The Young Ladies Love Bernie

Opinion | thepilot.com:


So Bernie Sanders, the rumpled old senator from Vermont, has defeated the former heir apparent to the Democratic nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in the New Hampshire primary. This was not totally unexpected; as I mentioned last week, Bernie’s practically home folks in the Granite State, and he’d been leading the polls there by double digits in the past few weeks.

Secretary Clinton can also comfort herself with the fact that she holds commanding leads in polling in the more racially diverse states of Nevada and South Carolina, which are coming up.

One surprising thing that’s developed over the last few weeks, however, has revealed something that might be an Achilles heel for the former secretary of state: Bernie Sanders is eating her lunch when it comes to younger voters, particularly young female voters.

In Iowa, Sanders beat Clinton 84 to 14 percent among Democratic caucus-goers age 18 to 29, according to a recent report on the “PBS NewsHour.” Perhaps even more surprising is Sanders’ support among young women: A poll sponsored by that liberal rag The Wall Street Journal found Sanders leading 64 percent to 35 percent among Democratic women younger than 45 in New Hampshire.

The reaction of some well-known female Clinton supporters could be described as “frustrated.” It could be described better as “cranky.” Feminist icon Gloria Steinem, 81, told Bill Maher that young women only supported Bernie to meet guys: “When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys?’ The boys are with Bernie,” she said.

It was a statement she later retracted and apologized for, possibly after she remembered that being condescending and dismissive of women, whatever their age, ill becomes a feminist icon. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, a pioneer in her own right, told an audience, “Always remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.”

Being scolded and told they’re going to hell for not backing Hillary went over about as well as you’d expect among young women.

“I'm frustrated and outraged by being constantly attacked by older feminists for my refusal to vote according to my gender,” UConn sophomore Ariana Javidi told CNN. Thirty-year-old “lifestyle blogger” Vera Ezimora agreed: “I don’t think that being a female and not voting for Hillary means you’re a bad person.”

Meanwhile, Sanders moved quickly to address an issue that might cause him his own problems with young female voters, namely the small but noisy cohort of young male supporters, the so-called “Bernie Bros,” who take to the Internet to go after Clinton and her supporters using their own condescending, sexist and occasionally downright vile language.

I can’t really quote any of it in this family newspaper, but just think of some of the things the Republican frontrunner has said about various women and you’ll get the gist.

Bernie, however, was having none of that.  "We don’t want that crap,” he bluntly told CNN. “Look, anybody who is supporting me that is doing the sexist things is — we don’t want them. I don’t want them. That is not what this campaign is about.”

Indeed. Attributing support for Sanders or for Clinton to one’s gender is the kind of shallow and one-dimensional thinking that should be left to the Republicans. There are some real differences in the two candidates that have nothing to do with gender.

Hillary’s biggest problem with young people, for example, is that they’re tired of her brand of Middle Way, “triangulated,” timid and mild progressivism. Barack Obama got young voters to the polls and himself to the White House by making bold proposals and saying, “Yes, we can.” Hillary looks at the ideas put forth by Bernie Sanders, such as free college tuition and single payer health care, and goes, “No, you can’t.” That’s not a winning message among young people, and it has nothing to do with X and Y chromosomes.

Did Obama accomplish everything he said he was going to do? No, but he accomplished a heck of a lot more than the naysayers on both the Republican and Democratic parties told them he could. Now Hillary Clinton says she wants to preserve the gains that Obama’s boldness helped make. All well and good, and that’s the reason I’ll vote for her if she does become the nominee.

But a lot of people, male and female, young firebrands and old curmudgeonly lefties like me and Bernie Sanders, still aspire to more.

Trying to Make Sense of Iowa

 thepilot.com, Sunday Feb 7, 2016:

After months of hype and hoopla, after endless hours of bickering and balderdash, the first primary-ish contest of the 2016 elections is over.

The aftermath of the Iowa Caucuses provided political junkies with some surprises and caused the rest of the country (aka “the sane people”) to experience the terrifying realization that this horror show that’s been playing out on their TVs and the Internet for the past several months isn’t over. It has, in fact, just begun.

At least there was some winnowing of the crowded field of candidates, even if it there weren’t as many casualties as we might have hoped.

Before midnight, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (or as I affectionately refer to him, “Who?”) finally experienced a moment of clarity and dropped out of the race. He was soon followed on the Republican side by Mike Huckabee, who’ll probably be either returning to a spot on Fox News or touring with Ted Nugent; and by Rand Paul.

One of the night’s big surprises was the upset victory of former Canadian Ted Cruz over Donald Trump. Guess running away from a female anchor because she was mean to him didn’t work as well as Trump thought.

Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler told “The PBS Newshour” that the victory happened because Cruz was “the original outsider, the proven outsider” in the race, despite being a sitting member of Washington’s most elite club, the United States Senate.

Perhaps Mr. Tyler is confusing “outsider” with “outcast,” because the general consensus is that the majority of the people who have known Cruz personally, in or out of Washington, utterly loathe him. Forget working “across the aisle” — this guy can’t even work with his own party. How he expects to get anything done as president under these circumstances is a mystery.

The near-universal detestation of Sen. Green Eggs and Ham among his party’s establishment gave fellow senator Marco Rubio, who came in third, his opening to position himself as the non-crazy candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton.

Rubio, however, is vulnerable on the Republican hot-button issue of immigration, since he supported an immigration reform bill that was called “amnesty” by people who have no idea what that word actually means. Unfortunately, that group includes the entire right wing of the Republican Party.

It also apparently included Marco Rubio, as Fox News’s Megyn Kelly pointed out in the Trumpless Republican debate when she played a clip of Rubio saying, “An earned path to citizenship is basically code for amnesty” two years before supporting a bill that called for just such an earned path to citizenship. Pressed by Ms. Kelly, poor Marco was reduced to babbling, “I do not support amnesty, I do not support amnesty” over and over.

Ms. Kelly also pointed out that Mr. Cruz has a similar problem because he introduced an amendment to the bill that wouldn’t allow citizenship, but would allow some sort of legal status. In a party where hatred of immigrants is a litmus test, these may prove to be crippling flaws.

The night’s biggest surprise, however, came on the Democratic side, where Sen. Bernie Sanders narrowed Hillary Clinton’s once double-digit poll advantages to the point where some precincts had to be decided by coin toss. (Yes, that’s a thing in Iowa. Caucuses are weird.)

According to the Des Moines Register, the final tallies netted Clinton 49.8 percent of “state delegate equivalents” on Monday, while Sanders claimed 49.6 percent of “delegate equivalents.” Please don’t ask me to explain “state delegate equivalents.” I’ve been trying to read the caucus rules, and my eyes are still bleeding. Just take my word for it that the Clinton lead was unexpectedly razor-thin.

How did it happen? Was it Clinton fatigue? Were Iowa voters worried about the “damn emails” story blowing up in the general election? Or did the Sanders campaign manage to excite Iowa Democrats who’ve been disgruntled for years with the timid Republican Lite stance of the party establishment and are willing to embrace an honest-to-God liberal who doesn’t feel the need to “triangulate” their positions or apologize for caring about things like income inequality and Wall Street malfeasance?

Now the campaigns and the eyes of the nation (well, some of them) move to New Hampshire, where Sanders is expected to win the Democratic primary handily, since he’s practically home folks.

After that, however, things get a little dicier for Bernie. South Carolina and Nevada are widely regarded as a lock for Clinton, due to the large minority turnout in both of those states. But then again, there was a time when Iowa was a lock for Clinton, too. Stay tuned …

2016: The Year In Preview

 thepilot.com:

As another year draws to a close, many columnists and pundits are looking back at the year gone by. But as you well know, this column is always looking ahead. Therefore, we present for your delectation our annual Year in PREview:

JANUARY: President Obama finally caves in to pressure from the American right and uses the words “Islamic extremist” for the first time in a nationally televised speech. All the terrorists immediately lay down their arms and surrender to local authorities. “We have survived the infidel’s smart bombs and drone strikes,” states former jihadist Ali Wali ibn-Babali. “But no one can resist being called by that … that name!”

FEBRUARY: The nation is shocked when The New York Times reports a surprise win in the Iowa caucuses by former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore. Half a dozen other news outlets follow suit. Two days later, the Times admits that its story was wrong and that its only source was a prank phone call from a 16-year-old in Arizona. The paper promises an investigation to determine what went wrong.

MARCH: Faced with sagging poll numbers, Donald Trump takes the unusual step of announcing his proposed vice-presidential pick months before the GOP convention. In front of a crowd of cheering supporters, he announces that he’s choosing Russian President and right-wing darling Vladimir Putin. “Sure, he murders journalists and brutally invades weaker countries just because he can,” Trump bellows, “but at least he’s a leader!” Trump’s poll numbers immediately skyrocket among Republican voters.

APRIL: Donald Trump becomes the presumptive Republican nominee when all the other candidates either disappear or die under suspicious circumstances. Presumptive vice-presidential nominee Vladimir Putin releases a statement that reads: “Putin very sad. But presidential campaign not for weaklings. By the way, Putin was nowhere near any of them. Putin have witnesses.”

MAY: The New York Times claims to have obtained a memo from inside the Clinton campaign regarding potential campaign slogans. Choices reportedly include: “Hillary: Amnesty, Abortion, and Appeasement” and “Hillary: Forced Gay Marriage For Everyone.” Fox News begins a five night series on “Slogan-Ghazi.”

JUNE: The “Slogan-Ghazi” scandal collapses when the source for the bogus “memo” is revealed to be a satirical article published in a junior high school newspaper in Petaluma, Calif. The Times promises an investigation to find out what went wrong. Fox News continues to report the story as true, because, as Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy explains, “We just really hate Hillary Clinton.”

JULY: After the mysterious disappearance of front-runner Donald Trump, the Republican National Convention nominates Vladimir Putin as its nominee, who delivers his acceptance speech shirtless and on horseback. “This ticket is just so manly,” Fox News analyst Andrea Tantaros bubbles, before swooning and falling into the arms of vice-presidential nominee Chuck Norris. The confused and delusional Norris spin-kicks Tantaros off the stage.

AUGUST: Congress opens the first of what will prove to be 17 separate investigations of the “Slogan-Ghazi scandal.” Hillary Clinton, despite having garnered a winning number of delegates at the previous month’s Democratic convention, resigns her campaign, saying, “You know what? (Bad word) this (bad word). You want it, Bernie? You got it. And good (bad word) luck.”

SEPTEMBER: A hastily reconvened Democratic convention quickly nominates Bernie Sanders for president when all of the people who previously said, “I like Bernie better, but we all know Hillary’s going to win,” actually vote their real preference.

OCTOBER: Republican nominee Vladimir Putin’s poll numbers begin to slip when his campaign ads show clips of Latinos, African-Americans, Muslims, and LGBT people being rounded up and shoved into cattle cars. “OK, granted, Putin’s promising a mass internment and probable slaughter that would make the Holocaust look like a Sunday School picnic,” a visibly desperate Sean Hannity insists, “but at least he’s a real leader.” Fox co-host and Putin fangirl Kimberly Guilfoyle attempts to put a good face on the situation before she finally cracks: “At least Putin doesn’t wear mom jeans. … Oh, to heck with it, I’m terrified. How soon can I move to Canada?”

NOVEMBER: To the relief of millions, Bernie Sanders wins the U.S. Presidential election. The New York Times headline the next day, however, reads “Romney Elected in Landslide.” Within 12 hours, the Times retracts its story, admitting that its only source was a late-night drunken voicemail from Karl Rove.

DECEMBER: Fox News, insisting that The New York Times’ retraction of the Romney “victory” story is “nothing but political correctness run amuck” starts a series of investigative reports on “how Sanders stole the election from Romney.”

In short, the coming year will most likely be just like the one just gone by, only weirder. Have a good one!

Excerpts From Santa's Mailbag

 Opinion | thepilot.com

It’s that time of year again — the time when we dip into some leaked selections from Santa’s mailbag:

Dear Santa:

It’s been a really scary year, what with attacks on Paris and ISIS killing all those people in the Middle East and everything. So we’ve decided that the only thing to do as the governing body of the greatest country in the world is run away from the world, turn our backs on people in need, and hide under our beds.

Problem is, Santa, we’re not as young as we used to be, and some of us have put on a little weight. So what we’d like are higher beds to hide under.

— The U.S. Congress

Note to staff: Please arrange to have all of these fraidy cats receive a Bible with the passages about “for I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me,” etc., underlined. Thanks.

Note to Santa: We’re on it, boss. By the way, those ISIS guys sent a letter. Said they knew they were on the permanent naughty list, but they didn’t care, because the Americans were giving them everything they wanted anyway. Man, those guys have more loose screws than an Erector Set.

Dear Santa:

I know you’d probably think I don’t need anything, because I’m very, very rich. I’m super-rich, in fact, and the reason is because I’m also the smartest person you or anyone else has ever met. Not only that, everybody loves me. People can’t wait to tell me what a great guy I am. Oh, and I have a daughter so hot, I’d date her if I wasn’t her dad.

But there is one thing you can get for me. I know there’s a tape somewhere of thousands and thousands of Muslims cheering in New Jersey as the Twin Towers fell on 9/11. Problem is, no one can seem to find it. Everybody tells me that I’m making it up, but I can’t be, because I have the world’s greatest memory.

So rustle that recording up for me, will you? Chop chop, fat boy. I haven’t got all day.

— Donald, New York City

Note to staff: I don’t know what kind of meds it’s going to take to stabilize Donny, but order him up a truckload.

Dear Santa:

I know we’re getting close to Christmas, and you really need my wish list, but all the polling data isn’t in yet on what I should want, and some of my advisers haven’t gotten back from their Thanksgiving break ski trips to let me know what gift requests will play best in Iowa and New Hampshire. So I’m going to have to get back to you.

— Hillary, Chappaqua, New York

Note to staff: I know this letter should probably disturb me, but I find it kind of charming that she apparently sat down and hand-wrote it.

Note to Santa: C’mon, boss, you think she’s going anywhere near an email account these days?

Dear Santa:

I don’t want much. I just want people to know who I am, and that I’m still running for president.

— Jim, Richmond, Virginia

Note to staff: I hate to admit it, but I made my list, and I’ve checked it twice, and I still have no idea who this guy is.

Note to Santa: Jim Gilmore. Used to be governor of Virginia. And don’t worry, no one else knows him either.

Dear Santa:

I don’t want anything for myself. Really. But I want everyone to have free public college tuition. And a single payer health plan that will ensure that no person has to worry about going bankrupt if they get sick. And a living wage for everyone, because no one who’s working full time should be living in poverty. I don’t think this is too much to ask.

— Bernie, Burlington, Vermont

Note to staff: Who does this guy think he is? Me? Ho ho ho.

Note to Santa: Actually, boss, the other elves and I have been meaning to talk to you about the whole wage thing. Look, I like sugarplums as much as the next elf, but you can’t buy stuff with them. Not to mention that our diabetes risk is through the roof these days. Even Henry Ford said he wanted his workers to earn enough wages to buy the cars they made for him. You see where I’m going with this?

— Hermie

Note to staff: The unemployment line?

Note to Santa: Oh, right. You going to load the sleigh yourself? The reindeer are backing us up on this, by the way.

Note to staff: OK, OK. We’ll talk. After Christmas?

Note to Santa: It’s a date. Merry Christmas, boss.

Hush Up, GOP, The Grownups Are Talking

thepilot.com:

So now the first Democratic presidential debate has come and gone. It was certainly a relief to watch grownups at work for a change.

We saw informed people with actual governing experience talking about their very real differences on issues, rather than amateurs insulting one another, mouthing bumper-sticker slogans, and throwing red meat to the so-called “base.”

In fact, the most memorable moment of the evening was when Sen. Bernie Sanders explicitly passed up the opportunity to slam front-runner Hillary Clinton over the latest in the long series of phony scandals ginned up by the Republicans.

“Let me say something that may not be great politics,” Sanders said, “but I think the secretary is right, and that is that the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!”

Sanders then proceeded to try to re-direct the egregiously shallow celebrity “journalist” Anderson Cooper back to what he called the “real problems facing America”: a collapsing middle class; 27 million Americans living in poverty; and job-killing trade policies. You know, like the ones Secretary Clinton was for before she was against.

Acting decently toward an opponent and trying to shame one of the cable news talking heads into focusing on real issues. Now do you see why I love this guy?

Sanders, unfortunately, exposed a couple of his own vulnerabilities. The left is going to go after him for being “soft” on gun control and voting against the Brady Bill. The right, and Hillary Clinton, are going to go after him for suggesting we should be more like Denmark, even though survey after survey, year after year, finds that the Danes are the happiest people on Earth. But hey, this is America. Who needs happiness?

As for the other candidates, none of them really moved the needle in their direction. Former Sen. Jim Webb stood there looking grumpy and alternating his “Democrats should vote for me because I’m most like the Republicans” theme with complaining that no one was paying him enough attention.

Look, I give Sen. Webb full marks for his service, both in the military and in government. I respect his dedication to veterans’ causes. He’s also a heck of a novelist. But his perpetual scowl and his pomposity make Bernie Sanders look downright jolly. He makes himself hard to like, and I’ve given up trying.

Former Rhode Island Gov. (and former Republican) Lincoln Chafee had a couple of real cringe-worthy moments.

One was when he confidently proclaimed himself a “block of granite,” which someone should tell him is not a real dynamic image. The other was when he blamed his vote in favor of repealing the tattered remnants that remained of the Glass-Steagall banking regulation bill (a move which contributed to the rise of banks that were “too big to fail”) by explaining he’d “just gotten to the Senate” where he’d been appointed after his father’s death.

That response was just a slow softball over the plate, practically begging for opponents to hit it out of the park: “So, not ready on Day One?” However, by the time he stumbled into that one, Chafee had made himself so inconsequential that no one cared to even try and swing at the pitch.

When Clinton was asked later if she wanted to respond to a Chafee attack on her “credibility,” she just smiled and said “no,” which was the worst burn she could have delivered.

As for Martin O’Malley — well, when by the end of the debate, I’m still asking “wait, which one is he again?” then his status as an also-ran is pretty much set in cement.

At the end, however, it was Hillary Clinton who was, as she put it, “still standing.” Actually, that should probably be her campaign slogan. After all, she has been since 1992 the target of one bogus, politically motivated investigation/ smear campaign after another.

Vince Foster’s death, Travelgate, Cattlegate, Chinagate, Filegate, Whitewater, BenghaziBenghaziBenghazi — the list goes on and on. Every single time, her opponents have rubbed their little hands together, cackling with glee and promising everyone that this time, Hillary Clinton’s going to jail, just you wait and see. And in the end, they come away with … nothing.

Every time, investigation has ended up with the investigators slinking away, muttering that they’ve found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing after spending years and millions of taxpayer dollars. As I pointed out last week, I’m a Sanders guy, but even I have to give Clinton points for her tenacity and resilience. She was the clear winner of Tuesday night’s debate, but it’s still early days yet.

Stay tuned.

Sanders: Right On the First Try

Thepilot.com:

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is definitely from the left. He’s a self-described Scandinavian-style “Democratic Socialist.” He’s adamantly pro-union. He’s for single-payer health care.

But here’s the thing. This guy from the left has been consistently right. He’s been right a lot.

He was right on the Iraq War. When Democrats such as Hillary Clinton were eagerly swallowing the Bushista WMD story, spun up as it was out of wishful thinking, dodgy reports from questionable informants, and outright fraud, Bernie Sanders was one of the few people going, “Whoa. Hold on there a minute.”

Explaining his reasons for voting against an authorization of military force, Sanders, then a congressman, asked, among other things:

“Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed, and what role will the U.S. play in an ensuing civil war that could develop in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who have large Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by extremists? Will the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority be exacerbated?”

So what happened? There was a civil war in Iraq that still goes on, and moderate governments are battling for their lives against Islamic extremists across the region.

Oh, and while the Bushistas were assuring us that the Iraq War would pay for itself and that we probably would be there no longer than six months, Bernie Sanders was pointing out in the same speech that “we should be clear that a war and a long-term American occupation of Iraq could be extremely expensive.” And he was right.

Hillary Clinton now says her vote to authorize military action in Iraq was a “mistake.” And on that, she is also right. But Bernie Sanders didn’t make the mistake in the first place.

He was right about the Patriot Act. While both Republicans and Democrats raced each other to give more and more of our privacy rights away to prove which one could be more committed to the war on terror than the others, Bernie Sanders voted against the Patriot Act and against the numerous bills extending it.

And, like most of us who have been calling attention to the dangers of increasing government surveillance powers since 2001, he has been pilloried by the right as a wacko at best and a terrorist sympathizer at worst, while the Democratic establishment has barely bothered to notice him at all.

Then Edward Snowden came along and revealed just a little bit of what the government’s been doing with the power we so blithely gave them, and suddenly we’re all Bernie Sanders.

As he says today: “Do we really want to live in a country where the NSA gathers data on virtually every single phone call in the United States — including as many as 5 billion cellphone records per day? I don’t.

“Do we really want our government to collect our emails, see our text messages, know everyone’s Internet browsing history, monitor bank and credit card transactions, keep tabs on people’s social networks? I don’t.”

And he’s right.

He was not only right, but eerily prescient on the Wall Street financial collapse that has been dragging this country down since 2008. As far back as 1998, in a blistering confrontation with Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, said that “Americans should be worried about the gambling practices of Wall Street elites.”

He warned that, given the sums of money being recklessly gambled by unregulated banks, the actions of even one man could “cause economic disruption and catastrophe throughout the entire world.”

In fact, over the years, Sanders spent a lot of time confronting Greenspan for being out of touch with the economic realities of working people.

All that time, the Very Serious People in the government (including Bill and Hillary Clinton) and the “liberal” media (including NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell, aka Mrs. Greenspan) were treating Greenspan like some kind of oracle and Sanders like a wild-eyed street preacher standing on a soapbox in the park.

But it was Greenspan, after the 2008 crash, who had to go before Congress and admit that he had “found a flaw in his ideology.” This is like the designer of the Hindenburg admitting that he’d “found a flaw” with the idea of using highly explosive hydrogen to lift his airship.

If, as seems likely, Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, I’ll vote for her, because (1) I agree with her stances on more issues than I do with any of the Republicans, and (2) on the issues we disagreed on, there’s at least the possibility that she’s learned or can learn better (something that I can’t see anyone from the Republican Clown Car ever doing).

Until and unless that happens, however, I’m putting my support behind the guy who was right the first time.

Mad About the "Clinton Cash" Non-Scandal? Well Here's Your Alternative.

The Pilot Newspaper: Opinion

So, apparently, an upcoming book, the ponderously titled “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” seems poised to set a record for the shortest time between a Clinton “scandal” breaking into national news and its complete collapse into a big ol’ pile of nothing.

Considering the resume of the author, a longtime professional Republican operative named Peter Schweizer, this book is clearly one of those right-wing tomes designed not to put forth any actual agenda or philosophy of governance, but to tear down the Democratic front-runner with an eye toward giving whichever piece of damaged goods is the last Republican standing a shot at the White House.

A pretty dismal strategy, to be sure. But fear not, good friends, I offer you a way out of the gloom. Bear with me for just a bit and I’ll show you.

First, let’s have a look at the allegations. They consist of the usual ginned-up “OK for me but not for thee” scandal-mongering guaranteed to make the hearts of the editors of Clinton-hating mainstream media outlets like The New York Times go pitter-pat.

The former “newspaper of record” breathlessly reported on allegations in the book that donations by officers of a Canadian company to the charitable Clinton Foundation led to the takeover of some American uranium mines by the Russian company that eventually acquired the Canadian company. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton got a big speaking fee of $500,000 from, not the Russian company or the Canadian one, but from “a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.” (I know, it’s convoluted, but most right-wing conspiracy theories are.)

Sounds pretty ominous, right? Sure, until you actually start thinking.

Before the book was even released, Schweizer was forced to admit, on talk show after talk show, that there was absolutely no evidence that there was criminal wrongdoing or any “direct action” by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to influence decisions on behalf of foreign companies that donated to the Clinton Foundation.

Even Fox News’ Chris Wallace had to point out that the decision on the uranium mines was approved by no fewer than nine federal agencies, not just the Clinton State Department. (No, Hillary Clinton did not control all nine of them.)

Pressed to provide evidence, any evidence, of the actual criminality he alleged, Schweizer was forced to fall back on the old right-wing dodge, “Well, I got nothin’. I’m just raising questions.”

Maybe, he suggested hopefully, some good old-fashioned congressional investigations with the customary Blizzard O’Subpoenas will turn something up to discredit Clinton. You know, like they did with Benghazi. Except wait — they didn’t.

Big Money is, without a doubt, a pernicious influence in American politics. But if you can say with a straight face that donations to the Clinton Foundation or big speaking fees paid to the Clintons are worthy of congressional investigation while turning a blind eye to Republican pols pandering to billionaires like Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers, then, let me put this as politely as I can: You’re full of it.

But, as promised, I offer you a way out of hypocrisy. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Oh, I know, I’ve pooh-poohed the idea of the junior senator from Vermont going for the Democratic nomination. Largely because he wasn’t, you know, a Democrat. But it seems as though that rumpled, lovable old coot is about to throw his hat into the ring with a “D” on it. And boy, does he hate the big money style of politics.

He’s called for a constitutional amendment “making it clear that the right to vote and the ability to make campaign contributions and expenditures belong only to real people, not corporations.”

And he’s “continuously supported the DISCLOSE Act, which would lower the veil of secrecy over campaign finance and prevent foreign corporations, individuals and governments from interfering in our political system.” In Bernie Sanders’ America, political marriage, so to speak, would be between one American man (or woman) and one candidate. Per election, at least.

So, Republicans and Democrats, wingnuts and manic progressives: If you’re disgusted with the Clintons for associating with big donors and getting big contributions, then won’t you join me in supporting the only candidate who actually has a plan to get that kind of big money out of politics?

I mean, surely, you don’t think big speaking fees or contributions to private foundations are only bad or suspicious when Bill or Hillary Clinton are involved, right? If that kind of perceived influence-peddling makes you mad, then Bernie’s the only logical choice, right?

Right?

Ready For Hillary, I Guess

The Pilot Newspaper: Opinion

So we finally get a moderate Republican in the presidential race. Too bad she’s running as a Democrat.

A week ago today, former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton surprised absolutely no one when she declared that she was seeking the Democratic nomination for president of the United States. As usual, the press and the Republicans immediately ignored the actual problems with Mrs. Clinton as a candidate and a possible president, such as her cozying up with corporate interests and her hawkish and interventionist foreign policy.

No, in deference to the “base,” they went right to the usual trivia, previously refuted tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories (Benghazi, Benghazi, BENGHAZI!!!) and of course, thinly veiled sexism.

Take, for example, the often-voiced criticism that Clinton is “arrogant” or “entitled.” Look, people, it’s a supreme act of arrogance for anyone to put themselves forward as qualified to lead the Free World. As far as I’m concerned, this “arrogance” claim is just a euphemism for the word those on the right really want to use (and occasionally have): “uppity.” They said it about President Obama, they’ll say it about Hillary Clinton, they’ll basically say it about anyone they regard as one of their inferiors who has the effrontery to aspire to political power.

On the “trivia” front, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman took an entire column to break the story of Mrs. Clinton and her assistant dining at a Chipotle restaurant in Maumee, Ohio. Mrs. Clinton, we are told, was “in a bright pink shirt, ordering a chicken burrito bowl — and carrying her own tray.” This, it should be noted, came from a review by Ms. Haberman of the restaurant’s security video after receiving an “anonymous tip.”

But they didn’t stop there. Ms. Haberman delved deeper to bring us the news that “their order also included a Blackberry Izze drink, a soda and a chicken salad, and was filled just after 1 p.m.”

This led to a “what does it all mean?” analysis on CNN.com, which asked, with no visible trace of irony: “One of the biggest obstacles Hillary has to overcome is the perception that she represents the past. What better way to shed that outdated 1990s stigma than appearing at a hip restaurant of today?”

The real issue, of course, it the cover-up as to whether or not Clinton left a tip or whether she got more guacamole than she deserved. I think a House committee needs to be convened on this, and God help Hillary if she can’t produce the receipt.

I’ve detailed several times in these pages why I’m not naturally a fan of Clinton’s brand of Republican Lite. She seems to have come late to the realization that income inequality exists in this country and that it’s a serious problem. And, lest we forget, she voted for the Iraq War.

I’d much rather see, for example, Sen. Elizabeth Warren in the race. Problem is, Warren’s adamant that she’s not running. The people pushing Sen. Bernie Sanders to declare for the Democratic nomination seem to have forgotten one basic problem: Sanders isn’t a member of the Democratic Party.

As for the other potential Democratic candidates, I like former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb’s positions on criminal justice reform, and he was talking about income inequality before it was cool. But he’s very much a long shot at this point. And who the heck is Martin O’Malley?

All that said, when you look at the current actual and potential GOP slate of candidates, the choice is pretty clear. For example, the day after Hillary announced, Marco Rubio jumped into the race and reminded us of the weakness of the forces against her. Sen. Thirsty, apparently not aware of Mrs. Clinton’s “hip” lunch habits, derided Hillary as “the candidate of the past” before promising to roll back everything that’s happened in the last six years.

You may think it somewhat odd to hear a member of the party that idolizes Ronald Reagan and would like to see us return to the “family values” of the 1950s talking about “the politics of the past,” but as I’ve noted before, no one should expect consistency from these people.

The next president may get to appoint as many as four Supreme Court justices. I want someone in that position who’s pro-choice, pro-science, pro-LGBT rights, and pro-health care reform. And you know what? So do the majority of American people. Even on health care reform, when you ask them about the specifics of the Affordable Care Act and don’t call it “Obamacare,” people are overwhelmingly for it.

So voting for Hillary Clinton is going to be like getting old: annoying and occasionally painful, but not so bad when you consider the alternative.