I have found the Democratic debates really interesting to watch. For the first time in my lifetime, these debates actually have some substance and drama. There was a couple of interesting moments last night, including the suggestion by Hillary Clinton that it is out of bounds for Sanders to raise the money that she has taken from Wall Street as a “smear.” I thought that Clinton did a good job on various points with strong responses, including the progressive label issue. However, one of the most intriguing moments was Clinton saying that it was ridiculous to call her the “establishment” candidate because she is a woman. For many, the Clintons are the personification of the establishment with huge donors, PACs, control of the DNC, and a massive political machine. Even the Washington Post responded with “Come on” to the suggestion that she is not the ultimate establishment candidate. Yet, Clinton’s point is that she is also the trying to become the first woman president and thus must be considered an outsider candidate. It seemed to resonate with the crowd, though Sanders appears to have tied Clinton in a national poll despite an concerted campaign from Democratic leaders and politicians aligned with Clinton. I thought it would make for an interesting discussion on the blog.
Here is the exchange:
Sanders: “I will absolutely admit that Secretary Clinton has the support of far more Governors, Senators, Mayors, members of the House. She has the entire establishment or almost the entire establishment behind her. That’s a fact. I don’t deny it. I’m pretty proud that we have over a million people who have contributed to our campaign averaging 27 bucks a piece.”
Clinton: “I’ve got to just jump in here because, honestly, Senator Sanders is the only person who would characterize me as a woman running to be the first woman president as exemplifying the establishment.”
While I certainly understand her point and that women remain underrepresented in politics, it is also true that many of the most powerful folks in Washington are women. Indeed around the world, women are the increasingly prominent like Angela Merkel, Melinda Gates, Janet Yellen, Mary Barra, Christine Lagarde, Dilma Rousseff, Sheryl Sandberg, Susan Wojcicki, Park Geun-hye, Oprah Winfrey, Ginni Rometty, Meg Whitman, Indra Nooyi, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Irene Rosenfeld, Ana Patricia Botín, Abigail Johnson, Marillyn Hewson and others. In Congress, there were ranked by CQ:
PARTY POWER
Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.)
Rep. Kay Granger (R-Tex.)
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif)
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.)
MEDIA SAVVY
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif)
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)
DEBATE SHAPERS AND SWING VOTES
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)
Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.)
POLICY DEALMAKERS
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.)
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Was.)
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)
POLICY WORKHORSES
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Cynthia M. Lummis (R-Wyo.)
BREAKING OUT
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.)
Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.)
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii)
Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.)
FRESHMEN ON THE RISE
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Ia.)
Rep. Gwen Graham (D-Fla.)
Rep. Mia Love (R-Utah)
Rep. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.)
Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.)
Again, none of this means that women are adequately represented. Moreover, I think that there remains sexism in how some people view women in power, particularly in seeking the highest office in the land. However, is it still fair game to say that Clinton cannot be the symbol of the establishment because she is a woman? It may turn on the meaning of what the “establishment” is in politics.
What do you think?
hskiprob writes, “The income tax, central banking and public education are all platforms within the Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx was paid by the ruling oligarchs of Europe to create a method in which to deceive the Citizens into excepting socialist/communist doctrine and most Americans have fallen for them hook, line and sinker. They now control almost all the means of production and the main stream media to continue the coverup of their activities.”
Say what?
I’ll agree that oligarchs control the means of production and the MSM, but the rest of it appears fantastic.
Steve,
The Communist Manifesto was once described to me as the means of stealing the wealth of a nation and this is happening in America. If you read The Communist Manifesto you will note that an Income tax is the 2nd platform, a central bank the 5th, and public education the 10th of ten. I found out about it by reading Milton Friedman’s book; Free To Choose. I of course being the skeptic I am, went out and bought the book to verify. Yep, that’s what it says.
We know why communism doesn’t work or at least back when I was in school they taught us this. It is why the soviet union still had a telephone system from the 1960s when they collapsed in 1989. There was no incentive for anyone to produce a better telephone system. Socialism/communism is why they collapsed, not the BS the Republicans tried to claim that Reagan policies caused it. All social polices have negative ramifications and why libertarians only believe that malum in se laws should exist. A true libertarian does not believe in any malum prohibitum laws.
The question is; was Karl Marx writing for the oligarchs or was he writing for the so-called workers revolution. He was very clever so I do not believe he could have been stupid enough to believe that socialism/communism would really benefit the majority. If he did, he was poorly educated in economics. The fact is that many people are gullible enough to believe his policies will work. As I mentioned, the 1928 and 1932 platforms of the American Socialist party are now law in our society. Go figure. Now, 100,000,000 people are living at tor near the poverty line.
President Obama ruined the “First ____________ President” for Clinton.
People wanted to vote for the “First Black President” and were shocked by what they got (more establishment garbage and corporatism, kill lists, extra judicial assassination, etc), so it will be a long time before they fall for that again.
Prairie Rose – Obama has earned Worst President, including Jimmy Carter.
From her own mouth: “a woman running to be the first woman president”
That is one of her main problems. She wants the title of First Woman President for herself. Serving the country? Nope. Serving herself.
Is it just me, or does it appear that there is no such thing as honesty in government. I think you all should keep voting for the demopublicans. Americans deserve candidates like Trump and Hillary.
It is unlikely that either of the demopublicans are going to really tackle any substantive issues that would cause our country to become great again. You are wasting you time and energy as I did running for the State House in 1992. I was one of the 5 Libertarian candidates that ran here in Florida that year because we luckily met the ballad requirements. Our primary agenda was the voucher system which has been adopted by most of the States. However, public education is still pretty crappy as compared to what it could be because it is still controlled by the political system. We are ranked highest in only two categories today. Highest incarceration rate and largest military industrial complex. Aren’t you proud?
We have been lied to for so long that most Americans actually believe the historical memes of the ruling oligarchy. Hillary is not in jail because she is a part of the establishment.
Almost all legislation is created to benefit special interest groups at the expense of everyone else. As and example the Sherman Anti-trust Act (SAA), most people believe was created to break up the monopoly of Standard Oil who were unethical and bad for the people and the economy. In hind sight we have learned that 1. Standard Oil was not a monopoly. 2. the legislation was sponsored by other oil companies that were not as competitive and efficient. Industry wages almost immediately went down because the breach up of stand Oil caused oil and gas prices to go up, so the various companies took it out on there employees to bear the cost of increased prices. For four decades Standard Oil was the best and most efficient oil company in America and there was both domestic and foreign competition. They just weren’t as efficiently run therefore their market shares were low. For four decades prior to the SAA industry wages were high and the prices of oil and gas were stable and low. As soon as Standard Oil was forced to breakup, oil and gas prices started increasing and wages started decreasing.
What we have learned from the SAA experince is that free market monopolies seldom exists for very long except in remote areas were no one else wants to compete. As an example, Reynold’s Aluminum invented the extraction method and thus in the beginning was a real monopoly because no one else was yet doing it. Very quickly though as profits because grandiose, a group of people from within Reynolds broke off and formed another company to compete ending Reynold’s monopoly. Whenever there is excess profits on the table someone is going to come along and compete unless it is a government grated monopoly like the Federal Reserve Bank. The remote mining general store is the exception because no one wants to takes the risk and do the hard work to compete. How many Americans have been led to believe the Sherman Anti-trust legislation was a great government induced regulatory benefit to our society?
I can go down the list of legislation’s such as the Federal Reserve Act, licensure laws, university accreditation, income taxes, Ad Valorem Taxes, tarriffs, etc. and show you in each circumstance how it negatively impacted our society. The income tax, central banking and public education are all platforms within the Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx was paid by the ruling oligarchs of Europe to create a method in which to deceive the Citizens into excepting socialist/communist doctrine and most Americans have fallen for them hook, line and sinker. They now control almost all the means of production and the main stream media to continue the coverup of their activities.
I fear that The White House will once again be occupied by a serial sexual assaulter of women and girls. How is it possible that Hillary qualifies for the most powerful position in the world when her decision making skills tied her to that reprobate for life? Apparently, that fact bothers very few. If Slick Blythe had been a conservative Republican, he would be behind bars where he belongs.
Or, how about we just ignore:
Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) – rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen – rape – quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely – “forced himself on her, biting, bruising her”
Kathleen Willey (WH) – sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) – sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) – sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) – sexual assault
Cristy Zercher – unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) – unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas – unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 – seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky – quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers – quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning – post incident character assault
Sally Perdue – post incident threats
Betty Dalton – rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder – apologetic note scanned
Yes Hillary and neither is Obama because he’s black. We get it….just another great lie of history.
If Hillary wins then we will have a guy in the background who can give advice. And if she gets senile or something he can guide. Woodrow Wilson got senile in office. So did Ronald Reagan. Ronald had Nancy. And…..
And we had a lame duck President for a while.
As a male I am not against Hillary just because she is female. Some of you are. I say you are afraid of having a woman run the show. You think this because your wife runs your life. Wise up men. It won’t be so bad.
SailorPeet – Wilson had a stroke while in office and how much of the decision making his wife after that has always been a guess.
In all of this Woman, Establishment and the listing of Women in Power, there is something that seems to be being skirted. (Wasn’t intending the pun as this was being composed…but it still works.)
Having had a very rare opportunity to listen to a group of high powered women executives discuss trying to work with like-types, I have to agree that Hillary (and others listed in that lineup) can not be part of any Establishment. That infers true collaboration within a group of lead lionesses.
The feminine cooperative enabling persona is myth…amongst those who achieved the power.
Are males much better? Not my point. Just Hillary and “Establishment.” I like both Merkle and Thatcher but wonder how even they would have meshed? Certainly would not liked to have witnessed if they had warred with each other.
Gee whiz Paul. Are you this literal around the house? You must be a blast at parties and funerals.
phillyT – one should always be literal at funerals. Wakes are a different matter.
For those of you getting your shorts in a twist, Sanders is referring to the top marginal tax rate during the Eisenhower years. The 90% rate was on incomes above a certain level. It was designed to prevent what has happened in the last two decades, which is the massive shift of wealth to the very top. The top marginal tax rate was supposed to prevent the ultra-wealthy class and the estate tax was supposed to prevent dynasties. Two very good ideas set aside in error.
I would rather have Clinton or Sanders with the nuclear codes than any one of the clowns in the republican clown car. Can you imagine a true believer like Rafael Cruz with his slimy hand anywhere near the button?
phillyT – they are given codes, they do not have a button. Bill Clinton lost the cost on more than one occasion. One can only imagine where they ended up.
Yes, the Hill is certainly part of the establishment. Worse, she would be a war president. We already have one of those, with a Nobel Peace Prize. He replaced another war president, without a Nobel Peace Prize.
There’s a dog Clintonista spinning and lying. “I don’t like her” but I’ll spin, lie, and dissemble for her. LAME. The other SOS email BS is a Clinton campaign spin plant that the MSM and idiots are drinking like Kool-Aid. This is just like the 1990’s Clinton horsesh!t and normal people are TIRED OF IT!!
It’s good to see this spin BS story is just a 24 hour and then die event. Google News this spin story, virtually all coverage is from yesterday. As your hero Paul Begala would say, “This dog don’t hunt.”
So….the establishment was running oMalley?
As voting season approaches, here is a reminder of why “tax and spend” is a failure:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/05/housing-jobs-in-high-tax-connecticut-could-take-hit-in-wake-ge-move.html?intcmp=hpbt4
GE moved from Connecticut to Mass, because the taxes in CT were too high. State law also got its hands on part of its global sales. They took 800 jobs with them, and the real estate values of the entire town are anticipated to suffer severely.
People, including business owners, modify their behavior to reduce the pain of high taxes. You are to recall that Bernie Sanders believes that a 90% tax rate is not too high. A 90% tax rate will have a large impact on our fragile, struggling economy.
steveg: what does that have to do with anything? Dictators and Saudi sheiks are also billionaires. Obviously there are less billionaires in socialist countries because the government took it all. France exported many of its wealthy. The US is one of the most successful countries in the world, and it’s not socialist. It is also one of the largest. So by definition it will produce the most wealthy. That is not “unfair” that is a combination of size and opportunity for success. What is unfair is a dictator blowing away a village and seizing its oil reserves.
Is it OK to take 90 cents of every dollar someone earns, as long as it’s a rich person? As long as it’s anyone except you? It is unfair by any standard. That is the problem with having different tax rates. It is just so very easy to vote for more taxes for “other people.” But, we are all connected. You knock people to the ground financially, and they will no longer have any incentive to be successful or employ you.
We see this happen on a much smaller scale. Most of us know people who got a raise only to find that they took home net less money, because they got into a higher tax bracket.
Karen – I think we should tax all attorneys’ fees at 90%. Think how much the Treasury will earn.
I am not a big fan of Mrs. Clinton. I think she is too close to the moneyed interests that have corrupted and in many ways, ruined our democratic republic. But now that Colin Powell has stepped in to say that he did the very same thing with his email, and that has been confirmed by the state department inspector general regarding both Secretaries Powell and Rice, what do we have?
Congressman Issa (Felon, CA), has run out of road on the Benghazi Benghazi, OMG BENGHAZI!! scam. The email scam is a bust, in spite of what Tom Delay (Felon, TX), has said.
So…back to murdering Vince Foster? Whitewater? The Clinton Foundation? Anything? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
I hope Bernie is the next president, but honestly the vast right wing conspiracy is not having a good weekk
Well, based on the logic of some commenters I think every underrepresented group should get a turn at being President, much as choosing sides on a playground. So, we’ve had white male Presidents, a black (if not half black), a woman is next, then perhaps a Native American, an Arab, Jew, Chinese American. We can then circle back around and let a 100% black person be President. Let’s just altogether toss out qualifications, merit, honesty, character and vision and let everyone have a turn. That way we can just keep adding to the idiots running the country where a 12 year old is required to get their parents permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin at school but doesn’t need it for an abortion.
I don’t believe the founding fathers envisioned the definition of citizen to be that constructed by more contemporary statutory definitions. The framers were seeking to remove foreign influence from the United States and it is very unlikely they would have been willing to allow a presidency of a person born in a foreign country, especially one of a commonwealth nation.
Darren: Agreed.
In 1787, the Law of Nations, Bk. I, §212, read:
“Citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Paul Schulte, I think that the young people will show up for Bernie. More importantly, however, is this essential fact: Sanders has not done any advertising or concerted campaign outreach in any states beyond Iowa, NH, NV, and SC. And even without doing any such adviertising he has already tied Clinton in the national polls. Once Sanders’ message starts being delivered how will the Clinton campaign be able to withstand it? If it does withstand it, it will be a miracle. Why? Because all the big numbers Clinton has had in most polls was nothing more than name ID. They knew her and didn’t know Sanders or OMalley. Now that OMalley is out it’s going to be a stark choice but in 2008 Clinton and Obama were virtually the same candidate when it came to the issues other than the Iraq War. Both were traditional, centrist/corporate Democrats. So the choice in 2008 was either for the first woman President or the first black President. Voters chose the first black President. This year, there are real and substantial policy differences and differences in approach and the electorate regardless of partisan preference is sick and tired of all the powers that be in government, business and the media. When Sanders’ message of putting and end to the corruption and greed and focus only on the powerful reaches black voters and independents and the disaffected it will be difficult for Clinton’s campaign to survive. So, that’s a long way of saying while the younger voters are essential to Sanders’ momentum and early support, as the campaign goes on and name ID is no longer what the polls are measuring you’ll see loads of older voters who cast their ballots very reliably for Sanders.
Paul Schulte, I think that the young people will show up for Bernie. More importantly, however, is this essential fact: Sanders has not done any advertising or concerted campaign outreach in any states beyond Iowa, NH, NV, and SC. And even without doing any such adviertising he has already tied Clinton in the national polls. Once Sanders’ message starts being delivered how will the Clinton campaign be able to withstand it? If it does withstand it, it will be a miracle. Why? Because all the big numbers Clinton has had in most polls was nothing more than name ID. They knew her and didn’t know Sanders or OMalley. Now that OMalley is out it’s going to be a stark choice but in 2008 Clinton and Obama were virtually the same candidate when it came to the issues other than the Iraq War. Both were traditional, centrist/corporate Democrats. So the choice in 2008 was either for the first woman President or the first black President. Voters chose the first black President. This year, there are real and substantial policy differences and differences in approach and the electorate regardless of partisan preference is sick and tired of all the powers that be in government, business and the media. When Sanders’ message of putting and end to the corruption and greed and focus only on the powerful reaches black voters and independents and the disaffected it will be difficult for Clinton’s campaign to survive. So, that’s a long way of saying while the younger voters are essential to Sanders’ momentum and early support, as the campaign goes on and name ID is no longer what the polls are measuring you’ll see loads of older voters who cast their ballots very reliably.