Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Blowing up the anti-Brazile narrative

Democratic political operative (and former interim DNC chair) Donna Brazile.

Is Donna Brazile a self-important traitor to the DNC cause? Or has she been smeared by reporting-by-Twitter?

The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald thinks the latter, and has set forth what he says are four falsehoods that have been put forth about Brazile’s  bombshell allegations in her new book that the Clinton campaign had inordinate amounts of control over the key processes during the entirety of the last presidential campaign.

As early as this morning — Sunday, Nov. 5 — CNN is still reporting that Brazile said she had the unilateral power to remove Clinton as the nominee, even though the newspaper that originally reported that claim has had to walk it back (see below). This is important because this claim is  central to some others because it is being used to ridicule Brazile as being an ill-informed megalomaniac with an anti-Clinton agenda. 

Notes Greenwald:

Viral Falsehood #3: Brazile stupidly thought she could unilaterally remove Clinton as the nominee.

[On Nov. 4], the Washington Post published an article reporting on various claims made in Brazile’s new book. The headline, which was widely tweeted, made it seem as though Brazile delusionally believed she had a power which, obviously, she did not in fact possess: “Donna Brazile: I considered replacing Clinton with Biden as 2016 Democratic nominee.” The article said Brazile considered exercising this power after Clinton’s fainting spell made her worry that Clinton was physically debilitated, and her campaign was “anemic” and had taken on “the odor of failure.”

But Brazile – as a result of her stinging criticisms and accusations of Clinton, Obama and the DNC – is currently Public Enemy Number One among Democrats in the media. So they seized on this headline to pretend that she claimed the power to unilaterally remove Clinton on a whim, and then used this claim to mercilessly vilify her – the chair of Al Gore’s 2000 campaign, last year’s interim head of the DNC, and a long-time Democratic Party operative – as a deluded, insane, dishonest, profiteering, ignorant fabulist who lacks all credibility.

But the entire attack on Brazile was false. She did not claim, at least according to the Post article being cited, that she had the power to unilaterally remove Clinton. The original Post article, buried deep down in the article, well after the headline, made clear that she was referencing a complicated process in the DNC charter that allowed for removal of a nominee who had become incapacitated.

The Post then amended its story to reflect that she made no such absurd claim in her book, but rather noted that “the DNC charter empowered her to initiate replacement of the nominee” and that “if a nominee became disabled, she explains, the party chair would oversee a complicated process of filling the vacancy that would include a meeting of the full DNC.” The Post then added this note to the top of the article:

Journalists on Twitter spent hours yesterday mocking, maligning and attacking the reputation of Brazile for a claim that she simply never made – all because a tweeted headline, which they never bothered to read past or evaluate, made them think they were justified in doing so in order to malign someone who has, quickly and bizarrely, become one of the Democrats’ primary enemies.

Greenwald details three other ways he thinks the narrative of the story about Brazile’s claims in her book have been hijacked by credulous reporting of things reporters see on Twitter and then repeat as received wisdom without bothering to check their veracity, including her claim that the DNC agreement  with Clinton  applied to both the primary and general election — a claim that was allegedly debunked and for which Greenwald says requires a debunking of that debunking.

You can read all of it here.

I have my issues with Greenwald and The Intercept. They have been proof, at times, of the danger when people on the Left let their own beliefs get in the way of good reporting. (Witness Greenwald’s one-time insistence that claims of Russian interference were  a smokescreen to cover up Democratic Party ineptitude in the last presidential election — a claim he has had to abandon as evidence mounts of Russian interference happening on many fronts, including planting inflammatory stories supportive of third-party candidate Jill Stein.)

But Greenwald seems to be into something here. It does appear some Clinton loyalists have been fudging the truth in order to discredit Brazile. 

There are lingering questions about whether the agreement between the Clinton campaign and the DNC was an unseemly grab for power meant to exclude Bernie Sanders and others from an honest nominating process and campaign, or simply a wise candidate saying that if she was going to prop up the DNC financially to benefit the party and down-ticket candidates, she expected some control ensuring the money was spent wisely?

Absent further evidence, those are questions to which he may never have sufficient answers because we can’t read the minds of the people involved and those interpretations may largely depend on whom you supported in the presidential election. 

Complaining is easy. Real work for change is hard.


I suppose it was inevitable that the Stein, Johnson and Sanders people are now blaming HIllary for the loss.

The made our lives miserable with feelings as facts throughout the election despite the fact that we coddled them and cajoled them and tried in vain to reason with them.

They are determined to make us even more miserable now that Trump is president with their endless rants that still don’t accept responsibility for their own part in her loss.

They demonized Clinton throughout and now whine that she was a flawed candidate. Of course she was. They and the Republicans made her so.thirdparty

Clinton was the candidate judged by fact checkers to be the most truthful of all of them throughout the primaries and the general election. Yet she was also the person in polls thought to be the least trustworthy.

Gee, I wonder how people ever got that impression even though it flies in the face of reality?

They have the president they deserve. Which would be fitting punishment — no student loan relief for you! — if it didn’t fuck over the rest of the country so completely.

I’ll get over the bitterness eventually. But for now I want all of them to just go away and find someplace to yammer with each other until their heads explode from their misinformed earnestness.

If you can’t work together for change, you’re part of the problem.



Members of the military giving three times as much to Clinton as to Trump

Well, here’s a little surprise for everyone: contrary to what the media and the GOP put out, military people favor Hillary Clinton over Trump.

Active and retired members of the military have been showing far more support for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton than for her Republican rival, at least as measured by the checks they’ve written to her campaign.

Individuals who listed their employers as the U.S. Department of Defense or major branches of the military, or who say they’re retired from one of those, have contributed a total of $972,709 to both nominees so far this year. Clinton has claimed $771,471 of the contributions, or nearly 80 percent.

All major branches of the armed forces – including the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard – have favored Clinton to a much greater degree than GOP nominee Donald Trump. Members of the Army have contributed more than other branches of the service this cycle, giving a total of $191,712 to the two presidential hopefuls, 72 percent of which went to Clinton.

Meanwhile, it’s the Air Force that has given the largest portion of its contributions to Trump, though it still favors Clinton by a lot. Trump received 39 percent of the $110,711 given to the two candidates by people connected to the Air Force.

Source: Members of the military giving three times as much to Clinton as to Trump | OpenSecrets Blog

John Oliver perfectly roasts Trump, 3rd debate and Al Smith dinner


One of the best lines: “‘You’re the puppet’ sounds like something a teenage Pinocchio would yell at Geppetto.”

Oliver spares nobody in this, not even the Catholic Church.

Good article with great quotes on GOP’s sinking ship


This Oct. 15 article from HuffPo on the ongoing break-up of the GOP is good insofar as it has some quotes I had not seen from Republican funding sources and GOP functionaries. Such as the ones in this section:

“It is job of the party to do everything it can to keep Democrats from winning office, number one. Number two is to fulfill the will of the people who determine our nominees,” said Sean Spicer, a top official at the RNC who works closely with Trump headquarters. “What do they want us to do? Tell me what it is that they want. What is that alternative they are asking for?

“It doesn’t make sense,” Spicer added. “If you are turning out a voter to vote in Ohio and Pennsylvania you don’t turn him out just to do certain things. And frankly if you talk to [Sens. Pat] Toomey or [Kelly] Ayotte, they won’t win unless they get the Trump supporters. It is a non-logical argument.”

Boo effin’ hoo.

“Frankly,” the guys from the GOP are the ones who made the deal with the devil in order to get people such as Toomey and Ayotte elected. If their being on the ballot means they now have to dance with Trump and his supporters, it’s a dance card of their own making. Too bad.

Then there is this section:

It’s a dynamic perfectly personified by one top Republican fundraiser who is backing the nominee. Watching an interview Trump gave with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly this past week, this fundraiser said he was practically dumbfounded.

“O’Reilly interviewed him and threw him 15 softballs that he should have hit out of the park and what does he do? He sits there and stares and denounces [Paul] Ryan and McCain. I was watching with interest and my wife turned to me and said: ‘I don’t know if I could vote for him.’ I said, ‘You’re voting for him!’ But it went through my mind: What if Putin insults him? Does he drop a bomb on Moscow or something? I’m not sure he is stable.”

You’re not sure a candidate for the presidency is “stable” and he might use a nuclear weapon to settle a grudge and you’re still going to vote for him? WTF?

These people deserve every bit of the predicament in which they find themselves. They need to be taught a lesson.

Which is why everyone, no matter how blue a state in which you live, has to vote.


Hanks loves Hillary; wingnut fantasies destroyed everywhere

One of the many false reports on the Right insisting that Tom Hanks endorsed Donald Trump for President.
One of the many false reports on the Right insisting that Tom Hanks endorsed Donald Trump for President.

No, no, no. Tom Hanks, darling of crazy American exceptionalists everywhere, has NOT endorsed Donald Trump. This interview with the British press makes that clear.

I find this clip from the BBC interesting insofar as Hanks has long been considered the total BFF of the right-wing arm of the American exceptionalism crowd because his feel-good movies might lead those people to believe he is one of them (Apollo 13, Sully, etc.)

That crowd thinks so much of him, in fact, that they have been circulating false “news” reports that Hanks has endorsed Trump.

This should clear that up for everyone.

Trump stalks Hillary, by Danny Elfman

The award-winning composer and lyricist gives Trump stalking Hillary the Elfman treatment. From Funny or Die.

Again with the “I heard [some thing] …” BS from Trump/Pence


The burden of proof for Trump/Pence ticket to inject some outlandish “fact” is so ridiculously low as to be non-existent, as this clip shows when Mike Pence tries to say he “heard” that authorities were going to arrest Hillary Clinton not long ago.

Such a good Christian, Mike Pence. It’s like that thing about not bearing false witness never happened.

Moses who?

This guy is the best advertising atheists could hope for.

SNL does a brilliant presidential debate send-up


Sometimes comedians paint in broad, garish strokes by playing a subject to its comical extremes.

But as SNL learned with its skits with Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin, sometimes playing things close to that which they actually are can be just as effective.

Witness the brilliant comic acting of Alec Baldwin with his not-far-off-the-mark turn with the bombastic narcissism of presidential candidate Donald Trump. It’s funny because you can imagine him saying all these things because that is just who he is: a self-involved undereducated buffoon.


Welcome to the world of fact-free living

A Trumplican shows her support instead of being in her quantum mechanics class where she belongs.
A “Trumplican” shows her support for fascism instead of being in her quantum mechanics class where she belongs.

Hillary Clinton is more ill than she lets on because she got AIDS from her husband who got it from Magic Johnson. Yes, it’s another round of Trump rally interviews from The Daily Show.

I get this all time: “We should really try to engage our opponents in civil debates so that there is less partisanship in society.”

A real debate is a thing where two opposing side marshal facts and figures in an attempt to provide enough proof to sway onlookers toward one side of the other.

A debate is not me pointing at a clear sky, announcing that the sky is blue, and then arguing endlessly with someone about whether a clear sky is blue because Rush Limbaugh told them it was purple.

That’s not a civil debate. It’s encouraging the willfully stupid to think that feelings are the same as facts. And purple sky people deserve to be treated as the fools they are.

Not only that, but also: Yay partisanship!

Elections are by definition partisan. To suggest they be otherwise is a little silly.