The definition of out of touch

[EdwardBernays]

Another national poll highlighting the same thing we've seen over and over: None of the Republican candidates can beat Sanders, but all or almost all of them, including ones at less than 5% support in their own party beat Clinton.

Over and over we see that Hillary is seen as THE LEAST trustworthy and honest candidate... Including Trump and Cruz.



We've also seen hundreds of thousands of people flock to see Bernie speak across the country, and the largest grassroots political fundraising movement of all time.




And yet.

The establishment and certain Demographics refuse to acknowledge this reality.

They think - in the most generous appraisal of their behaviour - that Bernie can't win the GE. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

And it's because they're so out of touch with the electorate.

They think that Clinton represents America, even as Americans - more every day - reject her and what he represents.

They look at the polls and Hillary's ability to shed 30pts in state polls in just a few months against someone they ostensibly think doesn't represent America, and they just shrug. Or worse they revert back to the dishonest politicking of a decade ago... Fear and smear.

And guess what.

The data all points to one outcome. If the Democratic establishment doesn't cop on they're going to lose. Badly.

And maybe they should... Because the country is showing them where the passion is... It's showing them that they can't win honestly. It's showing them they can't engage the next generation of voters. It's showing them that their candidate is not trusted... It's showing them that a Clinton nomination is suicide.

But they're too out of touch to notice.

And when people like that are running one of the largest parties in your country, your country is screwed.

[RiverLover]

1. Excellent OP.

[Betty Karlson]

2. May we start calling the party establishment the lemmings squad?

Because with novermber's cliffs in sight, that is how they are behaving.

[EdwardBernays]

6. No need

To bash lemmings. 😛

[yourout]

16. They don't care......they would rather lose then let Bernie win.

[Betty Karlson]

18. Please tell me again why millennials are supposed to vote for wannebe-losers?

Because the lesser of the two evils is supported by people who are in favour of stagnating an untenable status quo? As opposed to the worst of the two evils which will be supported by people in favour of blowing up the administrative structure of this ocountry and plunging it into social chaos - with extra freely available guns?

Given a choice between being screwed and being screwed with lube, tell me at what point I get to just say "no" to the advances of the screwers?

[daleanime]

33. Huh?

[Fumesucker]

3. They know how to read polls, it's a cold blooded calculation . . .

Do they lose more with a Republican or with Sanders, they think they will lose more with Sanders.

Furthermore the fallout from being on the wrong side of the Clintons is well known, if you were a Democrat foolish enough to endorse Sanders and Clinton does get the nom say bye bye to your career.

Says quite a bit actually.

[deutsey]

4. Bingo

[EdwardBernays]

5. Like I said in my OP

I was being very generous in my reading of their motivations.

[merrily]

9. +1

[zeemike]

27. +1

The only way they can lose is if Sanders wins.

[tk2kewl]

36. if a republican wins...

they still have all their donors (in fact they probably get more $$), their divided electorate and their vacuous platform of "fear the evil GOP." they in fact lose nothing... we on the other hand...

[MissDeeds]

39. There's a reason they keep an enemies list

Payback.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

64. a sad sick reality

...

[Arazi]

74. + another 1 eom

[Fast Walker 52]

7. this is real, and a HUGE reason Bernie is turning people on

[jham123]

58. Correction = Yoooj!

[Fast Walker 52]

8. to be fair to Hillary though-- she is way more honest than any Repub

[EdwardBernays]

12. No

She's not.

I appreciate that you think that but Kasich is much more honest. So was Rand Paul.

She's just as dishonest - or more - as the rest of them.

[Fast Walker 52]

14. she's way more honest at least one major issue-- climate change

I think she's mostly honest except when it comes to her record.

[EdwardBernays]

17. I have a hard time

believing anything that comes out of her mouth, and the fact that she's taken so much money from lobbyists - and has for so long - makes me think that - like with her stance on human rights - it's all just lip service to the Dem voters re: what she'll actually do when elected.

In other words, it's all fair and good to blah blah blah about climate change, but ask civilians in some of the countries she sold weapons to as SOS, countries with horrible human rights records at the time, where civilians are being killed with those US weapons, if she actually gives a shit about them.

She doesn't.

[Fast Walker 52]

19. I think she is somewhat better than that, and to be honest, no politician is really willing to

confront the terrible cost of our wars to other countries' people. They might talk about the cost to Americans but almost never about the innocent lives our country destroys.

It makes me sick how little Americans care about the death and destruction we cause.

[EdwardBernays]

21. well..

I'll give you an example.

When Hillary was SOS, Saudi Arabia wanted to buy 29 BILLION in arms from Boeing. Everyone from Iraq to Israel to even others in State said don't, it will destabilise the region. A few months before she signed off on the sale - which she called a "personal priority" - State released a catalogue of all the human rights abuses of Saudi Arabia. They also said that their military was being used to kill civilians.

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia donated at least 10m to the Clinton Foundation, and Boeing paid Bill 250,000 for a single speech.

Since that time SA has used those weapons, like the State Department predicted, and like our allies warned, against civilians in SA and Yemen, where they are - with out help - committing grave war crimes.

The other thing to note is that her campaign manager owns the lobbying firm that SA hired to make sure that SA didn't look bad in the US media. And that same lobbying firm - which has donated hundreds of grand to Clinton btw - also lobbies for Boeing.

--

To me that goes so far beyond simply not caring about civilians. That is making yourself rich on the back of dead women and children. All the while pretending to be a champion of human rights.

That is MUCH WORSE than anything her opponents have done, IMO, and it's just one of numerous examples of this sort of thing.

Literally, numerous examples, just as bad as this.

So no, I can't look at her and think she, as a human, is any more trustworthy - or worthy of my support - than pretty much anyone else running... Sanders isn't perfect, but you'd be hard pressed to find anything close to that in his history.

[Carolina]

34. Excellent post

Another thing about the Saudis... 15 out of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi as was Osama bin Laden.

The other 4 hijackers were from the UAE, Egypt and Yemen... not an Iraqi in the pack but we chose to decimate Iraq (thanks for your vote on that one, HRC), destabilize the ME, wreak death & destruction and sink the treasury in debt.

HRC is a disaster

[bvar22]

63. also not a single Afghan in the pack,

yet we STILL occupy their country.

[beedle]

37. ^THIS^ 1,000,000 times

She learned how to do this from her war criminal husband. How these two are considered 'heroes' rather than sitting in a crimes against humanity dungeon always amazes me.

[Fast Walker 52]

43. fair enough.... that's pretty scummy

I really hope I don't have to vote for her.

[EdwardBernays]

46. I won't

unless Cruz gets the nomination, then I will.. otherwise it's just like I'm encouraging them to push her and people like her on us... and I refuse to encourage that.

[corkhead]

66. please post this as its own OP

[Divernan]

24. As Secretary of State, she marketed fracking interests to many countries

Last edited Thu Feb 18, 2016, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)

this article originally appeared in Mother Jones and was re-published in Huffington Post as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/10/hillary-clinton-fracking_n_5796786.html

How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking To The World

ONE ICY MORNING in February 2012, Hillary Clinton's plane touched down in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, which was just digging out from a fierce blizzard. Wrapped in a thick coat, the secretary of state descended the stairs to the snow-covered tarmac, where she and her aides piled into a motorcade bound for the presidential palace. That afternoon, they huddled with Bulgarian leaders, including Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, discussing everything from Syria's bloody civil war to their joint search for loose nukes. But the focus of the talks was fracking. The previous year, Bulgaria had signed a five-year, $68 million deal, granting US oil giant Chevron millions of acres in shale gas concessions. Bulgarians were outraged. Shortly before Clinton arrived, tens of thousands of protesters poured into the streets carrying placards that read "Stop fracking with our water" and "Chevron go home." Bulgaria's parliament responded by voting overwhelmingly for a fracking moratorium.

Clinton urged Bulgarian officials to give fracking another chance. According to Borissov, she agreed to help fly in the "best specialists on these new technologies to present the benefits to the Bulgarian people." But resistance only grew. The following month in neighboring Romania, thousands of people gathered to protest another Chevron fracking project, and Romania's parliament began weighing its own shale gas moratorium. Again Clinton intervened, dispatching her special envoy for energy in Eurasia, Richard Morningstar, to push back against the fracking bans. The State Depart­ment's lobbying effort culminated in late May 2012, when Morningstar held a series of meetings on fracking with top Bulgarian and Romanian officials. He also touted the technology in an interview on Bulgarian national radio, saying it could lead to a fivefold drop in the price of natural gas. A few weeks later, Romania's parliament voted down its proposed fracking ban and Bulgaria's eased its moratorium.

The episode sheds light on a crucial but little-known dimension of Clinton's diplomatic legacy. Under her leadership, the State Department worked closely with energy companies to spread fracking around the globe—part of a broader push to fight climate change, boost global energy supply, and undercut the power of adversaries such as Russia that use their energy resources as a cudgel. But environmental groups fear that exporting fracking, which has been linked to drinking-water contamination and earthquakes at home, could wreak havoc in countries with scant environmental regulation. And according to interviews, diplomatic cables, and other documents obtained by Mother Jones, American officials—some with deep ties to industry—also helped US firms clinch potentially lucrative shale concessions overseas, raising troubling questions about whose interests the program actually serves.

[Fast Walker 52]

44. she's a corporate Dem, just like Obama

both give horribly mixed messages on climate change and undermine the whole process.

[EdwardBernays]

47. It's not really a mixed message...

as much as it's hypocrisy... they always say one thing in public to keep people on side, then do the opposite when they think no one is watching...

[Fast Walker 52]

54. do you think they are really that cynical?

I imagine they think either it's the best they can do under the circumstances, or they are deluded about the nature of the problem.

If they really understand the problem, how can they sell out like that?

[EdwardBernays]

60. they are

look... the Clintons have used their cynacism to make over a hundred million dollars... what would most people you know do for 100M? lie? be a hypocrite?

[Fast Walker 52]

61. but help doom humanity?

[Lorien]

57. EXACTLY. Fracking is a serious threat to the planet

as is Capitalism itself: http://theintellectualist.co/forbes-unless-it-changes-capitalism-will-starve-humanity-by-2050/

[jeff47]

62. If that were true, she wouldn't have been promoting fracking as SoS. (nt)

[eridani]

67. Yes--but only on the campaign trail

She is a huge booster of fracking, which is a major climate disaster

[Divernan]

10. Cruz has figured out how to tap into Hillary-hate to win GOP primaries

Last edited Thu Feb 18, 2016, 09:57 AM - Edit history (1)

And if this works in So. Carolina, we can expect the other GOP candidates to follow suit in subsequent primaries by outdoing each other in attacks on Hillary Clinton. We Sanders supporters have been warning that HRC as the primary candidate will depress voter turnout of younger voters, progressives and independents, and boost turnout of the accurately named Clinton-haters in the GOP. This move by Cruz will test that hypothesis.

New Ted Cruz Ad Spoofs "Office Space" In Clinton Server Attack

The ad will air during Saturday Night Live the week before the South Carolina primary. The timing is very interesting. What motivates Cruz? I'm sure Hillary supporters would argue Cruz attacks Clinton because he would rather run against Bernie in the general. But I suggest that Cruz understands that a well-timed, nationally televised attack of Hillary will boost his standing among the masses of voraciously rabid GOP Clinton-haters and get them to the South Carolina polls to vote for him and not his Republican opponents. And if this works in So. Carolina, we can expect the other GOP candidates to follow suit in subsequent primaries by outdoing each other in attacks on Hillary Clinton.

You can see the video and read the lyrics at the link:
Posted on February 12, 2016
Ted Cruz mocks Hillary Clinton over her wiped personal email server in this new ad spoofing the scene in the 1999 comedy Office Space where the office workers destroy their hated fax machine.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...on_attack.html

[EdwardBernays]

13. Good post eom

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. It's a good ad. This cycle, Cruz and Sanders seem to have scooped up the best people

at making advertising. Cruz' ad attacking Trump was equally good.

[Punkingal]

11. K&R

[Odin2005]

15. Hillary supporters seem to live in a bubble and think it is still 1996.

They are completely blind to the electorate's rage, and seem determined to dismiss Millennials as "kids", despite the oldest of us turning 34 this year.

[Betty Karlson]

20. 36 even. (1980 is the start of the Millennial generation, I thought)

Completely agree with your views: Clinton is stuck in the 20th century. Just because she is romancing the past doesn't mean we should vote conservatively and let her reign as if the nineties never ended.

[Odin2005]

23. 1982 According to the people who coined the name.

Sociologists Neil Howe and the late William Strauss (who was also the head of the Capitol Steps comedy troupe) coined the term "Millennial Generation" in 1991, so named because the oldest turned 18 in 2000.

[Betty Karlson]

42. I know, but the definition has been tweaked a bit by those who have adopted the term.

At least, that is how I understand it. But 1980 or 1982, the idea still stands: those who have had an adolesence in the 90-ies and / or the beginning of the 21st century, and who have come to adulthood around or after the end of the 20th century.

[dana_b]

22. great post

SHe may represent SOME of what people my age and older are about but I think that she's fairly out of touch with younger people and that is reflected at the polls and the voting booth.

The Democratic party reminds me of those people on t.v. a few years ago whining that their country is gone and they want their country back. The Dems don't want the party to change yet they can't attract many new people with what they're offering. Just as many of us don't want our country to go backwards because it wasn't so great unless you were a white, Christian, middle to upper class guy.

[Cary]

25. The problem with PR that doesn't match reality is that it is unsustainable

That is especially true in this instance. "Conservatives" have smeared Hillary Clinton for decades now and for some reason the radical left is as enthralled with emotional reaction as the radical right.

As Austan Goolsby and Christina Roehner said we are the party of reality. People who engage in "conservative" smears are not of us and will not prevail. Granted the radical right has prevailed at times, as with the Swiftboat liars. But they have gone to that.well too many times and I have always believed that the main difference between the radical left and the radical right is that the radical right is somehow far more functional.

Extremism is the enemy.

[EdwardBernays]

35. if you're saying that

people that look at the evidence of the gross corruption of the clintons, and decide for themselves that the Clintons are corrupt, are just repeating right-wing smears, then you're not being honest with yourself.

I would LOVE Hillary to not be corrupt, but it's just not so.

[Cary]

50. it's good that you are my judge.

And it is good that people who judge me are omniscient.

[EdwardBernays]

51. Maybe I was being too generous?

Maybe you're deliberately lying?

I'm not saying you are, but what you're saying isn't true... whether it's deliberate or not, I can't say....

[Cary]

52. I wouldn't use that adjective, pal

You responded to my comment by changing the subject from what it was, to something about me personally. This happens all the time.

That tactic is even sleazier than your baseless innuendo and smears. You have no proof that Hillary Clinton is any of the things you claim her to be. I've heard all of the nonsense and b.s. You have nothing and you aren't my judge. Moreover you are without honor, resorting to this crap.

Stick to the subject or be decent enough to keep your mouth shut.

[EdwardBernays]

53. It is about you

and your beliefs..

And I have all the proof in the world... Of course you probably believe Al Capone wasn't a gangster (never proven in a court) and OJ didn't kill anyone (ditto).

You only believe people like Clinton are crooks when someone in a position of authority calls them one.. but guess what, people in positions of authority have been raising this issues, and have been pointing out these massive "coincidences" and conflicts of interest and broken promises about transparency for years and years.

If you're waiting for the government to provide you with a smoking gun, you're gonna be waiting for a long time... that's how corruptions works, the criminals protect each other because they know there's enough suckers out there that will believe any old excuse - because it protects their narrative and world view.

Luckily more and more Americans are waking up to the reality of the Clintons, including MANY MANY Democrats and liberals and progressives. In the end you'll just be a dinosaur, defending the inexcusable, so you don't have to admit to yourself how badly you've been fooled.

[Cary]

55. Good grief I have heard that same spiel from every crackpot cultist

and conspiracy theorist I have ever run into.

You are utterly bankrupt in your assertions. I am ashamed of you.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/11/new-poll-shows-60-of-americans-think-hillary-clinton-is-untrustworthy-and-dishonest.html

http://thedailybanter.com/2016/01/hillary-gop-smears/

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/opinion-blog/2015/08/20/dont-buy-hype-about-hillary-clintons-untrustworthy-issues

Lots more where that came from so your arrogance and righteous indignation are wholly unjustified. Like I said, I am ashamed of you.

[noiretextatique]

68. she's been caught on film lying several times

and the rw smear campaign did not make her do it. next tired canard, please.

[Cary]

69. Google that and guess what you get

Fox"News"

Face it, you hate her like "conservatives" hate her and your willing to accept any vindication of your emotion. She is as honest as anyone. It is the smears that are pathetic.

[noiretextatique]

70. my bad. she was caught on film lying by fox news

I am 57 years. My first vote was for Carter. I watched the rw force its radical agenda on America. I watched the Clintons and others triangulate rightward to continue that agenda. I watched the Clintons pal around with the Bushes. Peddle that BS elsewhere.

[Cary]

72. "Conservative" disinformation disgusts me

The list.of "conservative" lies and disinformation is pretty much everything they have and here you are proliferating it.

I won't even read that garbage, and you have the temerity to bring it here?

[noiretextatique]

73. LOL...how old are you?

I hope not as old as me. People are not against Clinton because of THE rw, one-note wonder, they are against her because she IS rw, with a D. The rw claims she and Bill are flaming liberals: I would never make that claim. btw, you are late. this is last month's idiotic talking point. and you do know that if Hillary interview is recorded by Fox or NPR: her words are still hers. there is no way to spin her own words into a rw conspriracy. but can keep trying.

[Cary]

75. What "people?"

I have a talking point?

I am a Democrat and I don't give you permission to drag me into your stupid game. I will vote for the Democratic nominee. In the unlikely event that is Bernie Sanders I will support him, because I am a Democrat. I have said nothing bad about Bernie Sanders, but don't let that fact disturb your ideological bender. I have nothing against Bernie Sanders but I have been attacked and called names and thoroughly abused by Bernie Sanders' supporters, who have been nothing but dead weight in the real fight over real policies.

"LOL...how old are you?"

So condescending, over what? You are nothing, and nobody to me.

[ejbr]

28. It's frightening that

even "it'll make your head spin" Trump is more honest in this poll?!! Jumping jahosafits!

[highprincipleswork]

29. It's called "pull your head out of your ass"! And take a look around.

[noretreatnosurrender]

30. Great OP

It's because they don't care what the voters want. They care about what they want. They will do anything and say anything to ram the Hillary candidacy through. They won't embrace the stronger candidate they will embrace the one who is just like them because it's all about them not the voters. The uprising they see scares the hell out of them and it should because it won't stop with this election.

[PatrickforO]

31. Interesting. The two people perceived as being the most dishonest are

the 'front runners.' Did anyone else notice that?

[EdwardBernays]

32. yep

the main difference is that our presumptive nominee is seen as status quo, while theirs is seen as an outsider.

[Skwmom]

38. I think the reason a lot of the political establishment and her rich donors don't care about honesty

is they expect her to lie to the masses to get elected.

[chervilant]

40. This:

And maybe they should... Because the country is showing them where the passion is... It's showing them that they can't win honestly. It's showing them they can't engage the next generation of voters. It's showing them that their candidate is not trusted... It's showing them that a Clinton nomination is suicide.

But they're too out of touch to notice.

Your post re: Saudi Arabia should be a separate OP, EB (and, I wish more people knew just who -- and WHAT -- was Edward Bernays, especially as revealed in "The Century of the Self&quot .

[EdwardBernays]

49. The Century of the Self

is one of my favourite things...

As you'd well guess...

I have posted multiple times about Saudi Arabia, but people - most people - just don't bother to read or engage on that topic... I think it probably is so sickening that if they admit to it personally, that this stuff is happening in their name and with their military and their tax dollars... if they admit to that they'll just stop being able to care... it's too much...

And I get that.

But it's also just so £@!%^* important...

[Javaman]

41. can even fathom how ben carson came in second. nt

[Orsino]

45. I wonder what Carly Fiorina's numbers would look like.

And seriously wonder whether both she and Clinton would be the outliers (see what I did there?), and if so, might it be in part a gender thing?

I don't mean to excuse Clinton's fibs, but we ought to be aware that what's being measured here is perception.

[oregonjen]

48. Out of touch to me means selfish. They want for their own and that's it.

[Lorien]

56. The establishment would rather throw Hillary under the bus to an official Republican

than allow Sanders to win. For years it's been "Heads we win, tails you lose." Only by creating a significant movement can we hope to change this.

[uponit7771]

59. The marginalized groups are usually seen as more dishonest by the establishment power structure...

She has had millions of taxpayer dollars spent on getting her poll numbers down and it includes her honesty.

you leave this out of your diatribe about her

has she totally fucked up in the past...yeah...any more than a repub or most of the males?!?!

nope

[hifiguy]

65. Finally, a poll where she beats Trumpolini.

Party time!

[MadDAsHell]

71. Biggest question is how did we as a party let our presumed nominee become so despised?

Someone has fucked up.

Either she has done an abominable job of displaying honesty, trustworthiness, and a passion for the issues important to the voting public, or we as a party have done the world's shittiest job of preparing and selling our favored candidate.

Either way it's a historically colossal fuckup.

[jeff47]

76. You can't start with the assumption of competence.

Take a look at 2014, 2012, 2010, 2004, 2002, 2000. We can't assume competence among the party leadership.