Trending Topics:

Videos: Proof of Sanders’s lifelong anti-racist activism breaks on eve of Nevada Caucus

on 74 Comments

Today is the Nevada caucus, an exciting day in the dead heat race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. This potentially pivotal first-in-the-west caucus, and the media attention afforded Sanders topping Clinton in a national poll (FOX) for the first time on Thursday (followed by a confirming Quinnipiac national poll on Friday) guarantees all eyes will be following this race closely

CNN coverage of Quinnipiac University Poll Feb.18,2016

CNN coverage of Quinnipiac University Poll Feb.18,2016

The other big news is the explosive controversy over Sanders’s lifelong commitment to racial justice. The Chicago Tribune  yesterday published an archival photo of Sanders being arrested as a young civil rights activist, demonstrating his 50- plus year commitment to racial justice (more below). That news was followed by charges that the Clinton campaign did push polling, in Nevada, where 30% of the electorate is minority voters, making for a thrilling weekend in politics.

Sanders rallies have taken on a spirit of their own, or so the story goes. Last night in Henderson, right outside Las Vegas, ABC News reports the Sanders final caucus-eve rally “took the form of a lively concert” after a long day of campaigning:

Final rally on the eve of the Nevada caucus, a lively concert in Henderson, Nevada Feb. 19, 2016 (photo: ABC News)

Final rally on the eve of the Nevada caucus, a lively concert in Henderson, Nevada Feb. 19, 2016 (photo: ABC News)

Sanders joined the artists and musicians onstage for a live rendition of “This Land is Your Land” …. Sanders grinned ear-to-ear as his wife Jane danced across the stage. The 74-year-old seemed as comfortable as ever.

And if there was ever a reason to feel comfortable –take a look at the Quinnipiac University graphic and poll released this week:

Quinnipiac University Poll Feb.18,2016

Quinnipiac University Poll Feb.18,2016

Both Sanders and Clinton have reached new favorability highs and lows respectively in matchups with GOP contenders. Sanders outpolls Trump 48 – 42 percent; and tops the rest by wide 8-10% margins, whereas Clinton only edges past Trump by a slight 1% margin and it’s downhill after that, losing out to Cruz, Rubio, Bush and Kasich.

Reportedly, a new Colorado poll (described as an earthquake) shows Clinton’s lead has evaporated in that state, giving Sanders a 5 point lead ahead of the state’s caucuses on March 1.

Are people taking Sanders seriously yet? Here’s Morning Joe Thursday morning astounded that Clinton booked a rally in Texas tonight and won’t be sticking around Nevada for the caucus results. Hear the commentators acknowledge that media has concentrated on the GOP race because of Trump and only now are waking up to the fact the Dem race “is a huge story.” Huffpo political reporter Sam Stein weighs in, “Her campaign has consistently underestimated just how hard this election is going to be against Bernie Sanders”. Maybe the media has too:

Plus, ABC News reports the Clinton campaign got snagged with an audio recording push polling in Nevada. The campaign is denying it but it smacks of desperation. 

Now for the explosive news. Take a look at this video the Chicago Tribune included in their breaking news story yesterday announcing Sanders’ arrest: “In the mid-1960s, protests over segregation in the area raged over mobile classrooms dubbed ‘Willis Wagons,’ — trailers that Willis set up for black children instead of sending them to white schools”:

The accompanying black-and-white photo (top of this article) found in the Tribune’s archives, “shows a 21-year-old Sanders, then a University of Chicago student, being taken by Chicago police toward a police wagon. An acetate negative of the photo was found in the Tribune’s archives, said Marianne Mather, a Chicago Tribune photo editor.”

Circa 1962: Bernie Sanders leads a sit in of CORE activists inside the University of Chicago administration building protesting discrimination against blacks in university owned housing. Photographed by Danny Lyon

Circa 1962: Bernie Sanders leads a sit in of CORE activists inside the University of Chicago administration building protesting discrimination against blacks in university owned housing. Photographed by Danny Lyon

The importance of this evidence proving Sanders’ activism for racial justice cannot be underscored enough. It follows months of misrepresentation surrounding a now famous 1962 photograph of Sanders by renowned civil rights photographer and filmmaker Danny Lyon, leading a sit in addressing CORE [Congress of Racial Equality] activists inside the University of Chicago’s administration building. The photograph has faced scrutiny since TIME magazine stated that it was “not in fact a photograph of Sanders” — and University of Chicago Library’s Special Research Center caved to pressure and changed their archives, removing Sanders’s name from the photo.

The discovery by Tribune’s archivists of Sanders’s arrest in August 1963 should lay to rest rumors his history of activism is untrue or exaggerated. The Tribune:

A Chicago Tribune archival photo of a young man being arrested in 1963 at a South Side protest is Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, his campaign has confirmed, bolstering the candidate’s narrative about his civil rights activism….

“Bernie identified it himself,” said Tad Devine, a senior adviser to the campaign, adding that Sanders looked at a digital image of the photo. “He looked at it — he actually has his student ID from the University of Chicago in his wallet — and he said, ‘Yes, that indeed is (me).'” Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, was traveling Friday near Reno, Nev., on the eve of the state’s Democratic presidential caucuses.

Sanders’ activism at the University of Chicago has been in the news recently, after questions arose about a different photo that appeared to show Sanders addressing students at a 1962 campus sit-in. At first, several alumni identified the speaker as another man, according to the University of Chicago Library’s Special Research Center. The other man is no longer alive.

However, photographer Danny Lyon, who took that photo, contacted the research center and made available more photos from the same sequence, confirming Sanders’ identity, the center said……

Information with the negative indicated that the Tribune arrest photo was taken in August 1963 near South 73rd Street and Lowe Avenue, which is in the Englewood neighborhood.

The smears against Sanders were not merely online squabbles between Sanders and Clinton camps. They included a member of the Washington Post’s editorial board Jonathan Capehart,  who seems to have taken a personal interest in proving Bernie Sanders is not who he says he is. Capehart’s Feb.11 op-ed “Stop sending around this photo of ‘Bernie Sanders’” claimed Sanders “only existed in spirit” as an activist CORE leader at the University of Chicago in the 60’s; and thus far Capeheart has not retracted the slam. A man on a mission, Capehart claimed just two days ago Sanders was “trying to say that he’s been in the trenches fighting for us, fighting for civil rights, that’s not Bernie Sanders”:

This news breaking on the eve of Nevada’s caucus, Sanders having just won the backing of the Clark County Black Caucus in Nevada’s largest county, should give him a big boost today and hopefully lay to rest all these rumors denying Sander’s long record supporting civil rights prior to Super Tuesday. 



Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is a mom, a human rights activist, and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area and likes to garden. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .

Posted In:

74 Responses

  1. W.Jones on February 20, 2016, 4:28 pm

    The photograph has faced scrutiny since TIME magazine published the photo claiming it was “not in fact a photograph of Sanders” — and University of Chicago Library’s Special Research Center caved to pressure and changed their archives, removing Sanders identity from the photo. – See more at:

    • annie on February 20, 2016, 4:51 pm

      that’s funny w.jones!

      • W.Jones on February 20, 2016, 5:04 pm

        So true though.
        Its what came to mind.

  2. German Lefty on February 20, 2016, 5:09 pm

    Interesting article. I had to look up what “push polling” is. Also, it never ceases to amaze me how voters in the USA are harassed by phone calls. Such stuff doesn’t happen in Germany. Does the Hillary campaign really believe that being harassed by a pro-Hillary person makes voters MORE likely to vote for Hillary? Regarding Jonathan Capehart: I have never liked him. Now I dislike him even more.

    • annie on February 20, 2016, 5:30 pm

      Does the Hillary campaign really believe that being harassed by a pro-Hillary person makes voters MORE likely to vote for Hillary?

      push polling doesn’t work like that. the person on the end of the phone is supposed to think they are taking a real poll, and then the questions are slanted and often untrue. a famous case was karl rove working for bush asking questions like “do you think mcCain having an illegitimate black child as a result of a tryst with a prostitute will hurt his chances in south carolina?” or “will the drug addiction of mrs mcCain hurt the gop’s chances of winning the national presidential election if McCain wins the primary?”

      so they think it’s an unbiased source asking the question but along the way they present information as if it’s established truth.

      • German Lefty on February 21, 2016, 1:06 pm

        Yes, I know that the employees who do the push polling present themselves as some independent organisation. However, when all the statements about Hillary are positive and all the comments about Bernie are negative, then every respondent with at least half a brain realises that the call comes from the Hillary campaign. And when you are harassed by phone, then you usually get angry at the person on whose behalf that harassment happens. In this case, it would be Hillary.
        Besides, the statement from me that you quoted does not only refer to push polling but to all kinds of phone calls or text messages on behalf of some candidate. I read the article from ABC News that you linked to. And it mentions pro-Hillary text messages and anti-Bernie robocalls. Such harassment of voters is an impudence.

  3. annie on February 20, 2016, 5:48 pm

    ok so i am bummed clinton won the state

    • just on February 20, 2016, 6:19 pm

      …”Despite Clinton’s projected victory, a strong Sanders challenge could further erode her status as the presumed Democratic nominee

      …”There were ecstatic scenes at the Clinton victory party in Las Vegas, amid evidence she won the vote off a strong support from women and African American voters.

      The Clinton camp had long claimed that her disappointing showing in the predominantly white early nominating states would quickly be erased once the nomination process moved to states with an ethnic makeup more representative of the wider electorate.

      However, the strong Sanders challenge – in a state that her campaign once expected her to win easily on the back of support from minority voters – indicated the Vermont senator is also broadening his pool of support.

      Even though Clinton clinched the vote by a comfortable margin, NBC exit poll data indicated she had actually lost the vote of the state’s key demographic of Latino voters. Sanders won 54% of the Latino vote, according to the sample data, compared to Clinton’s 43%. That is a very worrying result for Clinton, who has staked her campaign on the promise of winning minority voters.”

      Sí, se puede , Annie!

      • annie on February 20, 2016, 6:36 pm

        yeah, i read that earlier just. there is some really nasty stuff coming out of clinton supporters twitter feeds. this allegation the bernie crowd yelled “speak english” at a latino offering to read the results at a rally. the thing is, i went to the woman’s twitter feed and she has practically zero record of tweeting for a year until that tweet and a hillary supporting hashtag. so why was she at the bernie rally? either way, all those rallies are captured on videos so i’m sure there would be a recording of this if it happened. but this guy, with continuous really awful ‘bernie is a racist’ tweets on his feed, keeps tweeting this allegation into the nevada caucus hashtag. so it’s dirty politics.

    • Kris on February 20, 2016, 7:45 pm
      • German Lefty on February 21, 2016, 5:10 am

        Thanks for the video. Indeed, it is very sweet. I have already wondered what kind of wife he has. I only knew that he has one.
        I find her very likeable. She has a nice way of talking and a very pleasant voice. She is not tarted up and not arrogant at all.
        However, I am not sure in how far it’s okay to judge a politician by his choice of partner. It looks like Bernie made a great choice. Does this show that he’s a decent person? Hillary chose Bill and she stayed with him even after he cheated on her. Does this show that she has a lack of judgement?

      • Kris on February 21, 2016, 2:34 pm

        German Lefty,

        I shared this video because Annie said she was “bummed,” and I thought this might help. I didn’t mean to imply that you can judge a politician by his/her spouse.

        I am an active Bernie supporter, and I am also afraid for him and his family. Losing is not the worst thing that can happen, and my disappointment if Bernie loses is much less than my relief that he will return safely to his normal life and such a loving relationship.

      • annie on February 21, 2016, 2:43 pm

        thank you kris, i did watch the video yesterday i just felt so gloomy i didn’t feel like commenting. but thank you very much she seems like the kind of person i’d like to know.

      • German Lefty on February 21, 2016, 3:41 pm

        Kris – “I didn’t mean to imply that you can judge a politician by his/her spouse.”

        And I didn’t mean to imply that I think that you think that one can judge a politician by his/her spouse.
        It’s just that I hate Hillary partly because she chose Bill as husband and stayed with him after the cheating. Obviously, they have a convenience marriage, not a love marriage. To me, this shows that Hillary’s values are different from mine. Bill and Hillary are equally unlikeable and really deserve each other. Birds of a feather flock together. This is also the case with Bernie. I am relieved to see that his wife is as likeable as he is. The fact that he chose this woman as partner makes me like him more.

      • Mooser on February 21, 2016, 7:21 pm

        “It’s just that I hate Hillary partly because she chose Bill as husband and stayed with him after the cheating…. To me, this shows that Hillary’s values are different from mine “

        That’s how it goes, you tell all your best friends the secrets of your heart, and your marriage and then they ‘dish’ on you in Mondoweiss.

        As for me, political disagreements make no difference, I intend to hold everything Bill and Hilary told me during that troubled time in the strictest confidence.

      • Mooser on February 22, 2016, 11:16 am

        “This is so sweet”

        Is it wise, is it meet, I ask you, to ignore PG Wodehouse’s lightest word? And didn’t he advise us to “Leave it to Jane”?

    • Lillian Rosengarten on February 22, 2016, 11:53 am

      Her campaign is desperate. I still believe Bernie will win.

      • Kathleen on February 25, 2016, 11:51 pm

        I sure hope so. Doing everything in my power. folks in Colorado are sure committed…working so hard.

        Did you see this one.

        Bernie just nails my own feelings. I know he really believes what he is saying here. No bullshit

        I think he is reaching down into people’s cores and lifting them up. He has actions to back up his words. I know he is not perfect on foreign policy…however light years from the warmongering Hillary.

        If she gets the nomination no bs first time in 45 years for voting and working my ass off for Dems in national elections that I will consider voting for a third party candidate (Jill Stein I think). I just will not be able to stomach voting for a serious and deadly war hawk like Clinton. Would be like voting for Bush or Cheney…Wolfowitz. Can not do it

  4. beq on February 20, 2016, 7:54 pm

    Great work annie.

    • Stephen Shenfield on February 21, 2016, 2:03 pm

      German Lefty: Hillary has always shown excellent judgment. She grabbed Bill and held on to him because he was a pliant vehicle of her political ambitions. She got angry with him for his sexual affairs and assaults not because her feelings were hurt but because his lack of discretion endangered their joint political career. She was in charge of operations to intimidate his victims into silence and presumably derived some satisfaction from that.

      • Mooser on February 21, 2016, 2:20 pm

        “Stephen Shenfield” don’t you think that after being an intimate friend of the Clinton’s and witness to their marital and personal foibles, it would be the better part of valor to return their friendship and trust with discretion?

      • German Lefty on February 21, 2016, 3:21 pm

        Yes, you are right! She has excellent judgement – for a mendacious, heartless, calculating, power-hungry, war-mongering bitch!

      • Mooser on February 21, 2016, 6:28 pm

        ” a mendacious, heartless, calculating, power-hungry, war-mongering bitch!”

        Good Lord, I don’t even call my dog that! She’s always hungry for food, but seems indifferent to power.

      • Stephen Shenfield on February 22, 2016, 7:30 pm

        Mooser: I have never even met any of the Clintons. My information comes from a book by Katherine Willey, one of the women Bob assaulted, among other exposes. It isn’t a matter of foibles. It’s a consistent pattern of behavior over many years staggering in its viciousness, thuggery, ruthlessness, and predatory sadism.

      • Mooser on February 22, 2016, 9:40 pm

        .” It’s a consistent pattern of behavior over many years staggering in its viciousness, thuggery, ruthlessness, and predatory sadism.”

        “Stephen”, nobody is perfect, you know.

  5. kalithea on February 20, 2016, 11:21 pm

    Hey, I was going to post that photo and video; you beat me to it!

    Anyway, John Lewis I never saw Bernie Sanders at Civil Rights events and Clyburn both endorsing Hillary – eat my shorts!

    Hillary can’t wait to reverse roles in the White House with Bill. Me, boss lady you henpecked former boss. Maybe she’ll get her own intern to hit on too. Lemme see, who will repulse me more in the White House? Hillary kissing up to Bibi and planning the next war, or Trump’s ginormous ego cracking the walls of the Oval Office with his trophy wife showing off the gold-leaf Christmas decorations. Decisions…decisions; I think I’ll need the barf bag first.

    Bush is down and out; one more dynasty to go!

    Who said this? Capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources. With this system, a small privileged few are rich beyond conscience, and almost all others are doomed to be poor at some level. That’s the way the system works. And since we know that the system will not change the rules, we are going to have to change the system.

    Reply: The man who if he were alive today would throw his support behind Bernie Sanders.

  6. yourstruly on February 21, 2016, 12:11 am

    Publicly engaging in an anti-racist rally when he was 20 years old? That’s mighty significant! Did any of the other candidates (either party) ever stand up in public against racial discrimination?

  7. Marnie on February 21, 2016, 12:37 am

    I’m filled with dread at the thought of another president named clinton.

  8. Kathleen on February 21, 2016, 3:12 am

    Always a crying shame when people vote against their own best interest. Clearly what happened in Nevada today. Pathetic that voters supporting Hillary just do not seem to care at all about her horrific war record. About her ties to Wall Street.

    • German Lefty on February 21, 2016, 5:19 am

      “Always a crying shame when people vote against their own best interest.”

      I agree with you. However, this statement is also somewhat patronizing. It’s like saying, “I know better than YOU what’s in YOUR interest!” I mean, people have the right to prioritize other things than you and I do.

      • Kathleen on February 21, 2016, 10:21 am

        Interesting point. However I have worked in areas of Appalachia for decades where poor folks have been convinced that some day they are going to be one of the fat cats. Many believe the horse shit that Republicans were tossing out recently “we don’t want to you just make a better wage, we want you to really prosper”

        Right “prosper” working at the only jobs left in your region at Wal Mart,. since previous union jobs have been shipped over seas so those fat cats can make massive profits instead of paying people fair wages

        It may sound “patronizing” however I came to this conclusion by talking with literally thousands of Americans and promoting voting mostly for Dems in poverty stricken areas. And while I clearly do not like the way Dem’s like Clinton and so many others have made millions off of and are beholden to Wall Street. How Clinton’s vote for the Iraq war resulted in many mostly young men from these regions being shipped off to serious disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq….I have mostly pushed Dem’s in these areas. Because generally Dem’s are more committed to equity in education, health care for all and fair wages.

        Too many people believe that they will be one of these extremely rich fucks one day. The
        American dream you know. So instead of demanding fair wages, access to college they hang onto the “American Dream” while they make minimum wage.

        They are voting against their own self interest by voting for a warmongering candidate like Clinton who is far more committed to those at the top of the ladder than those at the bottom.

        George Carlin describes my views best. Hillary Clinton represents the owners not the interest of the folks I have worked my ass off for in the past “you have owners”

        Sanders provides a real choice which defies the “owners”

        However will not

      • German Lefty on February 21, 2016, 12:40 pm

        When I wrote my comment, I was also thinking of the gay rights situation in Germany. For example, gay conservatives are demonised – really totally demonised – by gay progressives for voting for the homophobic CDU. Of course, gay conservatives recognise that their party’s homophobia is a problem. However, they say that they prioritise the economic situation over marriage equality and adoption rights. They vote for the CDU because they believe that this party has the best policies to improve the economy. So, from their perspective, they do NOT vote against their own interests at all. We can DISAGREE about whether it’s a good idea for gay people not to prioritise gay rights. (We can also disagree about whether conservative policies are the best way to improve the economy.) However, it’s not okay to DEMONISE gay conservatives for daring to have other priorities than we have. By accusing them of being “dumb” or “ill-informed” because “they vote against their own interests”, we would act as if we know what their personal interests are and deny them their right to determine their own interests. Gay progressives need to accept the fact that not every gay person on the planet prioritises gay rights.

      • Theo on February 21, 2016, 12:48 pm

        German Lefty

        Welcome to the real world, where things are different. In the USA we have a population that is uneducated, naive and very easy to fool, they need all the help they can get from people like Kathleen or similar better educated individuals.
        In Germany I watch the Green Party and their day dreaming politicians, (I presume you belong to that line of politics), and ask again and again, “in which world do they live in”.

      • German Lefty on February 21, 2016, 2:34 pm

        @ Theo

        “In the USA we have a population that is uneducated, naive and very easy to fool, they need all the help they can get from people like Kathleen or similar better educated individuals.”
        I find it very hard to believe that US citizens are actually as uneducated and naive as their reputation would suggest. Anyway, I don’t object to educating uneducated people. I am against looking down at people for (supposedly) voting against their own interests. And I am against assuming that people who (supposedly) vote against their own interests do so because they are dumb or ill-informed.

        “In Germany I watch the Green Party and their day dreaming politicians, (I presume you belong to that line of politics)”
        No. I don’t support any of the established parties in Germany.

      • Theo on February 22, 2016, 8:45 am


        It is hard to believe, however the situation in the USA is worse than the reputation is. We have the best universities in the world, but the average high school graduate, (gymnasium), can hardly read and understand his diploma. Take a close look at Trump, product of one of the best universities, and he has a very good chance to become the president of the most powerful nation on Earth, (speaking militarily).
        Duringt the 1960s the politicians decided that everyone should have a high school diploma and lowered the standard to a level where an australian sheppard dog could pass the test with flying colours. We have presidents like George Bush and politicians with the same abilities.

      • Kathleen on February 25, 2016, 6:44 am

        German Lefty for the record I did not say anything about these Appalachian areas being “uneducated” Also for the record the public schools spend far less on each individual kid than where the ax base is higher. Sad to say that money is parsed to the schools based on this unconstitutional method. Leaving kids with less access to more information etc from the get go.–no-school-funding-fix.html

        What I did find in these areas is that because people are not formally educated or the fact that there is a huge digital divide the hands on experiences of growing up in rural Appalachia has it own rich value. Often the ability to fix anything, grow your own food, can, hunt etc. A real information divide between those adults who had been union members when there were more jobs in the region etc and those who had never experienced the direct benefits that unions provided for our nation and these regions

    • Kris on February 21, 2016, 3:24 pm


      Here’s a taste of the Nevada caucuses. The caucus system is designed to promote manipulation by the party leadership.

    • Kathleen on February 25, 2016, 6:57 am

      Also German Lefty all of those projections of yours “dumb” and “i uninformed” are just that your projections. Not mine.

      What I will say about many in the Appalachian population that I have worked with still believe that they will have access to that financial ladder to live a middle or upper income life. With the loss of union jobs in these areas the access to a middle income has become almost impossible. With schools where kids have far less spent on children than wealthier areas, a massive digital divide, up until Obama care often people without health care. Many people will vote for Republicans (more than in the past again with union jobs) Republicans (who have voted against health care, raising the minimum wage etc) based on this idea of the “American Dream” Often believing this hooey about “we don’t want you to be making minimum wage, we want you to climb the ladder and make executive wages” Heard Chris Christie and other Repub’s hand out this bshit.

      Will say there are voters in these areas who have been fooled into voting against their own self interest. Access to a better education, health care, higher wages.

  9. Theo on February 21, 2016, 12:26 pm

    As I watched Hillary´s victory celebration I decided that I like her even less than before! She is stealing all the subjects what Bernie wants to change in the USA, promises that we all know will be forgotten a day after election. Would you trust her to stop corporate buying of politicians and elections, when she is one of the biggest tool of such institutions?

    She had a full job of face lifting, although her character needs an urgent improvement. Pity a scalpel cannot do it!

    • German Lefty on February 21, 2016, 12:46 pm

      Theo – “As I watched Hillary´s victory celebration I decided that I like her even less than before! … She had a full job of face lifting, although her character needs an urgent improvement. Pity a scalpel cannot do it!

      OMG! That made me laugh. And, you know, it’s difficult to make a German laugh.

      • Theo on February 22, 2016, 8:22 am

        Lefty – Oh, yes, just a comedian who never made it to Hollywood or the nearest booze joint!
        Yes, I know about the german humour, but I never give up!
        A smile a day – keeps the tax collector away.

      • Kathleen on February 25, 2016, 7:09 am

        I would encourage you to come and spend some time in Appalachia. Southeastern Ohio, West Virginia, hills of Arkansas etc. Do not think there is an equivalent in Germany.

        How about an area around Snowshoe West Virginia a ski area that was plopped down in the middle of Appalachia where a man I talked in great detail with who was operating a ski lift making 12.00 an hour. He used to work in the coal mines making 30.oo years ago.

        When I asked him about forming a union he said that the owners of the corporation(not sure who owns them now) fires anyone who they find out is union talking.

        These areas are some of the most beautiful in my opinion. However have a serious history of being exploited for timber, coal, etc and now so called eco tourism taking advantage in pay due to the lack of opportunities for people in those regions to make fair wages

  10. on February 21, 2016, 12:45 pm

    I think Sanders being Jewish, a kinda visible one at that when he was younger, may have been one of the sources of motivation for his radical activism. Antisemitism was a real thing back then, though not at as bad as antiblackness, it still would’ve really badly affected those especially from the low to mid class. I would put it as the same level of societal scale bigotry and prejudice to the Muslims in the present. Hence it makes sense for him to side with the other oppressed groups against the white male establishment. Kinda like how the majority of Muslims and Palestinian Americans side with the blacks and Hispanics as an act of empowerment and solidarity against the same white male establishment.

  11. kalithea on February 21, 2016, 1:28 pm

    Here’s a developing story that I hope turns everyone against Hillary and her machinistas. (I think I just invented a word; but you get my drift!)

    The event was also attended by Sanders supporters, actresses Susan Sarandon and Gaby Hoffman, both of whom disputed Huerta’s claim a day after she published a critical blog post on Sanders’ voting record on immigration policies.

    It’s clear people were complaining that the translator should be impartial and not visibly supporting one side or the other.

    I think I’m luving Susan Sarandon.

    I want to add this on Donald Clown Trump: Trump with the help of the media is lowering the bar for the dumb mass. Here’s a man who hates on women, Muslims, the physically challenged, Latinos and he’s actually winning??? This is because the lamestream lets him get away with this. If anyone else uttered his comments, or his past comments, his entire moral history would be going viral.

    Anyone else would not have made it this far with this kind of moral quotient. Europeans are very worried about Trump winning the election. White supremacists support Trump! For God’s sakes poor Ron Paul who was 1000 times a better person than Trump was smeared from every direction because of some newsletters he didn’t even author himself! We’re allowing this snake-oil charlatan clown Trump with an ego the size of the Universe, a narcissist to run away with the nomination and maybe eventually the election?

    Even if people have to temporarily register on the other side to bring Trump down in the primaries; it’s a MORAL obligation not to allow this hater to advance!

    Stop thinking this man will lift a finger for the Palestinians! Many were using the excuse that Ron Paul wouldn’t help advance the Palestinian cause a notch, but Ron Paul publicly stated he was against foreign funding and it would be one on his first priorities to cut foreign funding. Ron Paul was against foreign military intervention. Ron Paul was against this entanglement with Israel that has been creating blowback for the U.S.

    Don’t pin an iota of hope on Trump; it’s a ginormous blunder to imagine that Trump is somehow different when he’s a disaster in the making. He wants to undo the Iran deal and put sanctions back on Iran. He wants to expand on Guantanamo and bring back torture. So then he’s fully in Israel’s foreign policy corner! Trump is a menace to everything we hold sacred. He’s asking to boycott Apple for standing up for constitutional rights. He’s standing with the police no matter how many blacks they shot in cold blood. The danger with Trump is that he has independent support and could get away with winning the election.

    Trump must be derailed in every possible way.

    • Mooser on February 21, 2016, 2:03 pm

      “Trump must be derailed in every possible way.”

      No way out! Where did he go right?

    • annie on February 21, 2016, 3:06 pm

      kalthea, i was on twitter when this erupted and was Huerta’s, hillary supporting the actress’s and Sarandon’s tweets right away. the whole thing started being exposed within moments but not before huffpo and another rag got a story up about it w/only the negative allegations. of course i knew immediately it was a swiftboating situation by the clinton campaign. snopes got on it immediately and said “false” and think progress interviewed Huerta who started walking back her statement and the full live feed emerged right away w/statements from others in the room.

      here’s the thing as i see it. it may be different in nevada (i doubt it!), but i participated in a caucus when i lived in seattle (caucus state) and traveled to iowa to be an observer for the dean campaign. observers (which Huerta was at this caucus, as was Sarandon and many others) are not allowed to participate in anyway in caucuses. they have very strict rules about that. they are only supposed to be there to observe. so when the moderator from the dem party asked for a translator and someone from the clinton campaign started walking her down the isle you could hear this sort of groan or sound (or something as i recall) from the crowd because everyone knew she was an outside observer. who are not allowed to sit among the caucus members. it’s just not allowed. this is something all people from caucus states know and all observers are instructed, especially when they come from outside the state or are observing for a campaign.

      plus, caucuses are supposed to be run by dem party official or representatives, even tho all of those do have a candidate they likely support, as a caucus moderator — they are not supposed to wear candidate affiliated buttons or clothes or anything. which is why the counters in the livestream, all look neutral — no buttons nothing. so it was totally unorthodox they would grab an observer, especially one clearly representing one of the candidates — to facilitate in the caucus. it’s just not allowed. they are not even supposed to be mingling w/the locals during the period of time allotted during the caucus to convince people to join your side. of course, all of this was too much for me to put in a tweet. but people from caucus states know this and it’s always mentioned in the rules.

      for example

      (i) Observers are permitted. There are no residency or registration requirements to
      observe the Caucus, but observers must not be disruptive, intimidating, or interfere in any
      way with Caucus business.
      Any observers who dispute the Caucus or interfere with the
      free democratic process may be excluded or removed from the Caucus.

      they are only there to observe, this is not a rule that can be waved by a moderator.

      • kalithea on February 21, 2016, 9:37 pm

        but people from caucus states know this and it’s always mentioned in the rules.

        And of course the Hillary camp exploited the fact that people who are not from a caucus state won’t know this and will think the worst of Sanders’ campaign.

        Dirty tactics by the Hillary camp readying for South Carolina and beyond. I remember from 2008 how savage Hillarybots got. I confess I sometimes have a bad habit when it comes to exclamation points, but Hillarybots were punctuating every second sentence with an exclamation; they got that rabid. They shout you down even when blogging; I’m totally Hillary-averse. And remember the big deal made of the so-called Dean Scream? Lemme tell you, Hillary’s topped the Dean Scream many times and no one makes a fuss, only cause she’s the Zionist special interests/media darling.

        Hillary was downing the effort against special interests as far back as 2008 as well:

        The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect. Maybe I’ve just lived a little long, but I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand to make special interests disappear.

        She of course has a special interest in keeping special interests like Saban around. The heavens should open up, do us all a favor and siphon her up with her doom and gloom!

      • tree on February 22, 2016, 1:11 am

        The real serious blunder was made by the Nevada caucus organizers. They should have had a neutral Spanish speaking interpreter on hand but they didn’t.

      • tree on February 22, 2016, 1:22 am

        The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.

        And of course we all know that is exactly what happened when Obama was elected and now the world is perfect!

        Oh , wait…

        Obama hasn’t done jack-sh*t to eliminate special interests, has he?

        Maybe we can all still hope he’ll change all that now that he’s got less than a year left on his 8 years. I’m sure there’s plenty of time left. (snark)

        Clinton had it pegged correctly in 2008. Obama didn’t even try and he’s been just as guilty as any other President, and more so than some, of honoring special interests and killing people overseas. You can blame Hilary Clinton for a lot of things, but she got that right. Shooting the messenger won’t make the Obama Presidency any less built on lies and broken promises.

      • JLewisDickerson on February 22, 2016, 2:55 pm

        RE: “And of course we all know that is exactly what happened when Obama was elected and now the world is perfect! Oh , wait… Obama hasn’t done jack-sh*t to eliminate special interests, has he? Maybe we can all still hope he’ll change all that now that he’s got less than a year left on his 8 years. I’m sure there’s plenty of time left. (snark) Clinton had it pegged correctly in 2008. . . You can blame Hilary Clinton for a lot of things, but she got that right.” ~ tree

        MY COMMENT: And, now Hillary is virtually brimming with Obamaphilia!* What gives? ? ?

        * SEE: “Team Clinton: Fools, Damn Fools and Democrats” | by Andrew Levine | | February 19, 2016

        [EXCERPTS] . . . There may indeed be plausible reasons for preferring Clinton to Bernie Sanders – though, apart from their anatomical differences, I cannot imagine what they might be. But there is no doubt that Hillary supporters who believe what they say about her judgment and abilities and “progressive” values are fools on stilts.

        Thanks to the Internet – the reporting of Dan Froomkin, Lee Fang and others at Intercept comes immediately to mind, though there are scores of other excellent sources – the word on Hillary is finally getting out on an almost daily basis. Much of it is reported here at CounterPunch. There are also plenty of sustained, analytical studies documenting her cluelessness and ineptitude. Diana Johnstone’s Queen of Chaos is an outstanding example but not the only one.

        However, we Americans are bombarded relentlessly with mind numbing pro-regime, pro-status quo propaganda. This is why it is always worthwhile repeating information that is out there already.

        For now, though I have two considerations to add. One has to do mainly with Hillary’s bizarre, and newly discovered, Obamaphilia . . .

        Hillary’s Obamaphilia

        When they debated in South Carolina, even Sanders, a gentleman to the end, couldn’t help but point out that, eight years ago, it was Hillary, not he, who ran against Obama for the Democratic nomination. He might also have added that it was she, not he, who kept the fight going well past the time that it was clear that she was bound to lose.

        After he was elected President, Obama and the Clintons, each for their own reasons, found it expedient to put Hillary inside the Obama administration. And so, she became Obama’s Secretary of State. This was, to put it mildly, a bad move – not for Hillary, but for the world.

        She was in way over head, though few Americans, including ostensibly progressive Democrats who should know better, seem to realize this even now. The Clintons’ public relations machine is that good.

        In Libya and throughout the greater Middle East, not just Syria and Iraq, people know well how much harm Hillary did. Pakistanis and Iraqis know too; as does everyone worried about maintaining peace with Russia and China.

        There should be a “special place” in heaven, as the monstrous Madeleine Albright might say, for all the victims of America’s clueless diplomatic and military “humanitarian” interventions in which Hillary played a direct or indirect role. This would include most of the world – not just the Middle East, Eastern Europe and southern Asia. She has left her deleterious imprint all over Africa, East Asia, Central and South America, and in Haiti and other beleaguered spots in and around the Caribbean Sea.

        The whole world now knows too that Hillary and the never-to-be indicted war criminal Henry Kissinger belong to a mutual admiration society. No surprise there! They probably beguile each other with regime-change banter, the pillow talk of the truly debased.

        Obama must have thought that it would be a smart move on his part to put his former rival in a conspicuously powerful position. This was not unreasonable; he wanted to assuage the fears of Democratic Party donors and functionaries.

        He had been well vetted, of course, but there were still concerns about his enthusiasm for the military and national security state. Also, many donors remembered that, in the distant past, Obama had sometimes spoken out in commonsensical, morally decent ways about Israel and Palestine. In their minds, this put his servility to the Israel lobby, and therefore to the government of Israel, in doubt.

        Obama wanted Hillary to help him secure the confidence of the worrywarts. She was good for that; no one could doubt her bellicosity or the extent of her servility. It was clear, of course, that donors and mainstream Democrats had no reason to be nervous; they didn’t need a Clinton on the scene. But with all that jibber-jabber about “hope” and “change,” Obama must have felt that they could use a little reassurance.

        Meanwhile, the Secretary of State job was good for the Clinton brand. “To remain viable within the system,” as Bill once put it, Hillary had to remain in the spotlight.

        There was a danger, of course, that her clueless machinations would catch up with her. But Bill and Hillary were, and still are, in denial about her abilities; and, in any case, they believed, correctly, that their public relations machine was up to the task of making Hillary look good – or at least not awful.

        It was not, and never has been, a smooth alliance. Bill, especially, has had a longstanding problem with the interloper who, in his mind, deprived his First Lady of her rightful place in the Oval Office. Even now, while Hillary justifies herself by claiming to be the one who will carry on “Obama’s legacy,” Bill is not above suggesting – wink, wink – that his wife might just be a stronger leader and Commander-in-Chief.

        It would be better for Hillary if the Clintons could get their stories straight, but Obamaphilia is just not Bill’s thing; he is a lost cause. Hillary, however, has no shame. This is why, for now, most of the effusiveness is emanating out of the Clintons’ distaff side.


        Obama needed, or thought he needed, Hillary in 2008. Why would she think she needs Obama now?

        The short answer is: the South Carolina primary. If the gods are merciful and Hillary gets schlonged there, her chances of winning the nomination will be toast, no matter how many “super delegates” she currently has in her pocket.

        The slightly longer answer is that the Clintons don’t want all their years of flattering and cajoling black politicians to be for naught. They think that African Americans owe them; and indeed many of their notables do. But when the people those notables purport to represent start removing the scales from their eyes and/or if they start thinking of Hillary as a loser, the jig will be up: it will be plain to all that it was all a waste of time and effort.

        African Americans in South Carolina forsook the Clintons before, in 2008, but at least that was for one of their own – sort of. If they do it again, it will be for a septuagenarian Jewish man with a Brooklyn accent. This must get Bill and Hillary’s goat.

        The Clintons understand identity politics; Hillary is playing that game now to win the votes of women of a certain age. But they have always treated adversaries to their left with contempt. Thanks to the Sanders campaign, Hillary has lately found it expedient to strike leftish poses. Under the skin, though, the old animosities remain.

        She and Bill simply cannot abide the thought of being beaten by a “democratic socialist,” someone who espouses an up-dated version of the old fashioned liberal political line that the Clintons have been working their entire lives to eradicate. They are therefore pulling out all the stops. If that requires strategic extrusions of shameless Obamaphilia on Hillary’s part, so be it.

        It wasn’t supposed to come to this. Weeks, even days, ago, the Clintons could reasonably hold fast to the belief that, like the poor (and for much the same reason), African Americans would always be with them.

        Now, though, they are starting to wonder if they can trust anybody — black, brown or white — under thirty. They have reason to be concerned: black youths in South Carolina are fast becoming as lucid about the Clintons and Clintonism (Democratic Party style neoliberalism and liberal imperialism) as their white counterparts in Iowa and New Hampshire.

        In view of the Clintons’ role in encouraging the mass incarceration of African American men, and their assault on the already feeble welfare state institutions that used to keep oppressed and impoverished African American communities on life support — and in light of their role in forging trade and industrial policies that have decimated the entire American working class — this was bound to happen eventually. But Hillary was counting on it not happening soon. The question now is whether consciousness can dawn quickly enough to throw her off her track.

        One would think that she and her handlers could think of a better way to stave the inevitable off than by lauding Obama and vowing to continue his good work. . .


      • JLewisDickerson on February 22, 2016, 3:35 pm

        P.S. A MID-WINTER EVENING’S MUSICAL INTERLUDE, proudly brought to you by the purveyors of new Über-Xtreme Ziocaine™ Inhalable: Dream-castle Israel is just a few pleasurable breaths away!”

        Well, I’ve got two lovers,
        And I ain’t ashamed.
        Two lovers, and I love them both the same.

        Let me tell you bout, my first lover.
        He’s sweet and kind, and he’s mine, oh, mine, and
        Treats me good like a lover should.
        And makes me love him.
        I really really love him oh, oh, I love him so.
        And I’ll do everything I can to let him know.

        But, I’ve got two lovers, and I ain’t ashamed.
        Two lovers, and I love them both the same.
        Let me tell you bout my other lover.

        Well, you know he treats me bad.
        Makes me sad.
        Makes me cry, but still I can’t deny, but
        I love him, I really really love him. oh, oh, I
        Love him so. And I’ll do everything I can to let him know.

        Darlin well, don’t you know I can tell.
        That whenever I look at you, that you think
        That I’m untrue, cause I say that I love two.
        But, I really, really do.
        Cause, you’re a split personality.
        And in reality, both of them are you.
        (they both are you)

        Well, I’ve got two lovers…. ~ lyrics by Smokey Robinson

        P.P.S. Ziocaine™ is a registered trademark of The Mooser Corporation, U.S.A

  12. JLewisDickerson on February 21, 2016, 10:37 pm

    RE: “The Chicago Tribune yesterday published an archival photo of Sanders being arrested as a young civil rights activist, demonstrating his 50- plus year commitment to racial justice (more below).” ~ Annie Robbins

    COMPARE AND CONTRAST: While Bill Clinton was a student at Georgetown University, he sent a postcard* to his grandmother (whom he addressed as “Mammaw”) in a nursing home in Hope, Arkansas. To say the least, it was a ‘racially insensitive’ postcard (showing a barefoot black male “polishing” a watermelon).

    * Bill Clinton’s Racist Postcard –

    P.S. HERE is a closer look at the front of Bill Clinton’s ‘racially insensitive’ postcard (showing a barefoot black male “polishing” a watermelon).

    • tree on February 22, 2016, 1:06 am

      Dickerson, I don’t think I’ve ever replied to any of your comments before. Some I find interesting, some not so much, but this particular one about Clinton’s postcards has been made at least 4 times by you and and I think your implication is dishonest.

      You’ve never mentioned what Clinton wrote on the back of the postcard which was this:

      “Dear Mammaw, Thought I would send you one of your cards[my emphasis-tree] just to prove I’m using them! My tests are over and I’m just starting the second term. Hope you are well and happy . . . Love, Bill.”

      So he sent the racially insensitive card that his grandmother gave to him back to his grandmother, no doubt because he didn’t want to send it to anyone else but wanted to show his grandmother his appreciation of her gift to him despite her racial insensitivity. This is somehow supposed to show how racist Bill Clinton was or is? I doubt it. This is getting ridiculous.

      Come on, Dickerson. You grew up in Atlanta in the ’60s. You never humored a racist older relative for a relatively minor offense like this? I think not.

      • kalithea on February 22, 2016, 12:42 pm


        I was not defending Obama’s Presidency; not even close. What I’m questioning is why Hillary gets yet another chance 8 years later with progressives? She’s a solid Neocon; everyone knows that, and she’s firmly in the pockets of Zionists! Who cares about the social/domestic policies she’s peddling when they’re just a front for the extreme, disastrous foreign policy she represents! And even in regards to her domestic policy: she’s got hedge fund managers, investment banks, multi-millionaires and Zionist billionaires funding her, and the majority of the little people supporting her don’t even trust her; check the polls on that. So my point is: Why is she still a viable candidate in this primary??? How dumb can people be considering her again?

      • JLewisDickerson on February 22, 2016, 2:03 pm

        RE: “Come on, Dickerson. You grew up in Atlanta in the ’60s. You never humored a racist older relative for a relatively minor offense like this? I think not.” ~ tree

        MY COMMENT: Yes, I grew up in Atlanta in the ’60s and there was a sum total of one black in my high school graduating class. The two of us (the only two of us who had taken 5 years of science in the four years of high school) were in the the running for a science award given out at graduation. She one. Reverse discrimination? Not a chance. When she graciously consoled me on my loss, I told her it was difficult for me to imagine someone I rather lose to.

        I’m sorry tree, but I do not consider that Hope post card (apparently produced by the Hope Chamber of Commerce) to be a “relatively minor offense”. Far f***ing from it. That caricature of blacks, much like the use of the ‘n’ word, was an integral part of the implementation and maintenance of the Jim Crow regime in the American South. It wasn’t just incidental, it was a significant component of the degradation/humiliation of blacks that was essential to ensuring that white southerners viewed blacks as “the (not fully human) other”. Likewise, it was an important element in the ongoing campaign during Jim Crow to cripple black esteem to such a degree that they would not seriously challenge the existing regime.

        As to my humoring an older racist (even for a truly minor offense), it just didn’t happen. My father was from the extreme mountainous north of the state (15 miles from the N.C. line) where there were virtually no blacks. I pretty much considered him a racist. I often had to severely bite my tongue, but I certainly never humored him.

        My mother was from the older part of the ‘cotton belt’ of Georgia [[ • my great-grandfather / • my great-great-grandfather ]], not far from the antebellum capital of Milledgeville. I spent a lot of time down there, but I never saw anything nearly as atrocious as that Hope post card.

        Also, I can assure you that my grandparents never said anything disparagingly racist about blacks that required me to humor them. If the “n” word had been uttered in their house, the offending party would have been politely shown the door.

        P.S. HOPEFULLY TO BE CONTINUED (It might take several days for me to fully address this issue.)

      • tree on February 22, 2016, 2:52 pm

        I often had to severely bite my tongue, but I certainly never humored him.

        Same difference, Dickerson.

        I’m not talking about the Hope postcard itself, from the Hope Chamber of Commerce, which was indeed offensive to blacks. I agree with you on that point.

        I am talking about the fact that you are attempting to label Bill Clinton as racist because he took the (racially offensive) post cards as a gift from his grandmother in her nursing home and sent one of them back to her (and apparently only to her, as no others have turned up from him to anyone else) to let her know that he was doing alright at college, and thinking of her, which was probably the intent of his grandma in giving him the postcards in the first place, despite her poor taste. To call Bill Clinton racist because of that is a stretch way too far.

        How would you like it if someone accused you of being a racist because you sometimes “severely bit your tongue” when your father said racist things? Because that’s the road you are heading down with all of this.

        And, really, why would you think that I would consider it reverse discrimination because a black female teenager beat you to a science award? Seems perfectly logical occurrence to me, no reverse discrimination needed or inferred from the result. Non sequitur to the extreme.

      • JLewisDickerson on February 29, 2016, 3:15 am

        Coldplay – BbAdventure of a Lifetime (Lyrics) VIDEo, 05:15 – on Nov 29, 2015

        The first single to be taken from Coldplay’s new album, A Head Full Of Dreams (out now). Download the song from or stream at

        Get A Head Full Of Dreams now:
        – iTunes
        – Amazon
        – Google Play
        – CD (with exclusive holographic stickers)
        – Vinyl (with exclusive holographic stickers)
        Standard YouTube License
        “Adventure of a Lifetime” by Coldplay Listen ad-free with YouTube Red

      • JLewisDickerson on February 29, 2016, 4:03 am

        <b<Coldplay – Adventure Of A Lifetime (Official video) [VIDEO, 05:15 ] –

      • JLewisDickerson on February 29, 2016, 12:28 pm

        Coldplay – Adventure Of A Lifetime (Official video)

      • JLewisDickerson on February 29, 2016, 12:46 pm

        P.S. SEE “The Cult of Hillary, the Ultimate Junk Bond” | by Mamuel Garcia JR. |, February 29, 2016

        {EXCERPT] Why do so many black Americans support Hillary Clinton? Stockholm Syndrome. They are faithful battered wives. They are yoked to Hillary by co-dependency: “I’ve stuck by you and suffered to do so for so long that you owe me, and I have faith that you will reward me later if I help you reach your goal now.”

        In their minds they have no such guarantee from Bernie Sanders (and of course from Hillary such a guarantee is an illusion). It is clear that Bernie Sanders has been successful without being dependent on them up to now. So (again, in their minds) he owes them nothing, and thus cannot be counted on to reward them after the election for their support during it.

        What this sad diminished thinking shows is a lack of confident independence, an inability to reason that the best estimator of Bernie Sanders’ future trustworthiness is the consistency of his commitment to their fundamental cause for over half a century.

        One has to acknowledge the detestable brilliance of the Wall Street and 1%-ist strategy of political purchase: own Hillary and Obama who in turn have enchained so many proletarian minds to their identity-politics personality cults: Pied Pipers leading their trusting conga lines into the Wall Street abattoir.

        If the Democratic Party apparatchiks (the paid minions of the 1%-ist oligarchs) can beat back the hostile-takeover Sanders insurgency of popular and populist democracy, and put Hillary Clinton forward as the party’s champion in the general electoral joust, then President Trump will be inaugurated in January 2017. . .

        CONTINUED AT –

      • JLewisDickerson on February 29, 2016, 1:03 pm

        P.P.S. ALSO SEE: “Occupy Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches”, | by Marjorie Cohn |, February 29, 2016

        [EXCERPTS] Hillary Clinton refuses to make public the transcripts of her speeches to big banks, three of which were worth a total of $675,000 to Goldman Sachs. She says she would release the transcripts “if everybody does it, and that includes Republicans.” After all, she complained, “Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else?”

        As the New York Times editorial board pointed out, “The only different standard here is the one Mrs. Clinton set for herself, by personally earning $11 million in 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 for 51 speeches to banks and other groups and industries.”

        Hillary is not running in the primaries against Republicans, who, the Times noted, “make no bones about their commitment to Wall Street deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.”

        She is running against Bernie Sanders, “a decades-long critic of Wall Street excess who is hardly a hot ticket on the industry speaking circuit,” according to the Times.

        Why do voters need to know what Hillary told the banks? Because it was Wall Street that was responsible for the 2008 recession, making life worse for most Americans. We need to know what, if anything, she promised these behemoths.

        I Scratch Your Back, You Scratch Mine

        Hillary has several super PACs, which have recently donated $25 million to her campaign, $15 million of which came from Wall Street.

        Big banks and large contributors don’t give their money away for nothing. They expect that their interests will be well served by those to whom they donate.

        Hillary recently attended an expensive fundraiser at Franklin Square Capital, a hedge fund that gives big bucks to the fracking industry. Two weeks later, Hillary’s campaign announced her continuing support for the production of natural gas, which comes from fracking. . .

        CONTINUED AT –

  13. Kay24 on February 22, 2016, 2:05 am

    It seem End The Occupation has learnt that free speech when it comes to the zio supremacists does not exist in the US:

    “As part of our campaign to urge Oscar nominees being offered a free propaganda trip to Israel paid by the Israeli government to skip it and not endorse apartheid, we, with our member group Jewish Voice for Peace, placed the ad below in Variety Magazine, the most important paper in the entertainment industry. They accepted payment on Thursday, February 18, but then late on Friday, February 19, they informed us they would be unable to place the ad, citing that at this time its topic is “too sensitive” and that we “would need to have a softer tone.”
    From an email.

    • kalithea on February 22, 2016, 2:41 pm

      Hollywood is Zionism’s kind of town. But is there anywhere where influence matters that Zionists aren’t in place front and centre as the gatekeepers shielding Zionism from any and all criticism for the glaring injustice it creates?

  14. tree on February 22, 2016, 2:08 am

    OK, now I must admit I’m going to do a pale imitation of yonah here, but I think your headline is inaccurate. An arrest in the 1960’s during a civil rights protest does not prove “lifelong anti-racist activism”. It proves that he was an activist early on, but “lifelong”, no. He move to Vermont in 1968 and didn’t do much “activist” work in a state with a miniscule minority population . I don’t doubt that he still believes in civil rights, except maybe for Palestinians, but it doesn’t prove anything beyond what he did in the early-mid sixties. His priorities seemed to be elsewhere after that time, which is OK, but its dishonest to use something from 50 years ago to prove what he is doing now and what priorities his campaign has today.

    I understand that this site has turned into an unofficial Bernie Sanders site and with it comes the sadly usual tendency to judge everything “Bernie” with rose-colored glasses while loudly booing the designated villainess. I saw it and had it up to here in 2008, all for a pocketful of broken hopes and dreams when Obama won.

    I may have to check out for several months if this kind of mindless cheerleading and constant demonizationcontinues. I really wish Democrats could disagree without having to feel that their candidate is all goodness and light and will do exactly what they want and hope even thought he hasn’t actually said he would. Or disagree over ideas and platforms without making into a personal battle of good vs. evil in their minds. Its really quite juvenile thinking and I think most here are better than that in ordinary circumstances.

    Well, I’ve vented, so now I guess I can go quietly or just shut up and put a sock in it when people are overreacting and believing satire sites as if they are real. One last comment, though. I vociferously disagree with Clinton on a few things, most particularly on Palestine and the Middle East, and I’m not voting for her since I have committed to vote Green Party since 2008 and don’t plan to change. However, I really believe that some of the really nasty animus towards her is simply the result of animus towards a strong woman candidate, however unexamined and unspoken it might be. She isn’t evil-incarnate, nor is she appreciably different or worse than the sorry lot of politicians we have today, and yet you’d think she chews the heads off babies to hear people talk. What makes her so much worse than most of the bozos we have running for high office today?What makes her so much worse than Bush, Trump or Cruz or Obama or Sanders for that matter? Not much. Just her gender and I think a lot of Americans still aren’t ready for a woman President. And that includes a bunch of “progressives” too.

    Of course, knowing myself all too well, I probably won’t “put a sock in it”, but I’ll try to limit myself and remain civil if I occasionally feel the need to vent about the current manichean view of political candidates.

    • MHughes976 on February 22, 2016, 4:54 am

      My dislike of Ms.Clinton goes back to the Jeremiah Wright incident 8 years ago, when I found myself agreeing with Samantha Power of all people that C was ‘a monster’. I now think that we have to accept a degree of monstrosity arising from a long career in the hub of politics and to hope that there’s some truth in the Beauty and Beast story’s suggestion that many monsters have a better nature somewhere. I agree with tree that some barrels are being scraped in order to keep up dislike of her and I think that there’s some excessive name-calling.
      That said, I deeply fear her intense connection with Israel and I suspect, considering the hints of dodgy dealings that have surrounded her career, that the Isrseli information machine must have gathered abundant material that could be used to blackmail her should need arise – it wouldn’t have to be the truth, it would only need a degree of credibility. But she’s very intelligent and still must have some of those old black magical progressive inclinations of youth.
      Of course it will be a step forward if a woman can get the top job. Mind you, I suspect that Trump’s secret weapon is women to whom Clinton just doesn’t feel right.
      And tree, please keep that old sock away from your mouth. We need to hear more from you.

      • Sibiriak on February 22, 2016, 5:40 am

        My dislike of Ms. Clinton comes from her long-standing embrace of neoliberalism, militarism, American exceptionalism, and Zionism.

    • Bornajoo on February 22, 2016, 3:30 pm

      “I understand that this site has turned into an unofficial Bernie Sanders site and with it comes the sadly usual tendency to judge everything “Bernie” with rose-colored glasses while loudly booing the designated villainess” (Tree)

      I think Sanders is probably the best choice available and IMO if MW has become an unofficial Bernie Sanders site then it’s a good thing.

      Tree, I think you are the smartest commenter on MW. You have an incredibly analytical mind and I love reading your comments. But I think you are off the mark on this one. I know you find it absolutely incredible that I could believe the satirical article about Hillary Clinton but I’m not ashamed to say that I did, as well as Taxi and a few others who read it that day. In fact I didn’t bat an eyelid when I read it because I completely believe that she is capable of saying something like that.

      Not that long ago I thought she would at least be a better alternative to the Republican candidates, especially when Cruz and Rubio threw their hat in the ring. These two, especially, are very scary characters IMO. I thought Clinton would at least not lead us into a world war. But then I started reading up on her exploits, particularly the period when she was Secretary of State. It didn’t take long to realise that she was a neocon in sheep’s clothing. She presided over what can only be described as foreign policy disasters, not just in the Middle East but also in Honduras and Haiti. I’m not saying she was 100% responsible for all those calamities, but she was at least partly responsible for the situation in Libya and Syria today. And it was she who actually chose the neocon Victoria Nuland, the neocon, (wife of Robert Kagan , the neocon) to be the State Department’s Chief Spokesperson, who was one of the main protagonists behind the coup in Ukraine.

      You said “What makes her so much worse than most of the bozos we have running for high office today?What makes her so much worse than Bush, Trump or Cruz or Obama or Sanders for that matter?” Well I can’t say that she’s worse than the disgraceful Obama because like her we are able to judge him by his disgraceful deeds and failed promises. The others have not held the same positions of power and so we don’t know what they will really be like if they were in power. Yes we can guess and with the likes of Rubio and Cruz it doesn’t bear thinking about but we cannot pass judgement just on what we might think will happen. But with Clinton we can judge her by her past actions. There is a record.

      When I see pictures of whole families drowning trying to reach Europe to get away from the hell that was once the stable and prosperous country of Libya I think of her. When I see hordes of refugees marching along endless roads with their babies and belongings in their hands only to be treated like cockroaches when they get to Europe, I think of her. You said ” She isn’t evil-incarnate, nor is she appreciably different or worse than the sorry lot of politicians we have today, and yet you’d think she chews the heads off babies to hear people talk”. Well I agree that she doesn’t chew the heads off babies but how many people including babies have died because of her disgraceful so-called humanitarian interventionist policies in Libya and Syria? How many are now homeless refugees who have been vilified in Europe? She was not 100% responsible but she was a co-architect of this disgraceful misery and after Obama she was the most senior person in charge.

      Many of her financial donors are zionists, the biggest being Haim Saban who has openly said that “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel,” She has sold her soul for Zionist money and if she becomes the next POTUS she will be paying for those favours by furthering the Zionist agenda which will result in more deaths, oppression and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

      I would love to see a woman in the Whitehouse. Jill Stein would be amazing. But to suggest that the pushback against Clinton is due to her gender is a notion I cannot reconcile myself to. It’s because of her past deeds, her record, what she’s actually done while she’s held high office and it’s not pretty. She will probably get to the Whitehouse mainly because she is a woman, in my opinion

    • Donald on February 22, 2016, 9:56 pm

      I agree with much of what bornajoo said– you are one of the best commenters here. You ought to be doing front page posts, certainly much more so than me.

      But I don’t quite agree with you here. I never understood the Obama thing. I was enthusiastic about him for about two weeks, when Jeremiah Wright was interviewed by Moyers. I was impressed that Obama listened to this radical every Sunday. But his two speeches distancing himself from Wright made it crystal clear that he was just another centrist liberal, along with his careful parsing of his opposition to the Iraq War. It infuriated me that so much of the left willfully fooled themselves about him.

      I don’t get this same sense about Sanders. He’s not my hero, he’s marginally less bad than Clinton on foreign policy and I honestly think if he wins he will be a one term President, because the people in both parties who benefit from the system as it is will do their best to make sure he either sells out or fails on everything. But on domestic policy he is right– the system is corrupt and people like the Clintons represent how it is corrupt. She might get more done, but the Clintons are like the Schumers or the bulk of our politicians or like Obama, who was willing to sell out on Social Security. Given a choice between an honest imperfect man like Sanders and a fairly run of the mill cynical opportunist, I’ll vote for Sanders, but without any illusions about what he can actually do.

    • Kris on February 23, 2016, 1:44 am

      @tree: “What makes her so much worse than most of the bozos we have running for high office today?What makes her so much worse than Bush, Trump or Cruz or Obama or Sanders for that matter? Not much. Just her gender…

      I have been thinking about your comment all day, tree, and I can’t see how Hillary is being treated unfairly. It seems to me that the Hillary crowd plays the “sexism” card in the same way that Zionists play the “antisemitic” card, to deflect valid criticism.

      We have had to watch Hillary’s unprincipled, untruthful, and grasping behavior play out before our eyes for so many decades, and now she is being presented as somehow having a “right” to the nomination. Many people resent having her forced down their throats, and dislike the idea of political dynasties in this country. I don’t think it’s about her being a woman, just as criticism of Israel is not being Jewish. It’s about behavior.

      From her first date with Bill, as law students, when they crossed a janitors’ picket line and offered to scab by picking up trash in order to get into an art exhibit, to her recent stint as Secretary of State (she was Obama’s most hawkish advisor, pushing war and regime change), Hillary has demonstrated a lack of concern for less fortunate people.

      She supports the death penalty, though she knows that people who can’t afford good lawyers don’t get fair trials, and many innocent people have been executed, or have spent much of their lives on death row. She does not want to take marijuana off the federal drug schedule, even though she knows that so many poor people of color are rotting away in prison for nonviolent drug offenses; until very recently, Hillary was still taking money from the for-profit prison industry, which depends on the incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders.

      As Secretary of State, Hillary enabled the coup in Honduras, and when the country became so dangerous that poor families were spending all they had to send their children on the terrifying journey with smugglers to “safety” in the U.S., Hillary supported arresting the children and sending them back to Honduras, possibly to their deaths, in order to “send a message.” Hillary thought it was witty to say, as she did several different times, “We came, we saw, he died!” of Colonel Khaddafi, who was sodomized with a bayonet. Hillary likes to talk tough.

      Hillary is full of admiration for war criminals such as Madeline Allbright, Henry Kissinger, and Netanyahu. Her idea of saving the planet consists of switching to natural gas and encouraging homeowners to buy solar panels. She has promoted fracking all over the world and continues to suppport it. She opposes mandatory labeling of GMO foods, though 64 countries including the entire E.U. and China have mandatory GMO labeling.

      She opposes reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, has taken more than $1 Billion from banks, big corporations and Super PACs, and supports the Keystone XL Pipeline. She and Bill have built a huge personal fortune by giving speeches to corporations, for enormous amounts of money. What can Hillary possibly have to say that is worth $250,000 or $300,000 for one speech? Nothing. What she has to peddle is influence, and there is nothing attractive about watching someone on the take.

      She claims she told Wall Street “to cut it out,” but refuses to release the transcripts of her $250,000 speeches, and people who heard her speak do not remember that she offered any criticism of Wall Street’s illegal and unethical activities. (I hope you have seen “The Big Short”! What a great movie!)

      President Hillary says she would “get things done” with her Republican colleagues, and it is true; they are all being paid off by the same corporations and other big donors. Billl Clinton “got things done,” too. It was only thanks to the Monica Lewinski scandal that Bill didn’t manage to
      “save” Social Security by putting part of it into “individual accounts.” Unfortunately for U.S. workers, Bill did get NAFTA passed, resulting in the loss of so many union jobs. Hillary has been a big advocate of the TPP, aka “NAFTA on steroids.”

      Several times she told the story of landing in Bosnia “under fire” and having to run to a vehicle for safety, although news footage shot at the time clearly showed that there was no “fire” or danger of any kind, and not only did she not “run” anywhere, she hung out on the tarmac, meeting and greeting dignitaries and school children. Either Hillary is untruthful, or she has a serious problem with her memory. Like President Reagan, who was an actor in a war movie, and subsequently “remembered” that he had fought in the war.

      There are many more criticisms of Hillary, of course, but these are the ones I have. If you see sexism here, please identify it for me.

  15. kalithea on February 22, 2016, 1:44 pm

    I really believe that some of the really nasty animus towards her is simply the result of animus towards a strong woman candidate.

    I can’t believe someone on this site would actually accuse the rest of us of this. It’s beyond the pale. We are so intensely for the rights of all and women are no exception.

    What does it matter if she’s a strong woman candidate if at the same time there’s no daylight between her foreign policy and that of almost every candidate on the Republican side? Why does her gender matter if she views Palestinian resistance as terrorism? Why does it matter if she’s a strong woman candidate when she’s going to invite Netanyahu, a butcher and a war criminal, lest you forget the most recent butchery in Gaza, for a visit the moment she becomes President? Am I supposed to care about her personal goal of breaking the ceiling when she obviously has no moral conscience in regards to the suffering of millions of Palestinians and only political interest motivating her ambition and Saban’s millions to ensure Zionist criminality? Am I supposed to care whether she’s a strong woman when she’s more than partially responsible for the disastrous policy in regards Libya and Syria that has produced tens of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees and together with her cockamamie vote with Bush on Iraq given rise to ISIS? I don’t see gender when I choose to tear down someone who thinks this way; therefore, I don’t discriminate. I do discriminate between someone who is guided by their conscience and someone who is guided by political interest with no conscience, and I find it highly offensive that you would actually use that excuse to make a point that is hardly worth making and quite disingenuous if you ask me.

    Am I suppose to give Hillary a pass on all this crap she supports and her other not-so-transparent baggage just because she’s a strong woman? HELL NO.

  16. kalithea on February 22, 2016, 2:31 pm


    You may be for the Green Party, but you sure put up a fight for Hillary!

    I won’t stop trying to tear Hillary down not even to appease you into not putting a sock in it as you stated. Hillary may not be worse than this year’s crop of Republicans; but what makes her so detestable is that she uses some progressive issues to put through an indefensible foreign policy agenda and more. And certainly, in that sense, she’s way more hypocritical than any of those Republicans. At least with them; what you see is what you get.

Leave a Reply