The trouble with Hillary

The trouble with Hillary Clinton was painfully captured in a New Hampshire town hall, carried on CNN and moderated by Anderson Cooper, Wednesday night. I'll let Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post take it from here:

For 59 minutes of it, she was excellent — empathetic, engaged and decidedly human. But, then there was that other minute — really just four words — that Clinton is likely to be haunted by for some time to come.

"That’s what they offered," Clinton said in response to Cooper's question about her decision to accept $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in the period between serving as secretary of state and her decision to formally enter the 2016 presidential race.

Clinton is both seemingly caught by surprise and annoyed by the question all at once. Neither of those is a good reaction to what Cooper is asking. Both together make for a uniquely bad response.

Here's the thing: I'm not sure there is a great answer, politically speaking, for Clinton on the question of her acceptance of huge speaking fees from all sorts of groups — from colleges and universities to investment banks. She took the money because these groups were willing to pay it. And who wouldn't do the same thing in her shoes?

The problem is that you can't say that if you are the front-running candidate for the Democratic nomination, a front-runner facing a more-serious-than-expected challenge from a populist liberal who has made your ties to Wall Street a centerpiece of his campaign.

And that's just part of the trouble with Hillary Clinton.

Don't forget the private server for her emails, some of which were marked "top secret." Apologists can say that the government over-classifies things, even classified some emails retroactively.

But why did she set up a private email system in the first place when she became Secretary of State? No good answers are available. Forget the former Goldwater girl. The behavior is more Nixonian.

Our Front Page editor, no fan of the Clintons, told me that when he was a Foreign Service Officer he would have had all his clearances revoked and potentially faced jail for being so careless with cables.

And the trouble with Hillary is Bill: his neoliberal policies such as repeal of Glass-Steagall and banking "deregulation," trade deals that eviscerated the blue-collar middle class, repealing "welfare as we know it," extending NATO into eastern Europe and breaking a promise George H.W. Bush had made to Russian President Boris Yeltsin, and cavalierly attacking Serbia over Russia's opposition. The long economic boom of the 1990s must be balanced against all these. And the dodgy Clinton Foundation he has presided over since leaving the White House.

All this makes one question the judgment of a person considered so intelligent and gifted.

An America exhausted from 15 years of wars — she's a neocon hawk who voted for the Iraq war, whether out of sincere convictions (wrong ones, many Democrats and a few journalists had the guts to question the WMD claim) or opportunism, fear that she would be labeled a Democratic dove.

An America chafing under rising inequality and falling economic mobility — she's a longtime friend of Wall Street and the entire neoliberal elite.

Oh, and I disagree with Cillizza about "who wouldn't do the same thing in her shoes?" One of the key causes of our Republic of Rackets and Corruption is the destruction of public service by money. The revolving door and the greed of the ruling class are killing us. And Goldman Sachs, an outfit whose hustles helped drive the world economy to the precipice: costs were socialized, profits privatized, friends in high places.

Bill Clinton spent nearly his entire adult life working for the government, including as the low-paid governor of a poor Southern state. Give Hillary a pass while she worked as a private attorney, but then she spent years as first lady, United States Senator and Secretary of State. Their combined net worth: $100 million.

What the hell?

Dwight Eisenhower's net worth was $8 million in 2010 dollars, mostly from his book royalties and Gettysburg farm. Obama, Carter, and Ford are around $7 million. Abraham Lincoln, a successful corporate lawyer, and Harry Truman, left much more modest estates. Lincoln's was valued at $85,000 at the time.

So, like Scully's poster in X-Files, I want to believe. This may be the most important election in recent history, maybe in the history of the republic. The Republican candidates are monsters; at the least they profess a monstrous ideology and will complete its implementation if elected. Sanders can't win (sorry).

And here is Hillary Clinton, shooting herself in the foot and reloading. We'll be lucky if the 3 a.m. phone call isn't news that she's been indicted.

 

 

 

Comments

[Cal Lash]

Jon said (among other things) "This may be the most important election in recent history, maybe in the history of the republic. The Republican candidates are monsters; at the least they profess a monstrous ideology and will complete its implementation if elected.Sanders can't win (sorry)."

Jon, U got that right, "Most important election".
Everything about Hillary and Bill is wrong from NAFTA to the trail of the dead. And yes Bernie can win. And Jimmy Carter and I pick Bernie beating Trump. And if Bernie losses I bet his young followers will cause a real revolution.

Regarding the Socialist Bernie Sanders:
"“Socialism is nihilistic, in the henceforth precise sense that Nietzsche confers on the word. A nihilist is not one who believes in nothing, but one who does not believe in what exists.”
― Albert Camus, The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt

I believe Hillary as president is more likely to create a world at war than any other candidate.

[INPHX]

Couple of things:

I get it. To those on the left, she's better than anyone on the right, even if you have to hold your nose. I do understand that.

OTOH, there is not enough bandwith on the internet for me to list why she's such a rotten candidate.

Intelligent and gifted? Assume she is (she's neither). And that's suppose to be the good news?

Are those criteria to determine a President?

You write:
But why did she set up a private email system in the first place when she became Secretary of State? No good answers are available. Forget the former Goldwater girl. The behavior is more Nixonian.

C'mon, Rogue. She just couldn't handle two phones. Gee--that's what she told us. What else do you need?

Bloomberg- PLEASE get in the game.

You know, I saw the movie and read about the attack on the consulate in Benghazi. Even if you didn't think she lied to the families, or intentionally misrepresented the cause, it is a fact that almost all of the other countries had pulled out because of what a mess the city and country were.

So.

If you're going to keep an embassy there, you've either got to have pretty solid defense in place OR have some muscle within an hour or two or three.

[Cal lash]

Inphx. Try a comparison between Benghazi and Waco. It wasn't Reno that was in charge of either of the killing fields. Just more Clinton Carnage. And if WE don't get Bernie, WE will get Liz Warren in 2020, if Hillary and the insane GOP haven't destroyed the planet. The few survivors will be Mohammed Afghanistan goat herding cave dwellers and a few Survivalist Cliven Bundy type cattle herders in the barren southwest.

[Rogue Columnist]

OK, INPHX, I'll play Benghazi momentarily.

An enduring mystery is that the Marines maintain a Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) in Rota, Spain. It is meant for just such emergencies. True, it is about five hours away unless pre-positioned aboard ship. Still...

Amid all the clamor, accusations and denials, I have never seen this FAST issue examined.

[INPHX]

Looks like they got there after things had died down:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/09/12/marine-counter-terror-team-rushed-to-libya.html

No hurry.....

[B. Franklin]

Since we're on Benghazi now, hey, why don't we have another Congressional committee look into it?

Given enough time, and enough taxpayer money, sooner or later they'll find out that Hillary not only ordered the "stand down" but organized the attack as well. Right?

'Cause she's just that evil. Right?

Oh, by the way, Michael Bloomberg is another very, very, very rich guy who pouts when he doesn't get his way. That sound presidential to anyone--other than INPHX, that is?

[Cal lash]

B Franklin. No evidence Hillary ORDERED an Benghazi attack. Stupid suggestion. But U might want to read up on her involvment in Waco. She may be very experienced in government and that may be good but it can also be bad. I admit I'm prejudice, as I think she is EVIL.

[Jerry McKenzie]

The US Ambassador to the country formally thought of as Libya had the misfortune to visit a not so secret (to the locals) CIA rendition and torture complex. The empire is spiralling downwards. The same old no longer works.

[Pat]

I dislike the Clintons, but it's a little absurd to freak out this long over a few deaths of people who knew what they were getting into, while naming airports and freeways for the guy who let hundreds of our troops die in Lebanon and did absolutely nothing about it; everyone knew Iran was behind it, but Reagan had plenty of reason for not seeking retribution, seeing as how they were his business partners.
Sanders can win, Clinton is the candidate who'd probably manage to get beaten down by Trump. You know what they say about Democrats always being able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Kevin Hall]

To quote Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism on Hillary Clinton's corruption:

"This is not hard to understand unless you pretend not to understand it: Wall Street would not be giving to the Clintons so consistently over time if they did not think they were getting value for their money."

So no, in the abundance of the evidence that the Clinton fruitage of works is rotten, simply going with her as the pick for the presidency because Bernie Sanders is not electable is not sufficient or acceptable.

He is electable as long as enough of us don't go along with the established consensus that he isn't.

Forget what you "know" and look at it with new eyes - the times they are a changing.

[Mike Doughty]

Corruption,lying,Nixonian,evil-just some of the words used for describing politicians here.Is this what this blog has come to?Starting to sound like a lot of other partisan food fights.Sorry to see this.

[Cal lash]

Pat, I try not to forget History. And the Clinton's are not Stupid, just sociopathicly evil.
Reagan was stupid and/ or extremely naive. Possibly senile.
Speaking of evil why does Ted Cruz remind me of Dick Cheney?

[Cal lash]

Sorry to offend you Mike but my 75 year built up emotions got the better of me.
For a good read try the Huffington Post article on the " Democratic divide and how Elizabeth Warren lit the fuse."
I really respect Bernie and Elizabeth even if I've been a Republican since 9. I didn't change the world did. Today there are no GOP candidates like IKE or T.R.

[Robert H. Bohannan]

Which ideology is the more "monstrous"? As Margaret Thatcher said, "Socialism works great until you run out of other people's money"--or words to that effect.

However, in the long run, electing Bernie Sanders might be just what the Country needs. At least he's honest about being a "socialist." Honesty and trust are of paramount importance--especially to the new, young voters. And I think we all would agree that getting more people involved in the process is key to resolving the current impasse.

Just as an alcoholic needs to "hit bottom" before recovering, perhaps we need a genuine taste of socialism. Many of the issues Sanders identifies are valid--it's just that most of his solutions are wrong. His election would make that clear.

I'm not committing to vote for Bernie, but if Trump or Cruz is the Republican nominee, I might be tempted. If the Democrats nominate Hillary--forget it.

[Cal lash]

Good post Robert.
A place where Hillary is wrong and Bernie is weak, is Edward Snowden.
Sad that Heroes Snowden and Assange are hold up in foreign places.
Bring them home and give them Peace prizes.

[Cal lash]

"With Rebellion, Awareness is Born."
Albert Camus.

[Ramjet]

First a couple of quotes:
"Human beings have a demonstrated talent for self-deception when their emotions are stirred..." Carl Sagan

"It is always easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them." Alfred Adler

Some reading recommendations for some of you while you sip your "Kool-Aid":
Both are by David Brock.
BLINDED BY THE RIGHT and KILLING THE MESSENGER.
ENJOY!

[Bruce]

I'm not a huge Clinton fan, but this is all just stupid. Her's was the perfect answer. It's all she owes anyone. She is not alone in this practice. What former public figure HAS NOT accepted obscene speaking fees? This is from the article?

"She took the money because these groups were willing to pay it. And who wouldn't do the same thing in her shoes?

The problem is that you can't say that if you are the front-running candidate for the Democratic nomination..."

The problem is that you can't say that, but not because you shouldn't be able to say that. It's the truth. Why CAN'T you say JUST EXACTLY THAT?

[Cal lash]

Bruce u and Barbara Boxer agree.

Ramjet I have read Killing the Messenger, Twice. The forward in the book is by my deceased friend Charles Bowden. A giant intellect and a great reporter. I miss our daily exchanges.
Again I apologize for my emtional out bursts that are overwhelming my inferior intelligence.

[yt kealoha]

This election is important if Bernie wins it all and Clintoon is finally gone from the public sphere as the loser and GOP lite flavor she (and Bill) are and have been for ages. I won't even address her total war monger mode at this point, which is a major no go for me. IMO it is far more important that Clintoon loses and policy cancers of GOP lite be culled from the Democratic party once and for all. We need clear choices, not right and center right, but all flavors. She cannot be the President running in 2020 as she would assure a massive victory for the GOP and thus another decade lost as the redistricting power at the state levels (where real power is) stays with the GOP. I'm voting 1 Bernie and then 2 Trump.

[Rogue Columnist]

For years as a business editor and columnist I was on the rubber chicken circuit. I don't give as many speeches now; at one time, I gave as many as four a week. And many offered honoraria or fees, though certainly not in the HRC ballpark.

I never took so much as a Kiwanis coffee cup. The same was true for a much more substantial honorarium for a fellowship. Why? I serve the public trust and even the impression of being bought taints that. The same is true of lunches and dinners. I pay my way. We should expect no less from public servants.

[Darwin Sator]

So, Hillary, this once, didn't have the best answer on the tip of her tongue. It wouldn't matter much if she did. The “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” (Hillary 1998) is real and it is going to assassinate Hillary (figuratively, of course) before the election. She has so much baggage, most of it manufactured but some of it real, that she has to play defense every single day of her life. Bernie Sanders, soon to be re-christened Bernie the Commie, is a nonstarter. Anyway, it seems certain that neither Hillary nor Bernie would have serious coattails, and either one would be a virtual prisoner in the Oval Office, more so than even President Obama. But, oh, the alternative. Picture the Clown Car in the White House driveway.

[Cal Lash]

Jon, as a cop my philosophy was "There is no such thing as a free cup of coffee.

Good points by Sator and Kealoha.

[Cal Lash]

The Best Bush, is Barbara.

[Cal Lash]

Smart move by Hillary. (if U believe it)

6. Debate ends on a high note
Asked whether they would consider uniting the party by picking their opponent as their VP, Clinton said, "The first person I would call" would be Bernie Sanders.

But would Bernie ask her to be VP (Nope) and if he did would she accept (???)?

[ChrisInDenver]

"Sanders can't win (sorry)."

Well, then I guess I'm wasting my vote. Four years ago, I changed my vote at the last minute, from the Green Party candidate for POTUS to Obama, whom I voted for in 2008. I did this because I got a lot of flak from Obama supporters whom I am friends with. "Remember 2000? Every vote counts!" I should have just ignored them. In 2012, I was disgusted with Obama; I felt he made a lot of promises as a young candidate leading up to 2008 and he broke them. Obama turned out to be far worse than I could have ever imagined. Transparency? Ha -- how about exceptionally opaque? Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan -- all broken promises.
Hillary strikes me as much, much worse than Obama. She is so corrupt; I could never, ever vote for her.
So, forget it. I'm wasting my vote on Sanders. At least he seems to walk the walk: The guy has shunned big-money politics, he doesn't have a super-PAC and has raised most of his campaign funds via his Website. Average donation size? $40. At least Sanders has lived up to his promises thus far.
I like a candidate who doesn't follow the money.

[Dawgzy]

The reflexive answer to HRCs fundraising is that a presidential candidate doesn't stand a chance without it, and that big money folks are often "socially liberal." So why not? As to the Foundation- gee, are there any big money public affairs foundations, influence groups in the center? Why not build something that's not right-wing?
Are we seeing something different this time? Is the cable TV-24 hour news cycle finally bearing some edible fruit? Trump is showing that there is a lot of free publicity to be had (how much has he spent in Iowa& NH?) And Bernie is benefitting from being a novelty, who is as adroit as DT at distilling his message when he has air time. Of course, to maintain the free exposure on CNN someone will have to elaborate and extend the entertainment/novelty factor. But I think that Sanders is showing that a relatively underfunded campaign can get some initial traction. Both he and DT have positions that resonate and have been marginalized in their respective parties.
The answer to the "why not" is that HRC isn't doing this pure out of necessity, but is doing so to promote a centrist/neoliberal agenda that she's firmly bought into.
I can play defense, which first and foremost involves holding one's nose while voting. But if I see polling that indicates that BS has a good chance in the general, well, hell, I'd like to switch to offense.
Is this "election season" the most unpredictable that we've seen in a long, long time. Has "the center" blown apart?

[Dawgzy]

Despite the headline it's about how Sanders is regarded in some circles.
http://coreyrobin.com/2016/02/04/90-of-what-goes-on-at-the-new-yorker-can-be-explained-by-vulgar-marxism/

[Pat]

Robert, we've been getting a taste of socialism for the rich for years, might as well see how it works for the rest of us. You do know that the massive subsidization of industry is socialism, right? And picking winners? the oil industry was getting billions in subsidies before they even had any competition from the alternative energy sector. Remember how when the banks and the auto industry were bailed out, and it was said they were "socializing the losses, and capitalizing the gains?"

[Petro]

"Sanders can't win."

Just wanted to note that. See you in November.

[Leah Beth Ward]

Thank you Jon. Now I can just roll this out when I try to explain to my pro HillBill friends and family why she bothers me deeply.

[Cal lash]

Ramjet I erred. I meant Kill the Messenger by Nick Schou. Reference Gary Webb.

[Rogue Columnist]

Krugman:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/electability-2/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

[drifter]

Feel the Bern. It rhymes with McGovern.

"A Republican sweep in 2016 will be good for the country because, like, man, in 2020 the electorate will be so angry with the Republicans that an enlightened voter will usher in an enlightened new Progressive Era." Musings of a trust fund baby, or a federal or law enforcement pensioner who can easily afford to ride out four years of economic disaster and the years after to fix the Republican jihad against the US worker.

"Bernie is such an honest, straight forward man that it really would be good for our country to have him nominated as the Democratic presidential candidate." Musings of a right wing life long Republican voter relishing the self-inflicted defeat of the Democratic Party.

"The Clintons are evil I tell you, EVIL. Bernie can win." Republicans today, Republicans tomorrow, Republicans forever.

[Pat]

Like wow, man, Drifter: as a "Berniebot," my feelings are really being hurt by the pounding I'm getting. I'm switching my support to Clinton. I wish we could've avoided all this bitterness and just skipped the whole primary thing. Sanders should've ran as an independent, even if he split the vote in the general election. It isn't worth tearing the party apart over challenging Clinton. From now on, we should just let a select committee pick our nominee, say, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, responsible adults. Then we can rally the troops around our candidate from the jump.

[koreyel]

Mr. Sanders isn't going to be President or Vice President. Not even by promising "free college" to our youth at every campus in the nation. Nice try old man. But nothing is free. Nothing.

Absolutely the worst part of Liberalism is its free use of the word "free". Liberals seem to feel an entitlement to freely spend other people's tax money and say: Free flu shoots today! Free education! Free health care!

It ain't free.
Someone has to pay.

Until you acknowledge that up front and swear an oath to protect, defend, and well-spend every tax dollar collected your politics is doomed. You'll never make it to the White House. Especially if your tax-and-spend policy means a tax hike on the middle class. Good god. Mr. Sanders politics are Dead-Way-Before-Arrival. They'll end up stinking faster than Ben Franklin's fish and house guests...

Fact is, Bernie Sanders is just an angry old liberal pipe dream of "free". His chances of being elected POTUS? Zero. And there's no way Hillary is going to put this "free weight" around her neck as a Veep candidate. Having Bernie one heart beat away is akin to having Mrs. Palin in a red dress.

That many on this thread are inflamed by what I write is a reflection of how the left-wing has become as ideologically blind as the right-wing.

The devotion to ideology is almost humorous. I can see Bernie showing up at the Malheur Bird Sanctuary and offering the ensconced right-wingers (free land, send us free food) a free college education if they will put down their arms and vote for him.

It's a country gone crazy at the extremes...

Fortunately the Presidential election is decided by the great unwashed middle. And they will make Hillary 45. And she'll make Mr. Obama a Supreme Court Justice. And the world will continue to improve. Bit by bit. Little by little. Smooth progress.

Not fast enough for you of course. Because you, like your right-wing extreme brothers, knows exactly what needs fixin'. Both hard-lefty and hard-righty can agree the world's gone to shit and if it weren't for the stupid voting public.... Why'd we have Trump and Bern in there to fix things real fast.

Yeah right.
Go wash that certainly from your mind.
Your truths aren't truth that set you free...

Again: Nothing is free. There's a huge cost to even the smallest forward steps. And in the end, Americans will always vote the future in that way. It's the way we roll. Like it or not...

[Cal lash]

LIKE it or not, your right Koreyel. So when Evil Hillary is back at the White House. I going to go BUY Bernie a cup of coffee and see if he has any Maryjane as us two old Dudes contemplate the continuing human tragedies so easily inflicted by pols like the Hillary's and Ted's of the world.

At 75 I have yet to try an illegal DRUG but maybe after the next election I t will be time? Or maybe move to Uruguay.

[B. Franklin]

So, on the first day of the Sanders' presidency, Bernie, who is a good man, certainly not evil or bought and paid for like, say, Clinton or any of the Republicans, decides to break up the too big to fail banks. And impose a transaction tax on Wall Street. These are good things that a majority of Americans would approve of...but then the phone rings and someone explains to Bernie, who is a good man, that the too big to fail bankers and their chums on Wall Street have not so subtly threatened to bring down the world's economy if he tries to do any such thing. What does Bernie do then? With a divided Congress and a majority on the Supreme Court that still thinks money is speech and corporations are people?

The game is rigged. The game has always been rigged. And until you can somehow convince those people who think abortions, guns and immigration are our most pressing issues to think otherwise, the game will stay rigged.

[Cal lash]

Your right Franklin, but once in a great while, the Riggers loose their heads by the people and for the people. But probably the Riggers will soon have us back on the ground after ISIS head hackers.

[Rogue Columnist]

You downtown Phoenix fans and urbanists might want to check out an important new comment from James on the Warehouse District column.

As for Koreyel... I'm not sure free college is a panacea. If we make everyone a college graduate in the current economy, we will end up with a bunch of credentialed baristas. Oversupply will drive down wages.

It is hardly only the left that promises free things. The right is the biggest supporter of roads, which in no way pay for themselves. The gas tax comes nowhere close. Add in the externalities of greenhouse gas emissions, and roads and highways are enormously costly of the commons. Protecting and enhancing various forms of corporate welfare and the military industrial complex/endless wars are yet other freebies on the backs of taxpayers.

The debate over public investments is almost as old as the republic. The Jacksonians wanted none. Henry Clays "American System" and the transcontinental railroads, homestead act, land-grant colleges, etc. of the early Republican Party were the opposite. Public investments can repay themselves. But this is not the case with the highway, banking, fossil fuels and war rackets, among others.

"Conservatives" are far more powerful than liberals, so they win and keep implementing their toxic "free" stuff.

[Terry Dudas]

Tell you what, Cal, when you light up, I'll join you. Never tried the stuff myself, but wiffed it plenty of times.

BTW, I doubt you'd like Uruguay - it's a grey, depressing place. Been there, done that.

Caio.

[Pat]

Koreyel, again, it's only the primary. Clinton actually has to have at least one challenger, or, you know, the debates would be filled with embarrassing silence. Knowing that Clinton is going to win, why the anger and vitriol toward him? The only time this level of outrage against Sanders would be justified is if he goes back on his word and runs as an independent. If he did that, I'd be pissed at him too, but I don't believe he will. He isn't Nader. They don't even like each other, from what I've read. None of the people who were floated as alternatives to Clinton want to step on her toes, and you can't blame them. But Biden for sure knows this isn't Clinton's time, given the populist rage against Wall Street. She's absolutely the wrong person to run against any of the Republicans except Trump and Cruz, she could most likely beat them.

[Arizona Eagletarian]

The problem for Hillary is that her speeches to Wall St investment banks are, for her, an Achilles heel.

It's really not an issue of what she owes the public. It's an issue of what voters are owed in return for their vote.

If she wants the vote, she has to give up the transcripts. But when she does that, her campaign is doomed.

A classic conundrum... or Catch 22?

Bernie can win. Bernie will win.

Bernie understands (a lot about) the challenge he will face once in the White House.

Hillary's response on Thursday to Chuck Todd's question, and her "artful smear" of Bernie for challenging her being owned by the banks was indeed characteristic of Dickens' Artful Dodger.

That she, and Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright invoked expressions intended to cause young women to doubt themselves and decline to critically evaluate HRC was characteristic of the Pied Piper.

I wrote about it last night.

stevemuratore (dot) blogspot (dot) com

[Cal lash]

Ok Dudas I'll meet you on Mt Lemmon at the Bowden community center.

[Dawgzy]

I'd be stunned if Sanders got the nomination , especially if he won the general. But neither of these things would happen in a vacuum. Whatever the conditions that would allow BS to win, they would favor some Democratic gains in Congress. This assumes that the party is capable of taking such a lead. But if the improbable were to happen, other improbabilities could likely accompany it, perhaps affecting the "what would he do with a republican majority in Congress?" That assumes too much.

[Cal Lash]

It would hopefully supply energy and allow his supporters to attack local politics seized by the Kooks.

[Cal lash]

HA, Bill Clinton Attacks Bernie for living in a bubble? Another Bad move by the Clinton's. The bubble is what the world is today, created by the likes of 30 years of the Clinton Conservative Southern "Democrats. " As I recall Hillary was a Republican until she and Bill hooked up in an effort to become Kings. To take turns in being king and queen. Time to bust this old tired smelly gaseous going flat BUBBLE.
GL BERNIE.

[Cal lash]

GO BERNIE

[sj]

Bern, baby, Bern!

[Mark in Scottsdale]

Great comment thread, thank you all for the food for thought this morning.