Most of the msm media is so full of chit by dismissing Bernie's easy victory in Wisconsin as tailored-made for him. Funny thing, it wasn't too long ago Hillary was comfortably leading there in the polls.
Elected delegates after the Wisconsin double digit win by Bernie in Wisconsin. Clinton - 1,274 Sanders - 1,024. Hillary started out with 100% name recognition and all the establishment and her superpacs, and the DNC rigging for her, so she still has a good chance of running out the bell, but I think Democrats know that it is Bernie's message and honesty that is prevailing.
Everyone who thinks the Sanders campaign is "pure of heart" and doesn't stoop to the kind of campaigning that has been a part of American politics from time out of mind needs to watch this morning's interview on CNN's "At This Hour With Berman and Bolduan" (Wednesday morning - this morning) interview with Tad Devine, the Sanders Campaign's Media head, a top position. "Devine" (and he is not in the Biblical sense) is as slimy and weaselly as any other pol. Just watch it. Watch his facial expressions. Listen to his response to the questions poised by CNN interviewers. Also watch the expressions of the CNN reporters. It is extremely enlightening. I finished watching it live earlier, but I don't doubt that the interview will be on YouTube by now, or soon. Politics as usual. I thought the "Bernie" campaign was above that sort of thing?
Bernie started campaigning clean, but since he gained some success and became more than a sparing partner, he's been hammering Hillary (and the Obama admin) as the problem. That's fair game -- Hillary didn't play nice in 2008 and all politicians do it. But...no...anyone who says his campaign hasn't stooped to neg ads is just buying into the neg ads. Hillary, on the other hand, for once, has not campaigned negatively against Bernie this time. Almost certainly because her campaign feels this is wrapped up and possibly is building the Hillary vs GOP narrative as a done deal to further marginalize Bernie. Not a function of purer campaign by any means, but she really hasn't campaigned against Sanders and I doubt she will.
I happened to see this exact interview and it's funny because I was thinking the exact opposite. "Is that a threat that Bernie is taking it to the convention?" "Is he even a real democrat?" How do you expect somebody who represents Sanders to react to such loaded questions throughout the interview. Not to mention the fact that CNN has ties to the Clintons with a really high donation amount this cycle.
So Bernie is given no advantages but yet he and his message have gone further than anyone could have predicted. Good for him. Are seriously complaining that a politician and his team are politicking? GTFO!!!, with your double standards. Hilary doesn't even have a heart. I'm sure she ate it in some weird elite occult ritual.
I'm seeing 47/36 (56%) Bernie for Wisconsin per New York Times -- which exactly the split 538s demographic projection calculated and about what he would need going forward in states which are not as favorable to him. So a big win....but no real progress against her lead. New York may be his last hurrah, unless mojos right about her pending indictment (man they move slow) or mathloons info on her Panamanian connections is allowed to be reported on by the corporate media and industrial elites. It's looking like Madam President come January! And Oh NOOO Mr Bill as First Man.
Haven't seen any "hammering" or "negativity" from his campaign. She and her campaign are lying and trying to find an excuse to start hammering at him. It's a FACT that she takes contributions from special interests and why do you think they are donating money to her?? Is stating fact "hammering"?? If he wanted to attack her, he can bring up the scandals throughout her tenure as Secretary Of State. Can bring up her lying, her flip-flopping, how fake she is. He's running a campaign on the issues and campaign finance is one of the biggest issues.
Who knows? Attack the source and attack the messenger when you hear something you don't wish to hear. Golly! That almost sounds like politics! How could that be? I'll add this - the interview with the head of media for the Sanders campaign was the Sanders campaign going negative. Watch it.
I like Burnie just fine, but he's done his share of lying. Him tying Clinton to the oil lobby was really pathetic, when a ridiculously tiny fraction (on the order of one tenth of one percent) of her donations come from such. That was just lame and he repeated it and repeated it, even after being confronted with data. As for issues, he recently gave that mystifying interview where he several times said he'd need to have his notes to answer detailed policy questions. He didn't even have the start of a plan to "break up the big banks," even though it sounds nice for his rallies. He raises very important issues, but he also dramatically over-simplifies some of those issues and punts some policy details. I wish people could be rational about whomever they support, warts and all.
CNN's parent company Time Warner? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ays-hillary-clintons-top-donors-are-banks-an/ Looks like I was a little wrong about it being particularly this cycle, but overall they have a vested interest in her.
Let me know what you think about this: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ays-hillary-clintons-top-donors-are-banks-an/ When a company like Time Warner has an investment into a candidate, do you expect the bias to be in favor or against that candidate? If so, how does this play a role in how news is presented to the rest of us who do not have the time to look and educate themselves on matters such as this?
Haven't seen said interview so can't comment. BUT http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/ Lets not pretend that she isn't corrupt. There is an obvious reason why she didn't sign the Greenpeace pledge to not knowingly accept donations from the fossil fuel industry. Sanders and O'Malley both signed it.
Yes...... Time Warner has donated $400,000 cumulatively over the last 3 decades. There is NO doubt that Time Warner is balls deep in Hillary...... a corporation with $48,000,000,000 in assets has invested DEEPLY in Hilary donating $400,000 over the last few decades.
I guess my counter to your point is that I sort of agree. Of course, a company isn't going to donate 10 million dollars just because they have 48b in assets. That would be foolish. But to say 400k doesnt help a candidate is wrong and that is where I disagree with you. 400k is still an investment, and I don't see how that amount takes away from the fact that CNN is likely to push the candidate they have investmented in. Also, your comment was "3 decades": I guess this isn't wrong since it does span the 90s to 2010s, but to be more specific thats 17 years. But I see why you would say "3 decades" since it makes the time frame look much wider, even if 30 years vs 17 years is a 13 year difference. Well I couldn't really find when that donation was made; or whether it was multiple donations made throughout different campaign times. So is it possible that the donation was made prior to this cycle? Absolutely. But does that take away the realm of possibility that this giant news company has a bias in favor of Hillary? No.
Nice post, B-Bob. If you get a chance to watch the interview the Sanders campaign media head had on CNN this morning, I'd love to see your comment. In my humble opinion, it was the Sanders campaign going negative and Devine is a typical pol. I thought Bernie wasn't into that stuff?
