"Mission Accomplished?" Yeppers! A 'Wag The Dog' Show To Divert Attention

"BWAHAHAHA! I wanted my nice, new and smart missiles to clobber them Russians too!"

"We are tethered to a buffoon. He rages and veers, spreading ugliness, like an oil slick smothering everything in its viscous mantle. He’s about to bomb Syria. He’s not about to bomb Syria. His attention span is nonexistent. He attacks the foundations of our Republic: an independent judiciary, a free press, truth itself. His cabinet looks terrorized, the way Saddam Hussein’s once did.

President Donald Trump is dangerous. The main things mitigating the danger are his incompetence and cowardice. We live in a time that teaches how outrage can turn to a shrug, how the unthinkable repeated over and over can induce moral numbness, how a madman’s manic certainties can overwhelm reason.....Trump’s main war, beyond all the military bluster, is on truth. "  - Roger Cohen in NY Times, Saturday

When the corporo-media blabbered about Trump announcing "Mission accomplished!" after his Friday night fireworks display in Syria,  I had to settle down after howling with laughter for nearly a full minute, as wifey can attest. Why? Because those were the same dumbass words used by bumbling birdbrain Gee Dumbya Bush on an aircraft carrier - before the reality of what he started in Iraq came back to bite him in the proverbial butt.

In  the Weekend WSJ  piece 'Pentagon Urges Caution On Syria Strike', (p.A6) we read the supposed move to strike was after:  "Mr Trump was moved by images of children with foam bubbling from their mouths, aides said."                                                                             

Give me a break. When all is said and done Trump cares more about his night time cheese burger not being undercooked than those gassed kids  foaming at the mouth in Douma.    Sorry, but at 71 - and having investigated a lot of political chicanery (as well as political assassinations) over the past five decades.   I am way too cynical a person to swallow any codswallop churned out by  "aides" quoted in the mainstream media.  So why the hell would I blandly accept that the lying thug occupying the White House suddenly found grace,  humanity and a moral conscience in response to the awful scenes of gassed Syrian kids? 

Nope, this  Friday night fireworks farce - which was almost entirely cosmetic - was all about using crass deflection to take the heat and spotlight of the media off  Trump, given the latest Mueller probe revelations.   If you need a template, Google  "Wag the Dog".  That's where this "show strike" sits.   Wait. Did I just write "show strike"? Yes, I did, after reading those exact words in the Weekend WSJ  piece .To wit:

"The military had identified potential windows for strikes including one Thursday night.  Gen. Mattis cancelled them out of concerns that anything other than a 'show strike'  risked broader escalation with the Russians in particular."

Got that? So despite Trump’s tough language,  e.g. "Get ready, Russia! The missiles will be coming!", Dotard's only  option - short of possible nuclear war-  was one with no genuine punch to damage Assad’s broader war machine.  Or  negate his government’s command and control of its forces - i.e.  beyond its chemical weapons. This is backed up by the post-strike reports  (Denver Post, April,, 14, p 14A) of Syrians pouring into the streets chanting cries of conquest at "the West's failed efforts to subdue them."   We also learned that hundreds danced and waved in the streets of Damascus Saturday morning. And why wouldn't they,  given those cruise missile strikes did nothing to really take out Assad's forces, e.g. which had since occupied Douma?

 Nor did they take out the  Syrians' most substantial military assets - including jet fighters- which had been rapidly moved into protected bunkers after idiot Trump tweeted his threats to strike days in advance.  (Yes, some of the Tomahawk missiles did eradicate the residue of chlorine gas left in drums. But let's try to remember the chlorine was one of the items Assad was permitted to keep after last year's strike, and there is no real evidence - e.g. from blood samples of purported victims - that a nerve agent like Sarin was used.)

In the same (WSJ) piece we also learned Trump was upset and "unhappy"   because "he had been pushing for an attack that would not only punish the Syrian regime but also exact a price from two of its international patrons, Russia and Iran."   The meathead had to be informed by Mattis and the other generals of the risk of accidentally killing hundreds of Russians and starting a wider conflict, even nuclear war. (See also, 'Trump Bowed to Pentagon Restraint', WSJ today, p. A1)

Clearly, Dotard never learned or read about the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. However, another real possibility is that this unglued mutt wanted to make an example of a strike on Russian military  interests to "prove" there was no Russian collusion.  I.e. "How could I have colluded with 'em if I just lobbed missiles at 'em?"   Taking us all for morons.

But the generals' persistence is precisely why the attack ended up a "show strike'.  So when Doturd blabbed "This was a precisely executed strike"  - well yeah, if you regard it in the sense of  a precisely executed  "nothing burger" show strike, careful to avoid hitting Russian targets. And let me make it abundantly clear here, for anyone slow on the uptake, that I was absolutely NOT rooting for serious target strikes, or any at all! I wanted the imp to go before congress for an authorization like Obama did way back when, as opposed to using some canned executive authorization based on 9/11. As Sen. Tim Kaine put it this morning, on CBS Early Show:

"The president is wrong about being backed by the Constitution. This was an illegal military act. It is one I would have likely supported if he brought it to congress. I mean, we have a president not a king.  And it's the Constitution which says it is congress which gets to declare war not the president.

What the president can do is defend the United States against imminent attack. But if it's a matter of going on offense, against a sovereign nation of Syria, he's got to come to congress."

 Sen. Kaine also made pointed reference to the fact there is  no overarching strategy, no long term goals that the Trump bunch has defined.  These, he added, are what determines whether a military response makes sense or not. In other words, these one off missile show strikes merely disclose Trump and his gang are ad libbing.  Or perhaps trying to get simpletons to believe he won't tolerate crossing "red lines", but Obama would.

But anyway, given Friday night's fireworks were basically....well, fireworks (at $1 m a pop), there is  unlikely to be any change in the overall balance of forces in Syria seven years into its bloody civil war.   The only real way out of the morass, as one commentator on MSNBC put it days before,  is for Trump to sit down with his pal Putin and work things out.  This is given that Putin basically controls all the forces the U.S. opposes.

What has most astounded me in the aftermath of Friday's night's show is when I read how Trump's favorable ratings had gone up to rival those in his first 100 days, making me wonder how much lower the nation's average I.Q. had dipped. (Wifey estimated just two ticks above "moron" level.) The fools who've been polled to enhance Dotard's approval seem not have processed that a  degenerate mutant isn't "moved" by any sights or scenes of human misery because: a) he really doesn't see any misery other than in reflections of his own ego, and b)  a psychopath lacks any capacity for empathy - which would be required to act on a genuine moral basis. Hence, he lacks any moral compass or conscience, operating instead solely out of a premoral mind and narcissism. That is, his only concerns are immediate and self- gratifying.  He saw the images of the kids foaming mouths-  from the chlorine gas - and decided his ego would be gratified if he used their plight as justification for a fireworks strike on Syria. This self-serving action would  then take the media spotlight  (and scrutiny) off him. Case closed.

So, the motivation for this cruise missile show strike was clearly to gain a wag the dog distraction.  Any person of basic sentience  and intellect, who can read and process analytically,  should be able to see this. You don't need  a Mensa level I.Q.,  or shouldn't.  Especially after it was revealed that the Mueller investigation now has evidence that  Michael  Cohen really did visit Prague in 2016 to meet with the Russkies, as the Steele Dossier had documented.

Yes, we are learning more and more of the Steele dossier's validity with each passing day and you can be assured the piss segment of that document will also be verified at some point. To recap:

"Trump's perverted conduct in Moscow (2013) included hiring the presidential suite of the Ritz Carlton Hotel. where he knew President and Mrs. Obama (whom he hated) had  stayed on one of their official trips to Russia, and defiling the bed where they had slept by employing a number of prostitutes to perform a 'golden showers'  (urination) show in front of him.   The hotel was known to be under FSB control with microphones and concealed cameras in all the main rooms to record anything they wanted to."

There is no reason at all to doubt this account - despite the fact the breathless media has declared it the most contentious (and "salacious") part of the dossier. The reason is that the reported behavior (from Steele's  "Source E") is perfectly compatible with Trump's psychological profile of malignant narcissism, sexual libertinism and vengeful payback. It is indeed exactly what this POS would do to a bed which he knew the Obamas had slept in. And moreover, this behavior is totally consistent with that of a loathsome asshole who brags about grabbing pussies.

In many respects, one might use the metaphor of Trump grabbing the nation's "pussy" Friday night to distract it from his looming legal problems, and especially the news in the wake of the Cohen bust.   And why wouldn't he,   given the tidal wave of negative news flooding in, right up until Dotard ordered the strike? As Max Boot put it in the Sunday  WaPo:

"Friday ... brought news that Cohen is under criminal investigation by the Justice Department for a litany of offenses. That same day, the deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee resigned after the disclosure that he had paid $1.6 million in hush money to a former mistress, a Playboy playmate, whom he had impregnated. The broker of the hush money was none other than Cohen.

It is hard to imagine how Trump can do his job — for example, approving military strikes on Syria — while drowning in this rising tide of scandal. There is an old tradition, more honored in theory than fact, that issues of national security are kept separate from domestic politics, but Trump is utterly incapable of making any such distinction. For him, everything is political — and all politics is personal."

What has in the end been fortuitous for us all, the remaining sane citizens of this country, is that Trump did not actuate the wider strikes he really wanted,, namely on the Russians. Had he been enabled and done so (and make no mistake John "Ripper" Bolton was prompting him) we might not be having this conversation at all.  Let's thank our lucky stars or whatever,  that Gen. Jim  "Mad Dog" Mattis is still in the White House to exert some level of oversight on this impetuous, psychopathic, septuagenarian toddler.

See also:

‘Mission Accomplished!’ But What Is the Mission?

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/chris-floyd/78689/alchemical-reactions-transmuting-death-dealing-dung-into-pr-gold

Excerpt:

If  the US/UK/France really believed the building they targeted (and hit) in a heavily populated civilian area of Damascus was actually making chemical weapons, what do they think would have happened if all that toxic material had been dispersed by explosions throughout the surrounding neighborhoods? Hundreds if not thousands of civilians would have died. So either the "Western powers" knowingly risked killing thousands of innocent people -- or else they knew the building was not actually a chemical weapons facility.

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-margolis/78683/playing-with-nuclear-matches

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/richard-eskow/78705/7-questions-about-the-syria-airstrikes-that-aren-t-being-asked

Why This Government Shutdown Could Last Weeks

Sign for closure placed outside a gov't bldg.
One of the favorite depictions seen on signs of women marchers.

"As Lindsey Graham has been reporting, a 32-year old aide (Stephen Miller) is telling the President of the United States what to do.  Trump gives Minority Senate leader Schumer a number for agreement, Schumer accepts it - then it's blown up when Miller sees it. ...The real damage is that leaders across the world are seeing how weak, how pathetic  this President can be. He has to be the weakest in allowing a 32- year old to lead him around by the nose, and actually undercut him in negotiations with Senate leaders." - Joe Scarborough on MSNBC this morning


As the shutdown continues, most sentient beings in the capitol agree that if anyone apart from the Dotard gets the blame it is the 32 year old proto Nazi and Joseph Goebbels look-alike Stephen Miller, e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgypWo0DCps

Miller's cynical manipulation of Trump was pointed out by Senator Lindsey Graham yesterday and repeated by Joe Scarborough in his statement this morning. Miller, the Goebbels wannabe, has had Trump's ear and been blowing up deal after deal, amendment after amendment - including an amendment proposed by Sen. Claire McCaskill to deliver emergency  funding to the military. But just as Dotard signaled possible agreement and an end to the shutdown, "Goebbels Junior"  nixed it. In other words, he barks "Jump!" and Dotard - like a beaten whelp- asks "How high?"  As Scarborough added:

"Would Barack Obama ever let a 32-year old staff member undercut him? Never! Never in a million years. Barack Obama was a strong leader. What we have here is a weak, weak uninformed leader - Michael Wolff was right.  We have such a weak leader that he lets 32 year olds lead him around and undercut him on negotiations."

This is why Scarborough could say that leaders across the world are seeing what a weak. pathetic putz we have for a leader. What a spineless, contemptible Pillsbury doughboy - all flab and no brain.

How is this germane? Because as long as Jr. Nazi Miller is driving Dotard, there will be NO deal, no end to the shut down. Further, the toxic rancor and rhetoric will accelerate.  How can it be otherwise when the man who purportedly should lead an end to this miasma doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground and has to consult a 32 -year old jackoff Nazi punk on when to take a dump.  For example, the tweet shown on Scarborough's show this morning had all the earmarks of a dumb puppet having his feeble brain "strings" pulled by Obersturmfuhrer Miller, e.g.

"The Democrats are turning down services and security for citizens in favor or services and security for non-citizens. Not good!"

But as Scarborough pointed out for the more feeble minded,  unsure of who to blame:

"Anybody who watched TV this weekend (e.g. C-SPAN) and saw the Senate in session saw that Claire McCaskill tried to pass an amendment that would allow for full funding of the military - Republicans stopped it. They tried to pass funding for the CHIP program, Republicans stopped it.  Tim Kaine tried to re-open the government for three days to get them the space to negotiate this week, but Republicans stopped it. Then Schumer and Trump came together on a deal for DACA - but Miller and the staff stopped it."

And so it's gone and so it goes. But do not look for daylight, as long as extremists are dictating terms to the alleged "leader of the free world" and his GOP cohort.

Let's not candy coat it: things are getting ever nastier in the home of the brave and the land of the free. The ongoing shutdown, itself a sign of the current levels of polarization and division,  descended to new lows over the weekend. This followed the incessant lies from the Trumpies- fanned by Miller and  his Right wing hack allies and followers.. Not to mention putting out a despicable TV ad released on Saturday, which said Democrats were: “complicit in every murder committed by illegal immigrants”.  You think the Dems will be inclined to deal with these asswipes now? Including agreeing to a short term (3 week) CR by noon today? If so you probably also believe in unicorns.

This is how low the current shutdown dialogue has taken us and it is bound to go to ever lower depths as the shutdown continues. And yes, this could last for weeks even as the mainstream media continue to breathlessly gasp about the "blame game".

Look, there is no "blame game" other than in pundits' feverish brains.  Graham and Scarborough nailed WHO is to blame and the Dems have nothing to do with it. As I posted previously this is all on the Repukes (wifey hates that term, but too bad, I'm sticking with it until they prove they can cease "re-puking" unworkable positions.)  -as The Denver Post reported yesterday (p. 11A) have now fully lined up with the extremist Right anti-immigration faction to try to disparage DACA  and the Dreamers. 

The Post didn't mention it but Lindsey Graham did later, that Stephen Miller is the extremist "avatar" keeping Trump on the path to refusing every offer made by the Dems -including even providing significant funding for his goddamned stupid wall.  These extremists are the ones pushing the GOP to yield no ground for any compromise - say to put DACA on the table - for any continuing resolution (CR) or other bill to break the shutdown logjam. 

This is why NO deal will manifest today, so don't hold your breath. The Dems - as part of any short term CR (until Feb. 8th) insist that the DACA issue be integrated into any future bill. The Democrats, in contrast to Trump, have consistently  made it  clear there can be no deal without DACA included. This is given 800,000 kids or young adults would otherwise be sent back to countries they've never lived in by March.  Further, the Democratic base and resistance is fully behind this stance. To cave now, or show cowardice in any form,  will definitely earn the Ds  resounding midterm losses as the base abandons them in November. So, they had better stay strong  and avoid bringing a mere knife to a gun fight. We want Uzis or AK-47s!

How low have things gotten in the meantime? Just look at that reprehensible ad released on Saturday, which said Democrats opposing Trump's hardline immigration agenda were “complicit in every murder committed by illegal immigrants”.  Marc Short, the White House director of legislative affairs, told NBC’s Meet the Press “that ad was produced by an outside group and not those of us in the White House”unfolds"   Never mind, Trump still approved of it, including  a picture of Dotard giving two thumbs up and his voice saying: “I’m Donald Trump and I approve this message.”

Bernie Sanders condemned the ad, saying, on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday:

“It is really unbelievable and so sad for our country that we have a president of the United States who says such nonsense and such outrageous statements,”

You own it, fat boy, so deal with the fallout, which is primarily bad faith, lack of trust. The Dotard, with his balls locked up by the extreme Right, can't be expected to broker any reasonable end to the shutdown. Indeed, yesterday this turd tried to short circuit the process by appealing to his Repuke tribe to use the "nuclear option".  Such a move would allow Republicans to pass legislation without Democratic support, by lowering the majority needed to pass a bill to just 51 votes.

What was especially gratifying to see, was all the News shows  yesterday that repeated Fox and Friends footage from 2013, when Republicans in Congress drove the last government shutdown, over healthcare reform.  There, captured for posterity, was Donnie Dotard himself, bloviating:

“Well, if you say who gets fired it always has to be the top.  I mean, problems start from the top and they have to get solved from the top and the president’s the leader. And he’s got to get everybody in a room and he’s got to lead.”

Donnie Dotard thought at the time he was too clever by half, given his critique took a shot at then President Obama.  But he couldn't have known that 4-plus years later his words would apply to him. I mean HE is now the guy at the top, or is supposed to be. HE is the one who is supposed to make the hard decisions to solve the shutdown - not let Right wing crazies bend his ears to keep it going.

As Sen. Chuck Schumer said in a Senate floor speech Saturday,  he had “essentially agreed to give the president something he wants” – funding for a border wall – “for something we both want”, status for Dreamers. Adding:

"It was now up to the president to end what he repeatedly called “the Trump shutdown."”.

But see, given Dotard's balls are in hock to Herr Miller and the extreme Right, he can't. He is essentially a political eunuch - having neutered himself - by ceding so much power to his junior aide Miller and the FOX et al crazies. Crazies (like John Birchers) who, merely 50 years ago, were rightfully scorned and relegated to the margins of American political status. While today, idiotic voters - hankering for an authoritarian white Master - have given them center stage.

So much for being the leader. Flush this presidential turd down the political toilet as numerous depictions portrayed in the Women's marches across the nation. 

What's even more incredible than a U.S. President being led by the nose by a proto-Nazi punk?  Well, the answer is how many - who were ready to disown "the Donald" and  toss his fat ass into a mine shaft three months ago - are now prepared to follow him into hell over this shutdown and his anti-immigration stance.

Again, don't look for anything to come of the D-R confab a few hours from now, to try to get a 3 week reprieve. . Until and unless the Repukes detach themselves from the Right wing extremists - especially Stephen Miller - there will be no end to the shutdown.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/bruce-ticker/77340/blame-only-republicans


Update: 2: 20 p.m. MST

As per the latest news it appears a temporary agreement - for a 3 week reprieve on the shutdown  - has been reached after all. This was after the Republicans made a "pledge" to consider DACA as part of any new spending bill. Before anyone gets all hyped up and overly positive let's bear in mind we've been down this road before - in December -, when Dems got a similar "pledge" from Bitch McConnell,  then were stabbed in the back. (Why many Left groups are saying the Dems caved.)  Personally, my bet is we will be right back where we are now come Feb. 8th. I could be wrong, and pigs could also fly and unicorns frolic in Rocky Mountain National Park..

Bottom line is there is a window to work things out during which the U.S. government will be open for business. But this depends on the good faith of the GOP (and especially Dotard and 'Mitch the Bitch')  to see the DACA aspect through and not screw over the Dems again. If I were a gov't worker, I'd start salting away money from now in case you face a much more prolonged furlough after February 8th.

On the actual positive side, the CHIP program as a result of today's CR vote, gets funding extended for another six years. Maybe that is worth caving for now.

Hillary Asks "What Happened?' The Answers Were Obvious All Along

Hillary last year, campaigning on centrist military themes. Basically, she lost because her campaign foundered amidst a national wave of populism. By not patching divisions and picking Bernie Sanders as VP she sealed her fate and that of the party.

In Hillary Clinton's new book, What Happened,, the former Dem candidate ponders all the reasons she lost the election to the "creep" Donald J. Trump. While ostensibly taking the blame on her own shoulders, she still managed the feat of spreading it far and wide.  She has also set off a firestorm of controversy including in the D party. As one blogger (John Atcheson) on smikringchimp.com put it, Hillary "has been raising quite a brouhaha among Democrats. The general consensus is that most wish she’d just go away, with many saying she’s sapping energy and attention at a time when the party should be forging unity and looking forward."

Her most curious take was that Bernie Sanders, who incited an unheard of populist wave using tens of thousands of small donations was partly to blame. Well, in a way this was true, by her failure to pick him (or Elizabeth Warren)  as Veep - as other party nominees have done with their campaign rivals to seal party unity going forward. Think of Reagan picking George Bush Sr. in 1980 and Kennedy picking Johnson as his VP in 1960.

Given Hillary herself was an uninspiring candidate with the charisma of worn rug, she absolutely needed someone else on the ticket to spark interest and fire up the liberal base. (Which WSJ columnist William Galston estimated at 48 percent of the Democratic Party by the time of last year's general election.)  Instead, she selected another boring candidate (and centrist) Tim Kaine.  After that selection I forecast a Dem loss at the polls in my July 21 post, 'A Hillary Prescription for Losing In November, Pick Tim Kaine As Veep'.

Apart from Kaine's booooooooring index, there were other issues such as blogger David Swanson pointed out at the time on smirkingchimp.com:

"Kaine was an anti-environmentalist pro-coal governor of Virginia, a supporter of the "right to work" (for less) law restricting union organizing in Virginia, and he is a supporter of corporate trade agreements including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and including fast-tracking the TPP. An extremely loyal Democrat, he nonetheless criticized Democrats in 2011 for proposing higher taxes on millionaires.

Kaine is the anti-Bernie Sanders on policy and on process. He takes his direction from those in power, not from the public. In a poll of over 250 Sanders delegates to the Democratic National Convention (by the Bernie Delegate Network), only 2.7% of them said they thought Kaine would be an acceptable vice presidential nominee."

I added:

Meanwhile, with another Neolib on the ticket Bernie or Bust people will not be energized enough to change their minds and certainly not to subscribe to the lesser of two evils again. They will also take a Kaine pick as not only a slap in the face, but also showing Clinton doesn't really support Bernie  Sanders  positions or the integration of some of them into the Dem platform

That was actually confirmed in her book, wherein she lashed out at Sanders as one of the factors (along with James Comey's intrusions, Donald Trump's antics, and the Russians) that was responsible for her loss.

In her book, Clinton specifically  ridiculed Sanders for promising big, and in her opinion, unrealistic programs. To make her point she described a scene from the movie, There’s Something About Mary:

A deranged hitch-hiker comes up with a brilliant plan. Instead of the famous “8 minute abs”exercise routine, he’s going to market “seven minute abs....” The driver played by Ben Stiller, says, “Why not six minute abs?” That’s what it was like in policy debates with Bernie. We would propose a bold infrastructure plan or ambitious new apprentice program for young people and Bernie would announce basically the same thing but bigger. One issue after the other it was like he kept promising four minute abs, or even no minute abs. Magic abs.

So what did Bernie, the “deranged hitch-hiker” offer?

• While Hillary wanted to tinker with Obamacare and continue its dependence on the private insurance industry, Bernie called for single-payer Medicare for All which would eliminate insurance industry involvement.
• While Hillary wanted to tighten a few bank regulations, Bernie called for the breakup of big banks, something she claimed was unnecessary.
• While Hillary offered a complex scheme that would reduce the cost of higher education for some lower income students, Bernie called for free higher education for all.

This was not “the same thing but bigger.” Rather, Sanders was, and still is, offering an entirely different vision for the relationship between financial elites and the American people. The centrists like Clinton were not, but they evidently still haven't figured that out.. During the campaign then, Kaine and Clinton just offered same ol' same ol' despite the fact the succession of Bernie wins in primaries last year ought to have sent up red flags and alarm bells - indicating Clinton was on the wrong track, Sanders on the right one.

Clinton's book is most mystifying in that it doesn't conform to the logical basis for her premise, that is that she was "ultimately to blame" for her loss to Trump. But that raises a paradox - as one WSJ reviewer (Barton Swaim) put it, p. C6, Sept. 16-17:

"How can she bear the blame if she never did anything wrong?"

The examples he provides, along with others given (cited earlier by Atcheson), confirm how politically tone deaf Clinton was, as for example when Sanders and others pressed her about her Wall Street speeches.  She wrote in respect of that, and effectively why she never made them public:

"When you know why you're doing something and you know there's nothing more to it and certainly noting sinister, it's easy to assume that others will see it in the same way."

But, of course, that never happened, mainly because suspicion of Wall Street had been building to a crescendo since the end of the 2007-08 financial crisis - when millions lost a good chunk of their 401ks - not to mention jobs. A savvy politico would have processed that and chucked the baseless assumptions, thinking: "You know, I have got to come clean with so many of these people still hurting. I HAVE to be transparent!"

But she wasn't and that - along with other missteps, came back to bite her.   Why did Hillary lose?? There are hundreds of reasons to pick, including failing to show up in three critical swing states that ultimately went to Trump: Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan - with the total slim margin of 77,000 votes,

But some 400 pages in, Hillary herself writes - after exhausting the 399+ page blame game:

"Why did I lose? I go back to my own shortcomings and the mistakes we made.  I take responsibility for all of them....you can blame the data, blame the message, but I was the candidate. It was my campaign."

Well, better late than never, I say.

A Post-Mortem On A "Primal Scream" From The American Working Class

As the heads of Neoliberal elites in the U.S. and world can be heard popping in the wake of last night's Trump victory, it behooves us to look beneath at what drove it. I will maintain the warning signs were there all along for those who had eyes to see or ears to hear. Five months ago, in fact, I posted on film maker Michael Moore's prediction that Trump would win the election based on working class rage in the "Brexit states". I wrote, referring to his appearance and statements on Bill Maher's Real Time":

Moore zeroed in on the "Brexit" in the US of A, comprising three  industrial states: Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania with their 64 electoral votes. Those 64  electoral votes were the difference between Mitt Romney becoming the 45th President in 2012 and just another loser to Obama. But this time around, as Moore explained, they could easily be grabbed by Trump - especially given all three feature Republican governors who can gin the voting rules in their favor, including via use of electronic voting machines which were a major factor in Bush winning Ohio in 2004.

This turned out to be the case, as all three 'rust belt' states named were lost to Trump, putting him over 270 to the consternation of all sane people on the planet. (As commentator David Axelrod put it on CNN, the voters had issued "a primal scream". Yep, and they also jumped off the political cliff)

Less noted was how the excitement in Democratic quarters absolutely nose-dived when Bernie Sanders (another change populist) was knocked out by HRC, assisted by the DNC's superdelegate system.. It didn't seem to register at the time that many voters wouldn't just jump on the Hillary ship, or evince the same level of excitement they did for Obama back in 2012. Indeed, exit poll results released this a.m. on CBS showed "Change voters" were swept up by Trump to the tune of 83% to 14% for Clinton. It is hard to believe many of those weren't actually former Sanders' primary voters - who jumped ship to the Donald because they didn't believe they could get real change from Hillary. (Her VP pick of Neolib Tim Kaine also factored into that, say as opposed to picking Elizabeth Warren).

As exit poll numbers and analyses came out this morning these suspicions turned out to be the case. For example, younger voters came out by only 55% this time for Clinton compared to 2012 when it was 7 points higher. Black voters came out to 88 % but this was 8 points lower than before. And Hispanic voters came out for Hillary 65% vs. 71% in 2012. The fact five formerly 'blue' states flipped last night was a case of lowered voter turnout in each of those demographics. Meanwhile, the GOP and Trump benefited from millions of new voters - all mainly blue collar (and many of them registered union Dems) - who came out to turn the tables.

This elicits the question of what happened with the damned polls, i.e.  that they got it so wrong?  In a previous post I cited Charles Seife's excellent book,'Proofiness - How You're Being Fooled By The Numbers' , which explored the problem of getting random samples within large populations. In terms of national polls specifically he indicated the error span could approach as much as 6- 7 percent. This alone could explain a lot of the "flipped states" last night. Another aspect was raised by Frank Luntz on CBS this morning, that Trump voters as a rule "don't want to tell pollsters anything, not because they're afraid but because they are hostile to the system and regard polls as part of it:."  That is something I've long suspected, but it really burst through in the wee hours last night as even Pennsylvania and Wisconsin fell red.

Let me also interject here that FBI Director Comey also merits some of the blame, releasing that absurd letter pertaining to Clinton emails 11 days before the election which - as The Washington Post noted:  "undercut Democratic enthusiasm, and his suggestion that the investigation into her would reopen motivated Republicans to fall in line."

I warned before, in a number of posts, that these  members of the white working class were feeling a lot of strain under the Neoliberal economic boot. Trade deals pushed since the mid -1990s had cost them their jobs, ground them under, even as Dem Neolib cheerleaders like Paul Krugman tried to insist more average people really do benefit from free trade policies like NAFTA. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/03/krugman-loses-it-brands-bernie.html

Add in the job loss from automation and the failure of corporations to create new jobs - instead sitting on their piles of cash - and you have most of the negative economic inputs. But why latch onto a billionaire like Trump who hasn't paid taxes the past 20 years as their economic lifeboat? Especially given he has no more use for them than Reagan had for "Reagan Democrats" in 1980 and 1984. Good question, but my theory remains:  that they have aggregated to him because he channels their pent up rage and bombast, from his outbursts against immigrants, to dissing the disabled, to rating women and castigating  other ethnic targets. And always wielding the grievance cudgel as he does so.  The Economist really put the Trumpies in perspective in a brilliant piece from last year, noting (Dec. 5, p. 30):

"The anxiety Trump supporters betray by looking for scapegoats says most, of course, about themselves. Typically members of the white lower middle class, they are at once jealous of the small privileges that distinguish them from the toilers below, and bitterly resentful of the faraway government that provides their Social Security, VA care and Medicare.

Remonstrating in hard times, they are the "radical centre" in academic jargon, who turned out before for George Wallace, a populist southern Democrat who ran for President four times in the 1960s and 70s."

The article then identifies the iconic Trump supporter of this "radical center" with a character  from a John Updike novel named Rabbit Angstrom "from whose flabby mouth dripped endless expressions of impotence, anger and glum humor...having retired to Florida to nurse his disappointment".

Interestingly, this fits perfectly the mold of alienated blue collar worker described by Thomas Frank in his 'What's The Matter With Kansas?' , also pointing out how and why the Democrats began looking past the working class and its interests to focus on the shrinking middle class alone.

It is easy to write such (Economist)  essays when one is a member of the entitled Neoliberal scribe class. It is much harder to bear when one must feed a family of five or six on a pair of $11/ hour "gig" jobs  after losing a good paying factory job.  Multiply that millions of times and one can see the angry 'chickens' coming home to roost, as they did last night, turning formerly blue states red.

 We can go through the endless whys and wherefores all we want, the bottom line is a guy totally unqualified to be President is now President Elect. All the "Rabbit Angstroms" who voted for him and now expect him to "make America great again" are in for a rude shock because he won't be able to deliver on any of those insane promises.   Just building the giant wall he wants will cost at least $200b and that is lowballing it. Where will he get the money? (He did ask facetiously at one rally recently 'Will you all help me pay for it?")

He might make greater strides on killing the TPP but even then will need congress to work with, especially the GOP who are all for it. (Siding with Obama). That is another thing that pissed off the working class, Obama's fetish for the very kind of trade deal  (e.g. TPP) that earlier cost them their good jobs. I am convinced they never forgot, and every time Obama went out to stump for Hillary - five to ten thousand more blue collar Dems decided to either stay home or vote for Trump.

A President Trump will have a much tougher time trying to privatize Social Security or cut Medicare, the "entitlements" those like Paul Ryan have been so desperate to whittle away. Indeed, if the Senate Democrats have any testosterone left at all they will use it to summon the nerve to filibuster such nonsense each time it comes up. Just because Mr. Trump managed to get elected doesn't mean he gets carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wants. And that includes trying to repeal Obamacare and rounding up 11 million Mexican immigrants to send home.

In the end, the dyspeptic scream of the alienated American working class last night echoed one from 84 years ago in Germany, which saw Adolf Hitler ascend to power (after President Paul von Hindenburg capitulated when the Nazi party received a majority of seats in the Reichstag). The "good Germans" had spoken and they wanted done with the Weimar (democratic) system which they perceived as inimical to their economic welfare. But with Hitler, all they got in the end was blood, war and devastation.

Make no mistake, the Dems will have to grow a pair of balls  over the next three months and get used to using the same obstruction tactic that the Reeps have employed the past 8 years and had promised to use again.. That means NO Supreme Court picks approved, NONE - unless they meet certain critical litmus tests (e.g. for Roe v. Wade). This is exactly what these turds had planned to do if Hillary had won. (Google John McCain's remarks on it.)

They will also have to get used to using the filibuster to block any and all legislation that doesn't redound to citizens' benefit including Social Security cuts or replacing Medicare with "premium support", e.g. vouchers. If I had had to use them the past four years (only $10k allocated per year)  it would have put me in a $90,000-plus  debt hole and likely propelled a medical bankruptcy.  The WaPo today claimed that the Repukes will try to get social policy issues passed instead using "budget reconciliation" where a 60-vote majority can be sidestepped. But this is effectively a "nuclear option" which the Dems could use on them in a future, more favorable election cycle. It would therefore be dumb for Ryan and the Reepos to try to use it now, say to push for Medicare budget cuts.

One big consolation for Clinton voters: she is ahead in the popular vote (as of this writing) by:

59, 048, 170 to 58, 926, 233 for Trump.

If it holds, and I believe it will - obviously adding as the three remaining states are finally called- Trump will have his work cut out for him to bring in an even bigger slice of the electorate to: a) accept him as their President, and b) not to alienate them with policies or executive orders that they will perceive as hostile. If he dismisses them, he does so at the risk of being a one term wonder.


See also:

The Democrats Abandon the White Working Class to Trump At Their Own Peril

Demos Will Need More Than Assembling Another Coalition To Win In November

Hillary accepts the Dem nomination last night. Will the Dem convention help her ride to victory in November with a winning coalition?? Doubtful, because coalitions are inherently too variable,  unstable.


It was JFK who first warned about the fallacy of bringing temporary coalitions together every 4 years in an effort to win general elections. He insisted a political party needed to be based on "a common history and heritage", i.e. historically enduring principles that uniquely identified a Party. In his own words:

"For the Democratic Party is not a collection of diverse interests brought together only to win elections. We are united instead by a common history and heritage--by a respect for the deeds of the past and a recognition of the needs of the future "-

At one time the Dems stood for core principles and they constituted more than a temporary ensemble or "coalition" brought together every four years by dodgy rhetoric to win one election. Now, having sold out to the money changers, bankers and business assholes - not to mention the pseudo-free market hacks and economists -  they are barely discernible from the Republicans. Let me correct that, barely discernible except now the Rs have a loose cannon named Donald J. Trump making it easy for the Dems to seize the mantle of political sanity.

But is political sanity enough in an unconventional election year in which powerful populist uprisings have emerged on the Left and Right? I don't believe so. The reason is that most populist uprisings are driven by passions - raw emotions - not wonkish rhetoric or transparent boilerplate speeches at conventions.

The bottom line is it is extremely dicey to try to assemble a winning coalition from people at the extreme edges of the political spectrum driven by passions. This is especially the case when many of them (4 m in the case of Sanders' supporters) have only recently been brought into the electoral mix. .Hence, these newbies have no ab initio commitment to vote, period. They were only driven into the Sanders (or Trump) fold because of what they saw and heard that echoed with their deepest aspirations. This was especially in the case of Sanders' supporters.

The other problem with temporary coalitions is they are inherently unstable, in time, space and mass. The one that swept Obama into the oval office was exceptional by any standard because it brought so many  energized African -Americans into the political process at once.. Let's be frank that for the most part they were not energized so much by Obama's words but via identity: they saw and heard a person of color like them, and they were going to support him to the hilt.

I have heard several arguments so far that if Hillary is to win in November, she will have to muster at least the same mass of turnout - including black voters- that Obama did in 2008. But I simply can't see this happening. If Obama's 2008  success was mainly driven by identity politics, why would the same passion be shown for Hillary Clinton who is not black? It wouldn't. Indeed, Hillary will be lucky to grab half the African-American novel turnout that Obama did. Add in all the barriers erected in red states, especially via new voter ID laws, and the barrier becomes even more formidable.

Now, it is true that Hillary can also profit from an identity component of females, among whom many are black. The take right now is older (age 50 plus) women are going for her by at least 85% to 15%.. However, she's having a much more difficult time among millennial women. (Age 18-34 especially).

That leaves only the members of the disaffected Left (mainly those dismissed - as by hardcore feminist Amanda Marcotte as "dead enders") . Dead enders they may well be, but without a sufficient turnout among them I see no way for Clinton and the Dems to grab a third consecutive 4-year term in the White House. It just isn't going to happen.

Estimates of the number of disaffected Sanders' supporters who will join Hillary's crusade have ranged from 80 percent to 90 percent. These are large proportions to be sure, but in what is likely to be a nail biter election they still may not be enough. She will more likely need 98 to 99 percent. A ten percent deficit, for example, translates to around 1.3 million who in the best case scenario simply don't show up. (In the worst case, obviously, they vote Trump).  If these 1.3 million are sprinkled in "swing" states like Colorado, Virginia, or Florida, where vote margins for victory can be as small as 100,000, Hillary would be in serious trouble.

All of this is meant to show the inherent risk in depending on a temporary coalition brought together only for winning an election. What about a spectacular convention, like the just finished DNC ?(Which truth be told looked and felt more like the one that marked Reagan's ascension in 1980, what with all the flags, faith, and military props)

History shows that conventions by themselves don't produce electoral winners. I don't care how terrific the speeches are or the patriotic props. Look at Obama's sensational 2004 speech. Despite its quality,  Kerry still couldn't prevail over George W. Bush. (Part of the reason was the election being stolen by Diebold electronic voting machines in Ohio, which secretly transferred votes from the D to the R column. See the documentary: "As Ohio Goes So Goes The Nation")

Much more critical are the debates. Hence, Hillary's chances - despite giving a "boilerplate speech"  last night - in the words of Financial Times columnist Edward Luce) will improve if she can deliver a sterling performance in the fall debates. If not, and bear in mind she's going against a character who doesn't adhere to strict rules, that will be it.

Hillary was terrific in skewering Trump as "a little man" before the assembled chorus last night, but she won't be able to do that in formal debates. She will also have to face the fact that "the Donald" may enter those debates with much lower expectations than imposed on her.

The other main aspect of winning an electoral contest,  even if you haven't based your campaign on firm principles (other than "Not him!") is absolutely not to make unforced errors that can affect your critical turnout. So far, over the primary campaign and into the convention, I count at least two major ones made by Hillary: 1) her March speech pandering to AIPAC (America-Israel Political Action Committee, e.g.  http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/03/as-predicted-hillary-panders-to-aipac.html

And 2) Her selection of Wall Street pal Tim Kaine as running mate.

The first confirms her warhawk status which will likely depress turnout by hardcore, anti-war Left folks, and the second is going to depress turnout among the Bernie Left supporters. The latter were looking for someone to excite and energize them, but Tim Kaine is like giving them a strong dose of valium when Red Bull was needed.

Once again, if firm principles were guiding the Clinton campaign as opposed to trying to guess a likely coalition component to match an action (say white repub males to buy into Tim Kaine) then such unforced errors wouldn't be made. The Clintonites would have grasped that picking Kaine wouldn't have snatched as many Rs - of whatever color- than picking Warren instead to energize the whole left base.  This pick then, may net Clinton 100,000 to 150,000 disaffected white, blue collar Reagan Dems, but at the expense of  2 m Sanders' voters.

The good news is that amidst all the red, white and blue 'rah rah' from last night (including keeping Sanders' diehards under control) coupled with Hillary's ok speech, there were no unforced errors. The bad news is that conventions don't matter in the long run and she's already committed two big unforced errors.

In any case, by the end of this election the cautionary tale should once more be sounded: "Don't depend on iffy coalitions to get you through to the end. Establish firm principles for your campaign and allow them to be your guide".

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/david-swanson/68319/the-problem-with-chanting-usa

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/gareth-porter/68314/hillary-clinton-and-her-hawks

Did Bernie Sanders Lay A Political Trap For Hillary?

Podcaster Jimmy Dore points out Hillary's subdued "hate" expression during Bernie's endorsement. Did he set a political trap? Quite probably, given he sensed she wouldn't keep to her promises.


Even as Barack Obama delivered his signature,  silver-tongued oratory and homage to Hillary last night -  a robust defense of "American values" and Hillary's qualifications to protect them-  darker ruminations have surfaced. These actually originated with Sen. Bernie Sanders' endorsement of Clinton in NH some time ago, but have only now come to the fore in the wake of Hillary's actual nomination.

And in that wake, questions of whether she will actually follow through on her promises - such as remaining steadfastly against TPP. Well, that came under suspicion the night before when VA Neolib Governor Terry McAuliffe


 blurted out that Hillary would "flip on"  the TPP as soon as she got into the WH. This raised the hackles of Bernie supporters but of course was quashed almost as soon as it got out - unlike the DNC emails: McAuliffe and advisers sputtering that  TPP "would only go forward if the changes that she wants are implemented and that everyone is in agreement." HRC would examine the deal and only approve those sections in line with citizens' interests.  As The Washington Post observed:

"There's a reason Hillary Clinton's campaign so forcefully and unequivocally pushed back at Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe's (D) assertion Tuesday that she will support the Trans-Pacific Partnership once she's in the White House.

What McAuliffe said doesn't just directly contradict Clinton's stated position about the trade deal Obama is trying to pass before he leaves office. It undercuts several narratives Clinton is using the convention to reframe, while reinforcing some of the most damaging narratives to her campaign"

Indeed. Hence, the distrust in Hillary's adherence to any previous positions, and hence also the picking up of visual clues in her body language and face during the Sanders' endorsement.

In fact,  a number of Left media were "Zaprudering" the NH event with special attention to Hillary's body language and facial expressions while Bernie was delivering his (seemingly) ringing endorsement.  Several times the image was paused (e.g. by liberal podcast host Jimmy Dore)  to reveal her with a none- too pleased look on her face. See e.g.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhwzkPKA_xk

Dore then played a short video of Ralph Nader  who referenced Bernie's intent to expose Clinton's political betrayal on Jorge Ramos' show:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BocCnTfQxVM


"He didn't slobber over her He basically went through all the promises she made on immigration reform, on minimum wage, on criminal justice reform, on the environment and climate  change.  I thought it was a really brilliant statement. .I have it here and urge everyone to read it because I think he's set her up for political betrayal".

What does that mean? It means, as Dore then explained,  that Sanders was setting her up since all those things HE said she was for, she's not really for, so she will betray his words. When she does that he can then enlarge his organization. Sandernistas will see they had put their trust in yet another Neolib who betrayed them. She only said what she did, when she did,   to get their votes.

This makes a lot of rational sense at a deep politics level: deliberately trotting out all the promises and commitments made  to put her on the spot and remind her of them, as well as his millions of followers. It is that technique of setting her up, that will ultimately expose her either as keeping to her word, or once again weaseling out. What is most telling is her body language and especially facial expressions. Pause the video as I did (at the same time Dore does) and look carefully. You don't need a B.Sc. in Psychology to be able to read her facial and body language literally screaming "Objection!" even as she  continues the rhythmic head bob telegraphing false assent.

As my psychologist friend Rick put it, the head bobbing is a physical compensation mechanism to neutralize HRC's  visceral objections via a controlled physiological response. In other words, to affirm a fake agreement with Sanders words despite the fact her face literally screams she actually hates them. But the head bobbing and nodding is a means to resist a totally negative physical reaction  (like issuing a middle finger salute as she did with the Kaine pick)..

The bottom line is that even before the Kaine VP pick (definitely not designed to inspire left turnout no matter what the scare tactics) and then the McAuliffe TPP gaffe, Sanders knew in advance that Hillary wouldn't stick to her promises. Hence, he listed a whole set of actions she'd said she do during the campaign. But Bernie basically set her up to do a purposeful fail:  commit totally unforced political hari kari - and very likely end up a one termer.

This also cuts at Bill Maher's snide remark last night (convention edition of HBO's  Real Time) that the Left is "purist".  Absolutely not! The Left, contrary to being purist, merely insists that if it makes sacrifices for a candidate he or she adhere to commitments made, at least those within their power. At the very least that means not verbally backtracking on them, and also pre-emptively embracing extreme right or center right positions never defended during the campaign. It means that the Left demands integrity in a candidate not "purist adherence" to ideological positions.  That Maher didn't know the difference is perhaps no surprise as in one Real Time from November, 2013 he didn't seem to know the difference between legitimate conspiracy analysis and god belief. He babbled:

 "We need conspiracies for the same reason we need God because we cannot accept that things are just random." 

Which is pure codswallop, because one doesn't "need" conspiracies.  They are rather detected and emerge out of the multifaceted scrutiny of  a universe of available evidence -  even that which may be released in files decades later. This is specifically so in the JFK assassination case. (In fact, as Dr. Pat Bannister noted, strong religious/ god believers are actually more likely to reject political conspiracies because they go against their most fervent beliefs in human nature and limits.)

But a person who wouldn't know the difference, or honor the distinction, would also mistake voters' demands for integrity in politicians as being "purist". In each case, an extreme comparison is invoked so it was also not surprising to see Maher and guests last night  making a false equivalence between "left and right crazies".

Sad, but this is why - along with the infusion of obscene amounts of money - our political and electoral system never improves and we are always saddled with "lesser of two evils" choices. Even our pundits and best comedians can't seem to enhance their insights to a deep politics' level to expose the ongoing con. 

"You have two choices, sir or madam: strychnine or cyanide! Which is it! Make your pick! You can't not pick!"

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-zuesse/68299/the-kochs-want-hillary-clinton-to-become-president

And:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donors.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Excerpt:

For many Clinton donors, particularly those from the financial sector, the convention is a time to shed what one called the “hypersensitivity” that had previously surrounded their appearance at Mrs. Clinton’s fund-raisers or at her political events, during a period when Mr. Sanders repeatedly attacked Mrs. Clinton’s connections to Wall Street and her six-figure speaking fees from financial institutions.

“I think we’re past that,” said Alan Patricof, a longtime donor to Mrs. Clinton, when asked about the need to lie low during the primaries.

In Philadelphia, donors were handed preferred suites at the Ritz-Carlton and “Friends and Family” packages created for longtime Clinton hands — some of them also longtime benefactors. Some were granted time backstage or in the Clinton family box with former President Bill Clinton and Chelsea Clinton. Blackstone, the private equity giant, scheduled a reception at the Barnes Foundation on Thursday with its president, Hamilton E. James, one of the leading Wall Street contenders for an economic policy post in a future Clinton administration.

 

Will Boos Erupt Tonight At DNC Opening? Maybe

Wasserman -Schultz, may give intro remarks tonight but look for lots of boos.

The question this morning is whether Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, primary architect of Bernie Sanders' demise via her underhanded machinations (revealed in new Wikileaks-released emails) will have an introductory spiel in tonight's opening of the Democratic National Convention. Some news outlets (e.g. FOX News) believe no speaking roles will be allowed after her execrable efforts to derail Sanders were made evident over the past three days.

Others, like the panel on 'Morning Joe' this morning,  believe she will be granted  opening remarks, and will receive predictable boos from Bernie supporters. They are still incensed over the dumbo Hillary pick of fellow Neolib Kaine, and now doubly enraged after the DNC email dump. (See previous post).

All this is germane as new polls show Trump now ahead of Clinton by 48% to 45% with the latter having endured a 4 point drop and Trump a 5 point gain - likely from a convention bounce. Hillary's drop, meanwhile, I trace to her pick of Kaine and maybe partly from the nonstop Clinton bashing during the RNC.

But hold tight because as Huffpo journalist Sam Stein noted this a.m. more 'shoes' are set to drop with release of more emails. Some may show the actual collusion of Clinton with her pal Debbie, which would be disastrous on top of her Kaine pick.  (Note for those who don't know: Debbie was co-chair of Hillary's 2008 campaign.) We don't know but we will see. In the meantime, Stein observed wary Clintonites have struggled to get Wasserman-Schultz out for months now to no avail. According to him  on 'Morning Joe':

"How do you get her out, right? That's really the thing. And there's not really a mechanism to do that. This has all the signs of a negotiated exit where she says 'fine, I will go but I want x, y and z. Not just to be state director but to do the opening and closing remarks' - where she'd going to be heckled"

And "heckled may be an understatement given the level of rage among Sanders' supporters who've been repeatedly insulted, vilified and dismissed by these Neoliberal Dem apparatchiks.  Stein did leave open she could "change her mind" and at that point reality would sink in that she'd have to sacrifice her ego to the good of the party and her pal Hillary. If the FOX story is accurate this may well be what transpired.

Political strategist John Heileman then weighed in to say the one person who could get her out is Barack Obama. But, he pointed out that the White House attitude to the DNC has always been 'We couldn't care less'.

Stein then chipped in, saying:

"Obama stated in 2012 'Why would I want to pick a fight with the party. Leave her there she can't do much damage'"

But, of course, she could and she did as the Wikileaks emails have disclosed. Besides, all the panel members pointed to Wasserman-Schultz's money making performance for the party and DNC so why turf this little money machine out when they need her the most?

Of course, the Clintonites who have an abiding hatred of the Russians (since Bill continued the expansion of NATO eastward to Russian borders),  blamed everything on them. But as yet they have produced not a scintilla of evidence. Oh, there was a "claim" - still no evidence - by a DNC -hired bunch of "experts" ('CrowdStrike") that the DNC's email system was breached by "Russian hackers". Even if true, and I haven't seen anything to convince me yet, this doesn't mean the Russian government or Putin was behind it. Further, people need to read this before they jump on that suspicious political meme bandwagon:

http://www.csoonline.com/article/3084594/security/dnc-hacker-slams-crowdstrike-publishes-opposition-memo-on-donald-trump.html

So, until the illustrious 'CrowdStrike' team can provide firm evidence that Guccifer 2.0 was in fact Russian or the "Russian hackers" I will withhold accepting the DNC claim. (Wikileaks also denies Russian involvement, though of course there will always be critics who suspect the motives and assertions of any group that leaks emails or files - as they did with the super patriot Ed Snowden.)

The irony in all of this is the Democrats had been determined  - after the chaotic shit storm of the RNC - to show the nation and world they were more unified and positive. Now, the leak of the emails has fracture the party and probably irreparably, with the progressive left wing feeling like the political orphans the new Dems have always regarded them as.  This is not only from the emails but also Hillary's selection of the Anti-Bernie, Tim Kaine. How or why she ever believed that stupid move could help is beyond me, but I suspect Robert Reich has probably given the best explanation, e.g. 

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-reich/68239/does-hillary-get-it

Meanwhile, in a '60 Minutes' spot from last night, Kaine showed he's as ignorant as he is dumb - or maybe he's just another propaganda peddler when he babbled (asked about the bias shown by the DNC with the email release):

"I don't see any effort to put a thumb on the scale, one way or the other. I think the vigorous nature of the campaign and the positive nature of the campaign show these are public servants who are in it for the right reason".

Except one of them had a head start with superdelegates mandated by the DNC, and also likely help from voting counts that definitely had 'thumbs on scales'.   See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/05/election-fraud-voter-disenfranchisement.html


We will have to tune in to see if a mini-shit storm erupts at the Democratic Convention opening tonight. I, for one, predict there will be lots more protests on the outside than in.

Postscript:

Latest word is that Wasserman Schultz has bowed out and will no longer make intro remarks. This spares the Dems initial embarrassment (from boos) but will not quell the fury already aroused, from both the email leak and the middle finger pick of Neolib Tim Kaine.  Wifey is also very upset to see on MCNBC how Sanders' supporters are even booing Bernie for his arguments earlier to support HRC. After what's transpired they don't see why they should. Hillary herself could have mollified the Left with a decent VP pick but she chose, I say CHOSE, to give the middle finger. Thus, must now live with those consequences which may also include a demonstration the night she speaks - against her pick.

See also:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/us/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails-fundraising.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0