,” West said. “As a young brother who grows up in a white context, brilliant African father, he’s always had to fear being a white man with black skin. All he has known culturally is white…When he meets an independent black brother, it is frightening.”

Nothing scarier than a Princeton revolutionary.

West recently suggested that civil rights icons Clyburn and Rep. John Lewis had sold out to Wall Street.

“Tell you what,” President Obama might have responded if he were a character in a Portis novel, “don’t pee on my shoes and tell me it’s raining.”

As the results of this foolishness became manifest, some Sanders supporters began suggesting it was wrong for “red state” voters to have so much to say about the Democratic nomination.

Only Yankees need apply.

“Given the reality of a Republican presidential primary where the candidates are racing to outdo each other in their contempt for people of color…” Nancy LeTourneau writes in Washington Monthly, “is it any surprise that African Americans would assume that this country is facing the threat of a confederate insurgency?”

No surprise at all.

Photo: Hillary Clinton rallies with supporters at Wood Museum of Springfield History in Springfield, Massachusetts February 29, 2016. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst 

Tags:
Gene Lyons

Gene Lyons is a political columnist and author. Lyons writes a column for the Arkansas Times that is nationally syndicated by United Media. He was previously a general editor at Newsweek as wells an associate editor at Texas Monthly where he won a National Magazine Award in 1980. He contributes to Salon.com and has written for such magazines as Harper's, The New York Times Magazine, The New York Review of Books, Entertainment Weekly, Washington Monthly, The Nation, Esquire, and Slate. A graduate of Rutgers University with a Ph.D. in English from the University of Virginia, Lyons taught at the Universities of Massachusetts, Arkansas and Texas before becoming a full-time writer in 1976. A native of New Jersey, Lyons has lived in Arkansas with his wife Diane since 1972. The Lyons live on a cattle farm near Houston, Ark., with a half-dozen dogs, several cats, three horses, and a growing herd of Fleckvieh Simmental cows. Lyons has written several books including The Higher Illiteracy (University of Arkansas, 1988), Widow's Web (Simon & Schuster, 1993), Fools for Scandal (Franklin Square, 1996) as well as The Hunting Of The President: The 10 Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton, which he co-authored with National Memo Editor-in-Chief Joe Conason.

  • 1

71 Comments

  1. Dominick Vila March 2, 2016

    The only thing that hinders our greatness is the lack of logic exhibited by most Republicans. The USA has been, remains, and will continue to be a great country for many years to come, regardless of who wins in November. The claim that the country with the strongest economy in the world, a GDP that is second to none, the strongest military, the lowest unemployment rate in the industrialized world, and the country that offers the greatest opportunities for those who educate themselves and are willing to work hard, is in decline is the most preposterous claim made to date. And yet, millions of Republican zombies, consumed by fear and prejudice, believe that outrageous idea, and are convinced that the man that has trashed the Republican party, insulted Latinos, African Americans, fat ugly women, POWs, threatened Muslims, proposed to erect walls and make another country pay for what he wants, and focused his campaign on a level of narcissism and irresponsibility never seen before in American politics, is the man that will help us from our demise. When it comes to the Republican party, the numbing down of our society is an attribute of steroids…or perhaps something a bit more potent.

    Reply
    1. Theodora30 March 2, 2016

      Don’t forget the role the mainstream media has played in this debacle. They gave Trump so much free airtime all the while refusing to tell the public who this man really was. They
      keep asking what took Republicans so long never once admitting it is their role to inform the citizenry about the candidates whether or not the political parties do. They played this same game with Dubya, ignoring his bankrupt companies and insider trading at Harken Energy, portraying him as a successful businessman. Then there was their willingness to sweep his shirking his National Guard duties under the rug.
      Of course if they decide a candidate is not to their liking they are willing to go along with ginned up issues like Hillary’s emails. Funny how they are so concerned about the Public Records Act (the latest excuse for not dropping it) that they ignore the fact that Colin Powell said he had all of his work emails destroyed.

      1. Dominick Vila March 2, 2016

        The media is playing a major role in promoting Donald Trump, and that is not limited to FOX. CNN devotes more time to Trump, than to Hillary and Bernie combined. Add to that the fact that most Trump supporters are reacting to emotion and prejudice, rather than facts, and it is not too hard to understand why a man whose platform is limited to narcissism and hot air is so popular.

        1. TZToronto March 2, 2016

          Years ago, as you an I remember, the nightly news lasted 15 minutes and was basically a reading if what happened. There were no special reports, no videos (since there was no video tape and visuals relied on film, which required developing), only “the news.” When the news division was taken over by the entertainment division and video tape arrived, everything changed. That which drew viewers made it to air; that which informed was either relegated to a mere mention or not mentioned at all. Trump gets lots of air time because he’s crude, profane, insulting, and, frankly, interesting. Clinton and Sanders are relatively respectful and actually present policies, which, for many people, reek of intellect and elitism. Who wants to watch that? Well, you and I do, but people who failed civics class could not care less about policy because, from their perspective, things just get done–or not. Policy does not sell TV advertisements, but insults do.

          1. RED March 2, 2016

            Sadly, all these things you name are not a failing of the media but a failing of us and our society. I assure you if people were intelligent enough and demanded actual news the media would deliver. But we don’t, at least not the majority.

          2. dpaano March 2, 2016

            But it’s difficult when most of the media is owned by conservatives….

          3. Insinnergy March 2, 2016

            An excellent summary.
            To put it another way:
            “You get the media you deserve.”

        2. Theodora30 March 2, 2016

          You are right about that. I turned on the TV last night to find out about the Democratic results, their speeches but got obsessive coverage of Trump. Although you have to admit they will give Hillary coverage if it is about scandal or criticisms of her.

    2. Independent1 March 2, 2016

      And keep in mind that there are a few areas where America is not so great when our country is compared to others: like longevity, the percent of our country’s people who live in abject poverty and with respect to outcomes of our healthcare systems. And guess what – it’s GOP governance that is BY FAR causing America to not be great in these areas.

      Republican governors and legislatures across the country, govern in such a way as to force people in their states to live in poverty: one way is them passing the “right-to-work” or better labeled “right-to-pay-you-less laws” which result in people living in red states earning 18-23% less than people living in non right-to-work states.

      And we’re all aware that Republicans are against giving healthcare to people who need it – more than 20 plus red states have refused to expand Medicaid resulting in millions of Americans (especially those in red states) living without healthcare.

      And we’re also aware that the GOP loves the NRA and therefore panders to it by enacting very liberal gun laws, which despite what the NRA lies say contributes to red states BY FAR leading the nation in people being murdered or injured in gun accidents and needing hospitalization.

      All this contributes to why it’s 21 of 24 red states that lead the nation BY FAR in people living within poverty.

      And it’s 29 of 31 red states that lead the nation with people living on the verge of bankruptcy.

      And its red states that have people living 2-6 years less than people living in Blue States.

      And it’s red states that BY FAR lead the nation in babies dying at birth or before their 1st birthday and even women dying during birth.

      So if we truly want to make America even greater than it already is, the best thing for voters to do would be to vote GOP politicians out of our government at both the federal and state level!!

    3. RED March 2, 2016

      Certainly not defending Trump and those that are ignorant enough to believe in him but I suspect the United States looks a little different to the 48 million in poverty or to the people of Flint who lack clean drinking water. Sure we have a great economy off and on for the last thirty years, and as you say best in the industrialized world today. And still 48 million in poverty, god only knows how many right on the edge. Hell the definition they use for poverty is ridiculous. So yeah, look at economic indicators all you want, they indicate zero about the people suffering and losing out in this country.

      1. dpaano March 2, 2016

        And who’s to blame here? The GOP governors have declined to give the poor people in their state adequate healthcare (because it’s “Obamacare”), the GOP Congress has restricted food stamps, welfare, etc. so that people no longer have the ability to survive. They’ve outlawed family planning, birth control, and I could go on, to the detriment of people in poverty who can’t afford birth control and end up have children they can’t afford (which, after they are born, the state refuses to help in any way). So, if people are suffering here in the U.S., they need to put the blame where it belongs, and it isn’t with Hillary!

        1. RED March 2, 2016

          I agree with you almost completely! Right up to the point where absolve HRC of any blame. She may not as culpable as the Cons in general but she isn’t as innocent and progressive as she tries to sound today. But hey, that’s just what happens when you see the world through a limousine window, of course the country is just and fair, ’cause you worked harder than everyone else to make 150 million, one $200,000 speech at a time.

          1. Independent1 March 2, 2016

            Be aware that Hillary has done much more for people in the South than Bernie Sanders ever did. She worked long and hard down there just after graduating from Law school helping people in any way she could via the Children’s Defense Fund. And she clearly sees the world far more intimately than through a limousine window – you really need to brush up on what you understand.

            See this for a little on that and how the Clintons have traditionally shown a lot of care and concern especially for the poor in South Carolina:

            But Hillary Clinton’s connection to the state dates back to the 1970s, when the recent law-school graduate came to South Carolina to work for the Children’s Defense Fund, founded by Bennettsville-native Marian Wright Edelman.

            The Clintons were popular in South Carolina when they were in the White House, in part because “people in communities of color felt comfortable and felt that there was an ally in the White House,” Cobb-Hunter said.

            Since the 1990s, she and her husband also have repeatedly visited the state. Then-President Clinton visited rural, predominantly black communities after a spate of church burnings, which helped build “good will and gave weight to the notion that he cares,” Cobb-Hunter said.

            Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article62932607.html#storylink=cpy

          2. Independent1 March 2, 2016

            And I suppose you think Hillary accomplished all that’s described in this article about her accomplishments while riding around in ae limo while she was Secretary of State:
            From the Daily Kos:

            But that night in the theater two years ago, the other six brave women came up on the stage. Anabella De Leon of Guatemala pointed to Hillary Clinton, who was sitting right in the front row, and said, “I met her and my life changed.” And all weekend long, women from all over the world said the same thing:

            “I’m alive because she came to my village, put her arm around me, and had a photograph taken together.”

            “I’m alive because she went on our local TV and talked about my work, and now they’re afraid to kill me.”

            “I’m alive because she came to my country and she talked to our leaders, because I heard her speak, because I read about her.”

      2. @HawaiianTater March 2, 2016

        Endless wars, runaway income inequality, a government that is owned by oligarchs, banks that could crash the economy at a moment’s notice, student debt, tens of thousands dead yearly from the gun culture, mass incarceration, systemic racism, rampant poverty, women’s reproductive rights constantly under fire, millions without healthcare insurance, crumbling infrastructure… yeah, America is totally great and we should totally vote to keep the status quo.

        1. bobnstuff March 2, 2016

          No we should vote for a congress that can get the job done. The law of the land is not created in the White House but in Congress. We have no real legislative branch right now and until we get rid of those that would bring down government to serve their masters we will not have the country that we should have.

          1. @HawaiianTater March 2, 2016

            While true, we’re not going to having the sweeping change in Congress that we need unless we start electing inspiring presidents into the WH. Status quo is what led us into the mess we’re in now.

          2. bobnstuff March 2, 2016

            We need a leader that can have long enough coattails to elect a like minded congress. We could elect a fantastic president but with out congress working we will be no better off then we are now.

          3. @HawaiianTater March 2, 2016

            Exactamundo. It should be noted that the more fantastic the president, the longer the coattails. What we are now is a disaster and the coattails will be non-existent on anyone promising to protect the status quo.

      3. Dominick Vila March 2, 2016

        Many of those living in poverty in the USA would have gotten good jobs had Congress appropriated funds to improve our infrastructure, to transition to alternative energy sources, to prepare for the effects of climate change, and to strengthen, rather than weakening the ACA. 48 million people have not been left behind because of President Obama’s policies, but because of the obtuse obstructionism advanced by the Republican party since the day of President Obama’s first inauguration. Our economy is strong, the dollar is strong, the stock market is strong. What is not so strong is the willingness of some of our elected officials to act like mature individuals.

  2. RED March 2, 2016

    I got news for the author, John Lewis has most definitely sold out. Sad but true

    Reply
    1. Mr Corrections March 2, 2016

      Supporting a candidate you don’t like isn’t “selling out”.

      1. RED March 2, 2016

        Very insightful and amazing!! I especially like the part where you divine that failure to support my candidate is the evidence without my ever mentioning any evidence. Can you also guess what card I’m holding?

        1. Mr Corrections March 2, 2016

          OK, sure – show me the evidence that John Lewis has sold out. I cannot wait.

          1. RED March 2, 2016

            Ahh, the old show me the evidence routine!! A Con favorite!! Are you sure you’re not a Con? ‘Cause the demanding of evidence to be provided which of course you would never believe regardless of how definitive it was. Reminiscent of the Cons always demanding the evidence of anything Barack Obama has done. And no matter what facts or truths are presented, it will never be enough. But on a simpler note, where did I offer to provide evidence? Am I required to provide evidence? Where is your evidence that he hasn’t sold out? Do we have the same definition of sold out? So kudos to your defense of Mr. Lewis!! And don’t get me wrong, I think Mr. Lewis is a true hero and showed his conviction to right early in life. But sadly after years and years in Congress, he has lost his way somewhat. I suspect that’s just the cost of being surrounded by scumbag politicians for so many years, a fate which very few could avoid.

          2. Mr Corrections March 2, 2016

            What the hell are you even talking about? You made an outrageous claim, so back it up. How has he “sold out”?

          3. dtgraham March 2, 2016

            Not outrageous. RED is referring to John Lewis’s disparaging of Bernie and support for Hillary, simply because he didn’t personally see Bernie’s civil rights activism while he saw Hillary’s.

            He’s overlooking superpacs, ties to Wall street, big corporate money, big pharma money, monied special interests generally, and $100,000 dollar Wall St speeches to support Hillary.

          4. Mr Corrections March 2, 2016

            So, let me repeat: John Lewis supporting a candidate you don’t like isn’t “selling out”. Not even if he “disparages” Sanders, which obviously never happened.

          5. dtgraham March 2, 2016

            Read my last paragraph for an explanation of the sell out, Mr Missed it on purpose.

            Incidentally, MLK jr called out John Lewis for his disparaging of Bernie, not that it’s really pertinent to the topic.

          6. Mr Corrections March 2, 2016

            Yes, I read it; having a political opinion different to yours still isn’t selling out. I note also that you still haven’t cited any actual instance of “disparaging”, and still haven’t explained why having a negative opinion about Sanders – a guy who has run the dirtiest Dem campaign in my memory, albeit mostly through inept management rather than malice – counts as “selling out” in the first place.

          7. dtgraham March 3, 2016

            You completely misunderstand the term ‘selling out’, Mr Confused.

            When a member of the progressive left overlooks the corrupting influence that big corporate special interest money has on a candidate, in order to support that candidate for other reasons, that’s selling out.

            Of course you’re an admitted non-member of the progressive left, so that’s why the term escapes you in this context.

          8. Mr Corrections March 3, 2016

            Sanders is great. John Lewis is worth a dozen of him, however. Sorry that you can’t understand that very simple equation.

          9. dtgraham March 3, 2016

            Agreed on your first sentence. Glad to see you’re coming around.

          10. Mr Corrections March 3, 2016

            One day you’ll understand that Sanders is just a career politician. One day.

          11. dtgraham March 4, 2016

            Yeah, unlike Hillary who just started last Wednesday.

          12. Mr Corrections March 4, 2016

            Did I say or imply otherwise? You’re the one who has put a politician on a pedestal, not me.

          13. dtgraham March 4, 2016

            Not a pedestal. Just some major steps above Hillary.

          14. Mr Corrections March 4, 2016

            Nope; his record is equally spotty, and he has ran the dirtiest campaign I’ve ever seen a Democrat run. The fact is that you’re completely incapable of accepting truth.

          15. dtgraham March 4, 2016

            Asking for Goldman Sachs transcripts is your definition of dirt? I’m afraid to ask why his campaign is dirty in your opinion. I think I’m about to get my brain assaulted.

          16. Mr Corrections March 4, 2016

            Yes, what is dirty about the unprecedented theft of millions of dollars worth of campaign data? A mystery.

            I’m sorry you’re like this. Get better soon!

          17. dtgraham March 4, 2016

            Millions of dollars huh. You got this figure from where? I did get my brain assaulted, from Mr Simpleton.

            One Sanders staffer got access to some of Clinton’s data due to a failure in the vendor’s firewall. It more or less fell in their lap, but it was at least reported quickly and the vendor knew about it within 45 minutes. There wasn’t any hacking here. That’s where this should have ended. An apology and firing a staffer. There was activity showing that they looked at it.

            Instead, the DNC took an amazing step. It went to the media with the story and blocked Sanders from the voter file. That didn’t just keep Sanders from national Democratic data, it blocked him from his proprietary data, just weeks before the Iowa caucuses. It froze the campaign in place and dealt a real blow to its organizing efforts. That, and the coin tosses, made the difference in Iowa.

            That wasn’t just a punishment—it was a provocation.
            As Jamelle Bouie at Slate pointed out, the DNC’s punishment of Sanders was draconian and extreme: Losing access to the organization’s database was a serious setback to the Sanders’ campaign. It’s no wonder that he went to court over it.

            Now tell me all about hillary winning 6 coin tosses in a row in Iowa (odds of 1.56%), with no verification except for video of one of the tosses that purported to show…something. How about Harry Reid making a little wink wink call to the Nevada culinary union urging them to vote, and think about Hillary. What was promised?

          18. Mr Corrections March 4, 2016

            It’s astonishing, only not at all really, that you have a theory about how that theft was caused by a conspiracy. Also, every single detail you’ve cited is completely wrong.
            1) Four staffers, not one – and two of them were the head of IT and his deputy, both reporting to Sanders himself. Hardly juniors. Only one of them was fired.
            2) Audit logs – which are publicly available – indicate they selectively stole a lot of vital data, and – WORSE – tried to set up backdoor logins to allow themselves to get back in later. This was very much hacking.

            3) Sanders campaign, not the DNC, went public.
            4) The Sanders campaign refused to deleted the saved copies and refused to allow an independent audit, which was the only thing required for them to regain access.

            5) The “punishment” – locking out people who broke into another user’s data, refused to delete it, and refused to allow any assurance they wouldn’t do it again – was basic IT security 101. The Sanders team threatening to sue for “$600K a day” was Kabuki theatre, as the contract they had signed expressly denied them damages for this; it would have been thrown out on day one. Had the DNC pressed charges, which they never even threatened to do, at least one person would have gone to jail for several years, and the damages would have been in the millions.

            It’s also hilarious that you’ve decided to follow this up with YET MORE CONSPIRACY THEORIES.
            The Clinton campaign won seven (not six) coin tosses in Iowa, it’s true. Guess what, though? The Sanders campaign won six also. Guess how many delegates these coin tosses decided? Zero. From this selective reporting of the facts, you manage to decide the most likely scenario is … A CONSPIRACY, this time involving Harry Reid.

            While we’re on the subject of Iowa, no doubt you also believe that Sanders campaign line that Clinton “declared victory” before the vote count was anywhere near completed – that also never happened.

          19. dtgraham March 4, 2016

            I give up with you. I never indicated anything about a conspiracy concerning the data breach. You’ve seized on this word, and now whenever a point is raised on anything, a charge of being a conspiracy theorist is rolled out by Mr Caps lock. I indicated that they reviewed her data. It fell into the lap of the O’Malley campaign too due to that vendor error. There was at least no attempt to hack into her data. An error made Clinton’s proprietary data visible to others, that’s all. However, what they did was wrong. Not arguing that. Just giving it some perspective.

            You’re wrong on all counts. Sanders agreed to an independent investigation only after his proprietary data was returned to him just minutes before they were to appear before a judge to get it. Funny that the DNC capitulated at the last moment, or is that a conspiracy theory too? If they could have legally kept it, why didn’t they? Ask yourself that.

            Wasserman-Schultz went to the newspapers with the story originally. The Sanders campaign lawsuit only later became a public story.

            Clinton won 6 coin tosses in a row and there’s no information on Sanders winning any coin tosses. There were 6 sites, and 6 sites only, that had coin tosses. In 6 precincts, the decision on awarding a county delegate came down to a coin toss, the media reported. Clinton won all 6, and the odds of that happening are virtually nil. It most assuredly would have affected the judgement of the super delegates and it did give one more state delegate to Clinton, when the total vote count didn’t warrant anything other than an even split of the state delegates. They also split the state delegates in New Hampshire after a 60-38 result for Sanders. Look it up.

            Harry Reid’s publicly reported phone call to Nevada is not a conspiracy and had nothing to do with Iowa, you idiot. Just bias from the Democratic party. You’re continuing to play games and jumble up facts and details on purpose.

          20. Mr Corrections March 4, 2016

            Absolutely everything you just wrote was false, as you could easily verify with even the most cursory of googling. The fact that you’re DOUBLING DOWN on an ENTIRELY BASELESS conspiracy theory you literally pulled out of your ass to explain a COIN TOSS DISCREPANCY THAT DID NOT EXIST is fucking incredible.

          21. dtgraham March 6, 2016

            The most cursory of googling reveals a he said/she said reporting on the data, lawsuits, investigations, and who went to the media first. One side appears to make more sense to me, but who really knows.

            The “baseless” conspiracy theory comes the whole stinkin’ media reporting 6 coin toss results that were virtually impossible mathematically, and the likelihood of those results was expounded upon too.

          22. Mr Corrections March 6, 2016

            Except that there is literally NO QUESTION that the story you choose to believe is false. You want it to be true because you. are. a. conspiracy. theorist.

          23. dtgraham March 6, 2016

            Now who has problems with internet searches? Check out the versions of events on-line as I reported them. There’s a homework assignment for you. If you can’t find it, I’ll provide links.

          24. Mr Corrections March 6, 2016

            Yes, the conspiracy theory you ranted about (as a starting point for an entirely new conspiracy theory about Harry Reid) does indeed show up in google searches. So do anti-vaxxer screeds.

            In order for their to be any doubt on what I said, every news organisation that wrote an article would have to be part of a third conspiracy.

            You are fucking nuts.

          25. dtgraham March 6, 2016

            More game playing from Mr Childlike. Those news organizations were honestly wrong about the coin tosses, assuming there were more than 6, because of the horrendously incompetent way that the Democrats chose to report the coin tosses. I indicated the terribly flawed process that the media had to unfortunately rely on.

            I know you’re a master at twisting words to mean something else. That is, unless you truly are fucking stupid. Work with me; I’m assuming you’re not.

            I honestly haven’t read any conspiracy theories about Reid. Just reporting his contact with the culinary union. Do you understand the definition of what a conspiracy is?

            Incidentally, when the media reports 6 coin tosses in a row all won by one candidate, you have to strongly suspect skullduggery at that point unless you’re very, very, naive.

          26. Mr Corrections March 6, 2016

            The entire six coin toss story was – and is still being – pushed by the Sanders campaign, who also push the story that Clinton “declared victory” before the voting was completed.

            Once again, zero (0) state level delegates were awarded by coin tosses.

          27. dtgraham March 6, 2016

            You’re probably thinking of internet commenters like you and me, who happen to be partial to Sanders. However, if some of the Sanders campaign are still mentioning it, who can blame them? I don’t know what happened in Iowa any more.

            She shouldn’t have given that early victory speech when there were missing results in a dozen precincts, and the results at that point were a statistical dead heat. Probably an honest mistake but it gives rise to conspiracy theories when considering everything else.

            Coin tosses awarded county delegates, which contribute to the awarding of state delegates.

            Here’s an interesting article on the coin tosses from the Des Moines Register, unless it’s out of date. It may be.

            http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/sometimes-iowa-democrats-award-caucus-delegates-coin-flip/79680342/

          28. Mr Corrections March 6, 2016

            As I clearly stated, she didn’t give an “early victory speech”. At all. NEVER HAPPENED. See, that’s what I’m talking about – you WANT to believe any old bullshit as long as you think it makes Clinton looks bad; it’s ridiculous.

          29. dtgraham March 7, 2016

            She may not have said the word victory, but it sure sounded to everyone like a victory speech. She said that she was “breathing a big sigh of relief” and then said “thank you Iowa.” She then urged her supporters to go out and win the nomination.

            That sounds a lot like any victory speech that I’ve ever heard. Keep in mind that a winner had not been officially declared as the election was far too close to call at that point, and the votes hadn’t even all been counted yet due to screw ups. You can’t figure out where this pre-mature victory speech thing came from?

            You know, all the caps lock usage in the world won’t make you right when you don’t have common sense on your side. That’s all I ask of you, but I never get it. You exhibit childlike behaviour.

            I said that it was probably an honest mistake, although I don’t know what she could possibly have been thinking. Stressed out? I can also see the conspiracy speech tie-in with the coin flips, as they were reported at the time. That speech should have been worded in a different way if she wanted to go that early.

            I don’t personally buy the conspiracy victory speech thing, but I can easily see how others might. That’s called reason, nuance, and common sense. Try it sometime.

            Now get in your last brainless, child-like comment about how everything demonizes Hillary and every Bernie supporter is a conspiracy nut…and then we’re done. I can’t carry on with you any more. I’ve had enough.

          30. Mr Corrections March 7, 2016

            Weirdly, that sounds-like-a-victory speech doesn’t seem to be quoted anywhere. Can you link to it? I bet you cannot.

          31. Mr Corrections March 4, 2016

            I mean, this took like 5 seconds to find:
            http://crooksandliars.com/2016/02/coin-tosses-did-not-decide-iowa-democratic

            Oh look, it’s exactly like I reported – 7 and 6 coin tosses respectively, no state level delegates awarded.

            Strange how your THEORY that Harry Reid CONSPIRED to fake the results doesn’t seem to be based on things that happened!

          32. dtgraham March 6, 2016

            Five seconds my a$$. Do you keep this website handy or something? Shortly after Iowa, I thought I may have heard somewhere that there were more than 6 coin tosses. I’ve worded the search on that every conceivable way, and using different browsers, and always came up with 6 coin tosses won by Hillary. I still can’t be 100% sure if crooks and liars is correct because the reporting on this doesn’t give me a lot of confidence. Crooks and liars themselves admit that they originally reported it as 6 coin tosses all won by Hillary. The following is from the Daily Mail: I finally came across something.

            “The number of coin tosses that occurred on caucus night will never be known thanks to the reporting requirements of the Iowa Democratic party.”

            If the process is this flawed, and the media reports it as 6 coin tosses (including even Steve Kornacki), how in the hell is anyone supposed to know?

            As to Harry Reid…grow up! Reid simply tried to influence the culinary union Nevada voting in Hillary’s favour, which is anyone’s right to do. He can do it, but he shouldn’t. The party should stay neutral. At the level he’s at, he represents the party.

            You’re a dishonest little game player, and I’ve had enough here. Did I concoct some theory that Harry Reid conspired to fake the Iowa coin tosses? Reid is a Nevada story only.

            You like to falsely complain about others quoting you saying something that you didn’t say (you make that up too), but you have no problem twisting other’s words and thoughts into something entirely different.

            I’ve seen your word games with others here. I’ll be around to correct you every once in a while.

          33. Mr Corrections March 6, 2016

            Do you think google is hard or something? From memory my search was “iowa coin toss did not affect result”. Go ahead, see if that works (hint: it works, and there are dozens of results).

            You’d prefer to believe in a conspiracy, rather than the obvious explanation, because you are a conspiracy theorist.

          34. dtgraham March 6, 2016

            Sure, now that they’re updated. You notice the two dates? I haven’t checked this out in quite a while although I once did. I guess even Steve Kornacki has problems with internet searches huh.

          35. Mr Corrections March 3, 2016

            Also, who’s corrupt now? I love how your evidence for one smear is that another smear must be true.

          36. dtgraham March 3, 2016

            Lewis strongly insinuated that Bernie had no involvement in the civil rights movement simply because Lewis didn’t directly see him. How’s that for a smear?

            Lewis ignored Hillary’s Wall St and corporate ties for reasons unknown. That’s a sell out.

            Best response I have because your reply didn’t really make any sense.

          37. Mr Corrections March 3, 2016

            1. Imaginary. He said he didn’t remember him, and what Sanders did for the civil rights movement was a fraction of what Lewis – or even Clinton – did.
            2. Usual smear, assumes facts not in evidence.
            3. Yes, my response made no sense because – like all conspiracy theorists -you assume that your theory is self-evident.

          38. dtgraham March 4, 2016

            What’s the conspiracy here that I supposedly believe in? You just make this stuff up as you go along don’t you?

            When Bernie was getting arrested during civil rights protests in the early 60’s, Hillary was helping to campaign for Barry Goldwater. You’re ok with that because I’m sure you wish Goldwater had won.

          39. Mr Corrections March 4, 2016

            Sanders went to a few marches in the north. That was awesome! Among other things, Hillary Clinton went undercover in the south to bust universities that were secretly discriminating against African Americans, back when that was actually a dangerous thing to do. That was awesome and brave.

            Of course, you wouldn’t know that because your every opinion is a cartoon.

          40. dtgraham March 4, 2016

            Discriminating against African-Americans in the deep south 45 years ago? No! The prevision, the crystal gazing, the prophecy. How would she have known? That must have taken a lot of investigation to prove that. Yeah.

          41. Mr Corrections March 4, 2016

            Wow, it’s no wonder than 90% of African Americans vote Clinton, with outreach like that. Sorry that Sanders isn’t as great at civil rights as Lewis or Clinton; better luck next candidate!

          42. Insinnergy March 2, 2016

            Yes you are required to provide evidence if you expect anyone to take you seriously.
            I notice you avoiding doing that very thing.
            Solid strategy.

  3. nana4gj March 2, 2016

    I remember so well, after President Obama signed the ACA bill, a photo of Hillary running with arms outstretched, a huge smile, to embrace the President on his accomplishment !

    She doesn’t have to “pander” to the President, or to any black person or group. He has been an outstanding President in personal and professional conduct; in the issues he has advocated; in his leadership abroad with the UN, NATO; and as an Advocate for the people of this country and around the world, an advocate as a lawyer would be, or as someone with our collective Powers of Attorney. Children know this man….I have never known a time when so many children in this country have been so knowledgable, aware of a sitting President and have felt so much regard and affection for that President.

    We ALL know, here at home and those across the seas, why there has been no constructive relationship between the WH and Congress. Republicans have proudly flaunted the fact, from the first month of his first term, that their singular mission was to obstruct and sabotage his Presidency, at any costs, and all of us at home and across the seas, have been victimized by it, exploited by them to achieve their mission.

    Had the Sanders campaign not shown themselves to be unscrupulous in many ways so many times, when they had no need to be, their obsession with a single issue to the point of an inability to discuss with the same obsession any other issue unless prodded and poked, or unless to pander themselves for certain votes, with no realistic path to achievement or making that obsession any more than a theory, was enough to lose interest early on. We shall see if they can inspire enough of their disappointed supporters to do the right thing for this country and not throw the baby out with the bath water; to understand that, if you can’t have exactly what you think you want, the way you want it, you surely do not want to throw away everything you do have and to understand that anything worth achieving is worth working for with a realistic, prodding determination that results in progress.

    One needs no “label” to make something big happen; one needs desire and ability, and Hillary has proven throughout her life she has that, not even needing to be in elected office to make a difference in people’s lives for the better. If they had any sense of history, they would know she has, over and over again, risked her name, person, reputation, because she never “knew her place” and was never content to be what others thought she should be.

    What Republicans have become today is, in large part, the result of what they have done over decades to people like Hillary, that “narrative” that she has been shifty, greedy, duplicitous, alleged to have committed everything under the sun, from murder to her child fathered by someone other than her husband. They knew she would be, and was, a formidable threat to them. Yet, when forced to work with her in the Senate, they also discovered they could respect her and even like her, which only added to the threat factor.

    We cannot spend anymore time worrying about “the lost soul” of the Republican Party, or inadvertently bail them out of their morass they deliberately created for themselves because we are “disappointed” our team didn’t win, or because it’s so easy to believe their narrative of our presumptive nominee. Sanders’ followers are not dumb. Surely, they can look at the state of affairs this primary exposes about the abysmal choices they put forward for the highest office in the land; at their enabling of a most heinous candidate just so they can secure the WH…anyone, doesn’t matter what they believe, who they are, what they’ve done and not done, etc., ….just so they get the WH, the Senate, the House, the States legislatures, AND, the Supreme Court; at their own narrative over the past 7 years, to realize that all of that passion and drive for their standard bearer cannot be put in the closet shut away, or “donated” to the antithesis to Sanders, by choosing not to vote or to vote for whomever emerges from Republicans.

    It may be too early to predict Hillary as the eventual nominee, but, it begins to look as if considerable thought and planning needs to begin, just in case. It’s not easy, I know. I had to do the very same thing in 2008, and it was Hillary who urged me to do so, because she pointed out that, at the end of the day, there were no other options if we wanted to achieve any of what she wanted, the reasons we had supported her. I did, and I have never regretted it.

    Reply
  4. dpaano March 2, 2016

    Granted, Hillary may not be perfect (but who is), but she’s the ONLY candidate that take this country back, or at least I believe that. Any of the GOP nominees will only bring this country into massive chaos and will NOT help the middle class! They pander to their corporate cronies and the high-paid lobbyists of these corporations….they have NO cares whatsoever about the American people or what they want or need!

    Reply
  5. ray March 2, 2016

    America is great it is the 1% and bought and payed for republican party that is dragging it down.

    Reply
  6. @HawaiianTater March 2, 2016

    Gene, buddy, you really missed your calling in life. You would have made a fortune writing novels in the YA fantasy/fiction genre. Your writing skills are only surpassed by your imagination. I am truly impressed.

    Reply
  7. dtgraham March 2, 2016

    Hillary has been so wonderful to African-Americans, and they have such a long memory for all the wonderful things she did for them, that they deserted her for Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries; and he hadn’t been around long enough to do much for them. Their support was how he won.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.