MRC’s Notable Quotables: NBC Asks the Tough Questions About Hillary

Now online: the September 28 edition of Notable Quotables, MRC’s bi-weekly compilation of the latest outrageous quotes in the liberal media. This week, after a summer of Hillary Clinton scandals, NBC’s Savannah Guthrie grills Chelsea: “What’s she like as a grandmother?…Paint us a picture of Hillary Clinton at home, talking baby talk.”

Meanwhile, the media continue to fawn over the “remarkable” candidacy of Socialist Bernie Sanders, even as longtime Newsweek reporter Eleanor Clift castigates Carly Fiorina for the latter’s condemnations of Planned Parenthood: “To imply that they are selling and harvesting baby parts — I think it’s really offensive.” Highlights are posted below; the entire issue is posted online with 23 quotes, three with video, at

NBC News Asks the Hard-Hitting Questions About Hillary

“What’s she like as a grandmother? I mean, paint us a picture of Hillary Clinton at home, hanging out, talking baby talk….You say she sings. Does she have a good voice?”
— NBC’s Savannah Guthrie to Chelsea Clinton, September 15 Today.

Rooting for “Remarkable” Bernie’s Socialist Boom

“Eight years ago, Barack Obama offered a message of hope and change, presenting himself as a leader from a new generation. This time around, Democratic imaginations and hearts are fired up by a white-haired 74-year-old socialist who is riding a populist surge.”
— AP’s Catherine Luce on September 21.

“You’ve been preparing for this your whole life in some ways….You’ve turned out these big crowds. You inspired 200,000 volunteers. You moved people….It is a remarkable thing, as a liberal, to see the success you’re having, the resonance that your message is having and I don’t know what’s going to happen in the campaign long term, but good luck to you, sir.”
— MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow to Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders on The Rachel Maddow Show, September 17.  

It’s “Offensive” to Say Planned Parenthood Sold Baby Parts

“She played real fast and loose, though, with the facts around Planned Parenthood and I think she really is overreaching in the criticism she’s making of an organization that millions of women in this country have gotten services from. And to imply that they are selling and harvesting and selling baby parts — that doesn’t bear out with the facts and I think it’s really offensive.”
The Daily Beast’s Eleanor Clift on the syndicated McLaughlin Group, talking about Carly Fiorina’s performance at the Republican debate, September 19.

Conservative Bigots Strike Again!    

“If you have an irrational hatred of President Obama and you think he’s an illegal immigrant or whatever, if you are an Islamophobe…the Republican Party makes a home for you.”
Washington Post columnist and MSNBC analyst Eugene Robinson on the September 21 Hardball.

Carly Fiorina Is Just as Neanderthal as the Men

“Fiorina says if she’s the nominee, Hillary Clinton won’t be able to play what she calls the gender card, but on so many so-called women’s issues, Scott, from Planned Parenthood to paid maternity leave, Fiorina’s views are identical to the men she shared the stage with last night.”
— CBS correspondent Nancy Cordes on the September 17 CBS Evening News.

“She has the nerve to use the term women’s suffrage when she’s against Planned Parenthood and women’s maternity leave. She’s against ObamaCare. She’s anti-choice. She uses the term women’s suffrage. She should be ashamed of herself. It’s not your face, honey, it’s your policy.”
The View co-host Joy Behar objecting to a super PAC commercial on behalf of GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, September 15 on ABC.

Using Reagan to Whack Today’s Conservatives

“Reagan’s message was infused with sunny optimism, the flip side of today’s angry rhetoric….And Reagan compromised with Democrats on taxes and immigration. So, while today’s candidates talk about building walls….Reagan enacted immigration reform….Reagan saw America as a shining city on the hill. A country welcoming people in, not shutting them out.”
— Andrea Mitchell previewing the Republican presidential debate on NBC Nightly News, September 16.

Late Night Endorses Incredible Dems

“The two leaders over there on the Republican Party, one is a real estate mogul….The other guy is a neurosurgeon….You were a Senator, you were First Lady, Secretary of State. Is it possible that you have too much experience to become the President of the United States?”
— Jimmy Fallon to Hillary Clinton on NBC’s The Tonight Show, September 16.
Vice President Joe Biden: “My mom used to say, ‘remember, nobody is better than you, but you’re better than nobody. Everybody’s equal.’ My mother really pounded it into our heads.”
Host Stephen Colbert: “You know, there’s another person who said that and that’s Thomas Jefferson and this is why I think people want you to run for President. And I know that’s an emotional decision you have to make, but it’s going to be emotional for a lot of people if you don’t run. And sir, I just want to say that I think that your experience and your example of suffering and service is something that would be sorely missed in the race.”
— CBS’s Late Show, September 10.     

Whoopi to GOP: “Get Out of My Vagina”

“Now that they defunded Planned Parenthood, now that you’ve defunded it, and perhaps forgotten why Planned Parenthood came into being, which was, people got tired of tripping over women with hangers hanging out of their bodies, because they were giving themselves these abortions. It was supposed to be safe and clean. So explain to me now what you’re going to do, because if you think this is going to stop women from doing it, it’s not. People who are desperate enough to go and get an abortion, there’s a reason they need it. They feel they need it. And it’s, it’s, get out of my vagina!”
— Co-host Whoopi Goldberg on ABC’s The View, September 21.


To read the entire September 28 edition of Notable Quotables, please visit

Source Article from

Chuck Todd Tosses Softballs to Hillary Over E-Mail Scandal

NBC’s Meet the Press

September 27, 2015

CHUCK TODD: Can you respond to an alternative explanation that has sort of —

HILLARY CLINTON: Another conspiracy theory? 

TODD: That perhaps the reason you wanted to have a private server and not a government server is that Republicans have been coming after you for years, you might have — may have been running for president in the future and you wanted to make it a little more difficult for congressional investigators to subpoena your government e-mails and more difficult for Freedom of Information Act requests. Is that a fair theory or no?

CLINTON: It’s totally ridiculous. That never crossed my mind. In fact, since more than 90% of my work-related e-mails were on the system they are subject to FOIA or any other request. That’s how the Benghazi committee got the e-mails even before we went through our exhaustive process. Now I have — as you’re rightly pointing out — been involved from the receiving side in a lot of these accusations.

In fact, as you might remember during the ’90s, there was a bunch of them and, you know, all of them turned out to be not true, that was the outcome. And when I ran for the senate the voters of New York they overlooked that, and they looked at my record, and they looked at what I would do for them and I was elected senator after going through years of this kind of back and forth and it is regrettable but it’s part of the system.

TODD: You know one of the things about this over the last six months and I’ve heard from supporters is that there’s an allegation about your e-mail server, the campaign provides an explanation, you provide an explanation, there’s a new allegation, you have to provide a new explanation, there’s an addendum, it has the feel of a drip-drip-drip. Can you reassure Democrats that there’s nothing else here?

CLINTON: Well, it is like a drip-drip-drip and that’s why I said there’s only so much I can control. But what I have tried to do in explaining this is to provide more transparency and more information than anybody that I’m aware of who’s ever served in the government and I’m happy to do that because I want these questions to be answered. I can’t predict to you what the Republicans will come up with, what kind of charges or claims they might make. I have no control over that. I can only do the best I can to try to respond. The Justice Department has the e-mails, they have the server. They’re conducting a security inquiry. They will take whatever necessary steps are required to get this matter resolved.

TODD: Can you say with 100% certain they the deleted e-mails that the FBI’s not going to find anything in there that’s going to cause you to have to explain again?

Source Article from

Let’s Make Higher Education Reform Equitable

In the last few years, higher education reform, especially vis-à-vis college access and affordability, has become a clarion call among politicians and others throughout the nation, including some candidates for president of the United States. Two in particular, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, both democrats, have issued fairly well-developed proposals. While there is much to applaud in each of their proposals, both plans benefit public at the expense of independent colleges, thereby instituting an unnecessary element of unfairness that can negatively affect many college students.

Sanders’ College for All Act and Clinton’s New College Compact both present universal reforms of student aid that are reasonable, much-needed, and fair to both public and independent colleges. For example, the College for All Act would cut interest rates on student loans essentially in half, provide “robust educational benefits” for those who serve the nation through service in AmeriCorps and the military, closely link student loan repayment rates to income level, and permanently extend the American Opportunity Tax Credit (which expires in two years) to provide tax relief for college tuition.

Similarly, the College for All Act would also cut interest rates on student loans in half, simplify the aid application process, simplify student loan refinancing, and expand the student work study aid program. These and other measures in both plans will go a long way to make college more affordable for all students, regardless of which type of institution they wish to attend–public or private. But certain key provisions in both plans also favor public institutions.

For example, Clinton’s New College Compact incentivizes states to provide free tuition to students enrolled in community colleges, and “no-loan tuition” for students in four-year public institutions. Sanders’ College for All Act seeks to offer all students at public institutions free tuition by providing nearly fifty billion dollars to the states to subsidize the cost of the program. These are both ambitious and laudatory measures, but by concentrating solely on public institutions they disadvantage hundreds of thousands of students in the nation’s many independent colleges.

One of the strengths of the system of higher education in this nation is that it offers students a huge array of types of institutions to enroll in, from community colleges, to professional colleges, to masters- and doctoral-level public universities, to a range of private institutions–from four-year liberal arts colleges to elite ivy league universities. This impressive range of institutions allows prospective students to match their own strengths, desires and aspirations with the institution that best fits them personally.

Independent colleges are an essential component of this range of institutions. In fact, many people may not be aware of just how central private colleges are to American higher education. For example, in my own state, New York, private institutions educate the majority (53%) of all students in four-year and graduate programs. The state’s professional association for private colleges, the Commission on Independent Colleges and Universities, reports that in 2012-13 private colleges awarded the majority of bachelor’s (51%), master’s (71%), and doctoral and professional degrees (80%) earned in the state.

Nationwide, over 1,700 private, nonprofit colleges and universities enroll about 5 million students. In other words, national reform of higher education that does not include independent colleges seriously disadvantages many college students (in my state, the majority).

To be fair, Clinton’s plan does include a provision that provides funding for private colleges that serve a high percentage of lower-income students, but both the Sanders and Clinton plans specifically propose to lower or eliminate tuition at public institutions, and this alone could prove to introduce new injustices into a system that everyone seems to agree is already seriously flawed.

To make these plans to reform higher education more equitable, the candidates can take the funding that they are proposing to provide state governments as incentives and allocate it directly to the student aid system. This would allow each student to choose his or her desired college rather than be pushed toward a public institution that may or may not be as desirable for that particular student.

I applaud these two candidates for their initiative, but I hope they will more fully think out the consequences of their provisions before they make a formal effort to introduce their proposals into law. Let’s not forget the many thousands of students who attend the nation’s private, not-for-profit colleges and universities.

Source Article from

Kim Davis is a Genuine American Heroine


September 27, 2015


Comments for ” Kim Davis is a Genuine American Heroine”

JG said (September 27, 2015):

Thank you for this article Henry. Also, thank you for speaking on behalf of Kim Davis and her strong Christian faith.

The de -Christianization of the Supreme Court was accelerated with the last 3 appointees starting with Ruth Ginsberg who Hillary Clinton helped sponsor. President Obama then finished the process with the appointments of Kagan and Sotomeyer. This tilted the Supreme Court away from the will of the moral majority and replaced it with the will of the perverted minority as the new “law of the land”.

Kim Davis has shown great courage and conviction in the face of this MSM onslaught against her.
They let her out of jail because they feared that by keeping her there she would be recognized as a martyr for Christianity and they didn’t want that movement gaining any support.

I’m still waiting to hear voices of support for Kim Davis from the Vatican, the Jewish synagogues, and the Protestant Church. Where are you Pope Francis, Rabbi Kahn, and John Hagee? Why aren’t you actively supporting this woman?

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at

Source Article from

Clinton: ‘Could I get that on YouTube?’

Lena Dunham interviews Hillary Clinton. Picture: lennyletter/Instagram

LENA Dunham interviewed Hillary Clinton for her about-to-launch feminist newsletter, “Lenny”, in which the presidential candidate will reportedly open up about turning down Bill Clinton’s marriage proposal twice, campus assault and Lenny Kravitz’s penis.

The interview, which critics have ridiculed as “millennial pandering,” has been teased in videos posted on Funny or Die with a cameo by Amy Schumer, reports the New York Post.

In one clip, Clinton jokes to Dunham that she thought the chat was going to be with Lenny Kravitz — the newsletter is called “Lenny,” get it? Dunham replies, “Did you see the footage where his pants split? His stuff fell out of his pants.” Clinton then asks, “Do you think I could get that on YouTube?”

‘We fully got a hug’ ... Lena Dunham discussed the interview will Hillary Clinton on AOL's BUILD Speaker Series. Picture: Charles Sykes/Invision/AP

‘We fully got a hug’ … Lena Dunham discussed the interview will Hillary Clinton on AOL’s BUILD Speaker Series. Picture: Charles Sykes/Invision/APSource:AP

Discussing the interview on Thursday at AOL Build, Dunham said, “I was ready for more formality. Beforehand, we were so nervous, they were like, ‘OK, when she gets here you can go to the stairs and walk Madame Secretary to her chair.’ And she came down and she was like, ‘What’s up, girls?’ We fully got a hug.”

Lena added, “By the end, she was like, ‘You’ll have to give me the name of your ear, nose and throat doctor.’ I was like, ‘How would I ever get in touch with you? You didn’t give me any of your information.’” (Perhaps Hillary has given up on e-mail at this point.)

Dunham also called Clinton “charming”, but, “You could also see that presidential side”. When she asked Hillary about Bernie Sanders, “Suddenly, it’s laser focus,” she said, “and she’s ready to give you a presidential answer and then … veer back into talking about her Donna Karan dress from 1993.”

In the running ... Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke to Lena Duham about issues such as women’s health. Picture: AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall

In the running … Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke to Lena Duham about issues such as women’s health. Picture: AP Photo/Charlie NeibergallSource:AP

The Girls star added, “We don’t want to tell people how to vote … but we did want to make it clear that, to us, Hillary Clinton is a really powerful feminist figure.”

But a young female Daily Beast pundit wrote of the interview: “Say what you will about generation Y, but we know a publicity stunt when we see one, and two self-congratulatory white ladies praising each other’s career accomplishments won’t inspire us come Election Day.”

This story first appeared in the New York Post.

Source Article from

Is Liberal Reasoning Idiotic or Just Plain Dishonest?

Many people argue that liberals, socialists and progressives do not understand basic economics. I am not totally convinced about that.

Take the law of demand, for example, one of the fundamental principles of economics. It holds that the lower the cost of something the more people will take or do of it. Conversely, the higher the cost the less people will take or do something. By their actions, liberals fully understand the law of demand. Let’s look at some proof.

The Seattle City Council voted unanimously to establish a tax on gun and ammunition sales. Hillary Clinton has called for a 25 percent tax on gun sales. In Chicago, Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle proposed “violence taxes” on bullets to discourage criminals from buying guns. Let’s ignore the merit of these measures. They do show that gun grabbers acknowledge the law of demand. They want fewer gun sales and thus propose raising the cost of guns.

NBCBLK contributor Danielle Moodie-Mills said, “We need to stop misgendering people in the media, and there needs to be some type of fine that’s put into place for … media outlets … that decide that they’re just not going to call people by their name.” What Moodie-Mills wants is for us to be obliged, if a man says he’s a woman, to address him as her and, if a woman says she’s a man, to address her as him. The basic point here is that Moodie-Mills acknowledges the fundamental law of demand when she calls for FCC fines for media people who “misgender” folks. By the way, if I claimed to be the king of Siam, I wonder whether she would support my demand that I be addressed as “your majesty.”

In the Ohio Legislature, Rep. Bill Patmon, a Democrat from Cleveland, introduced a bill to make it illegal to manufacture, sell or display toy guns. The ban would apply to any toy gun that a “reasonable person” could confuse with a real one. A $1,000 fine and up to 180 days in jail would be imposed for failure to obey the law. That’s more evidence that liberals understand the law of demand. You want less of something? Just raise its cost.

Even San Francisco liberals and environmentalists understand the law of demand. They’ve proposed a ban that over the next four years would phase out the sale of plastic water bottles that hold 21 ounces or less in public places. Violators could face fines of up to $1,000.

Former U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu once said, “We have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe” in order to make Americans give up their “love affair with the automobile.” If gas prices rise high enough, Chu knows that Americans will drive less.

There you have it — abundant evidence that liberals, socialists and progressives understand the law of demand. But wait a minute. What about raising the cost of hiring workers through increases in the minimum wage?

Aaron Pacitti, Siena College professor of economics, wrote that raising the minimum wage “would reduce income inequality and poverty while boosting growth, without increasing unemployment.” The leftist Center for Economic and Policy Research has written a paper whose title tells it all: “Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?” The U.S. Department of Labor has a page on its website titled “Minimum Wage Mythbusters” (, which relays a message from liberal economists: “Increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers.”

What the liberals believe — and want us to believe — is that though an increase in the cost of anything will cause people to use less of it, labor is exempt from the law of demand. That’s like accepting the idea that the law of gravity influences the falling behavior of everything except nice people. One would have to be a lunatic to believe either proposition.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at

Source Article from

‘Ready for Hillary’ Banner Ads Embedded With Nuclear Launch Codes. Clinton Camp Says No Laws Were Broken


COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. – In a scene reminiscent of a bad 80s film, “Ready for Hillary” banner ads overwhelmed government servers, resulting in a partial freeze of the U.S. government mainframe.

While embroiled in an email scandal, the most alarming aspect Hillary Clinton’s latest controversy now reaches the nation’s nuclear arsenal.

NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) announced that at least two nuclear launch codes might have been embedded within “Dinner with Hillary” and other Clinton Campaign internet banner ads.

“There’s no need to worry,” says Air Force Col. Jim “Jet” Chambers. “The codes weren’t actually ‘launch’ codes, they were a set of several thousand phony codes aimed at tricking hackers. The real question is how these codes became embedded within a banner ad.”

Amidst ongoing scandal, a Justice Department spokesperson assured Americans that no laws were broken. “We’re still investigating the banner ads, not Hillary Clinton. To be clear, Clinton is not part of any investigation. As for the banner ads, there was no law at the time specifically mentioning the merger of nuclear launch codes and electronic campaign advertisement.”

Republicans in Congress were furious and called for an immediate investigation. One GOP strategist, before hyperventilating and reaching for his right forearm as he fainted to the ground, claimed that national security was now at stake. “Nuclear launch codes. I said nuclear launch codes. Did you hear what is coming out of my mouth?”

The Clinton Campaign remained defiant after a New York Times article incorrectly claimed nuclear launch codes were embedded specifically by the Clinton Campaign. “Another example of shoddy reporting,” said a Clinton spokesman. “The fact is that no laws were broken, The Times knows this, and voters need to understand that even NORAD doesn’t think it’s serious.”

The latest banner ad controversy doesn’t seem to be affecting Clinton’s poll numbers and FiveThirtyEight published a piece declaring the former Secretary of State now has a 92.5879% chance of winning the presidency; up from 91.58674% two days before NORAD found the embedded nuclear launch codes.

Some Clinton supporters questioned by CNN expressed concern, but believed this too would pass. “I’m not too worried,” said a lady named Marge. “They’ll do anything to hurt Hillary and we don’t have anyone now pointing weapons at us, so yeah, I’m not worried. This isn’t the Cold War anymore, people.”

In related news, the FBI found the same codes on Clinton’s private server, but said that no laws were broken.

Source Article from

‘I oppose it:’ Hillary Clinton comes out against Keystone XL pipeline

I think it is imperative that we look at the Keystone XL pipeline as what I believe it is: A distraction from the important work we have to do to combat climate change, and, unfortunately from my perspective, one that interferes with our ability to move forward and deal with other issues,” Clinton said during a campaign event in Iowa Tuesday, according to NBC News.

Therefore, I oppose it. I oppose it because I don’t think it’s in the best interest of what we need to do to combat climate change.”

The announcement was met with applause from her campaign supporters.

TransCanada issued a statement after the announcement, without referring to Clinton.

“Our focus remains on securing a permit to build Keystone XL. 17,000 pages of scientific study have concluded the Keystone XL would have minimal impact on the environment,” the statement read. “[The State Department’s] Final Supplemental Environment Impact Statement concluded that greenhouse-gas emissions would be 28 to 42 percent lower with the pipeline.”

TransCanada added that Keystone XL would help create over 40,000 jobs and generate $2 billion in earnings.

Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush dinged Clinton on Twitter.

As secretary of state, Clinton was reticent to give her opinion on the project, and she postponed offering an opinion in July as President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry reviewed the pipeline’s environmental impact.

The pipeline was first proposed in 2008. If approved, it would carry oil 1,179 miles from Canada’s tar sands to Nebraska, where it would connect to an existing pipeline and continue traveling south.

In 2012, Obama vetoed a proposal supporting the pipeline, but TransCanada Corp subsequently reapplied for another permit.

Environmentalists have urged the president to reject it again, arguing that the pipeline would make it easier to drill for oil in Canada’s tar sands – a dirty process which in and of itself burns a lot of energy. The State Department is also seeking input from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department on the project’s potential environmental ramifications

The project has also sparked opposition from Native American tribes, particularly those living on the Nebraska land that the pipeline is expected to run through.

Supporters argue that building the pipeline will create jobs and boost the United States’ energy independence. However, only some 50 people would be required to maintain it after construction.

The fact is, Keystone would create only 35 permanent jobs – a drop in the bucket,” said Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY). “A fried chicken franchise creates about as many jobs.”

Source Article from

Weekend at Bernie’s 2


We’ve seen this movie before. In 2008, to be precise. But this time, the ending may not be the same. Bernie Sanders versus Hillary Clinton in 2015 looks a lot like Barack Obama versus Hillary Clinton in 2008.

In fact, we’ve seen this movie many times. Since 1968, almost every contest for the Democratic nomination has ended up as a race between a progressive and a populist. It’s not so much an ideological split as a class split. The progressive wins educated, high-minded, upper middle class whites — “NPR Democrats.” The populist wins wage-earners, disadvantaged minorities and the financially squeezed.

In 1968, it was Eugene McCarthy, the progressive, versus Robert Kennedy, the populist. In 1972, it was George McGovern (prog.) versus Hubert Humphrey (pop.). 1984: Gary Hart (prog.) versus Walter Mondale (pop.). 1988: Michael Dukakis (prog.) versus Richard Gephardt (pop.). 1992: Paul Tsongas (prog.) versus Bill Clinton (pop.). 2000: Bill Bradley (prog.) versus Al Gore (pop.). And in 2008, Barack Obama took the progressive vote while Hillary Clinton was the populist. She ran as the fighter, Obama as the inspirer.

The populist Democrat usually has the advantage. But not always. McGovern’s nomination victory in 1972 was propelled by a wave of anti-Vietnam war protest. Dukakis ended up in a head-to-head contest with Jesse Jackson, which got him a lot of working class white votes.

Obama won in 2008 by creating an unusual coalition: white liberals — the traditional progressive Democratic vote — plus blacks. Earlier progressive Democrats like McCarthy, McGovern, Hart and Dukakis did not draw many black votes in the Democratic primaries. By putting white liberals and blacks together, Obama won an excruciatingly narrow victory over Hillary Clinton (48.1 percent of the Democratic primary vote for Obama, 48.0 percent for Clinton.).

Sanders has a populist message for 2016, but so far, his strongest appeal is to progressive Democrats. He’s getting a big chunk of the Obama coalition: young voters and white liberals. He’s doing better with college graduates than with non-college Democrats. The latest CBS News poll in New Hampshire and Iowa shows Sanders leading Clinton by huge margins among young Democrats. Sanders leads among whites in both states. Even in South Carolina, Sanders leads among white Democrats.

But not blacks. Only 4 percent of black Democrats in South Carolina are voting for Sanders. Sanders is still unknown to African-Americans. In the nationwide ABC News-Washington Post poll, Sanders and Clinton are virtually tied among white Democrats (Sanders 33 percent, Clinton 31). Among non-white Democrats, Clinton is way ahead (57 to 13 percent).

Obama could never have beaten Clinton without a solid black vote. Sanders probably can’t either.

Sanders will very likely win both Iowa and New Hampshire, two overwhelmingly white states. Iowa is a caucus state. Caucuses are dominated by ideological activists. Iowa Democratic activists tend to be fiercely liberal.

New Hampshire is a primary state with higher turnout. But Sanders has an advantage there as well, He’s a local. Sanders has represented Vermont in Congress for 25 years, first as the state’s lone congressman and, since 2007, as senator. Look at a map. Vermont and New Hampshire look like conjoined twins.


After Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders will have a problem. Winning Iowa and New Hampshire will give him what George H.W. Bush once called “the big Mo” (momentum). But then he’s going to face a lot of Democrats who don’t know him as well as they do Clinton. They may have reservations about supporting a 74-year-old self-described socialist who’s not even a registered Democrat.

Sanders’ best hope is for Joe Biden to enter the race. Biden occupies the same political space as Clinton. He, too, is a populist and, as vice president, a bona fide member of the Democratic Party establishment. Polls show that Biden would take more votes from Clinton than from Sanders. If Biden and Clinton were to split the populist Democratic vote, it’s possible that Sanders could beat both of them.

The Democratic race could also end up as a protracted two-candidate marathon just like 2008, only this time between Clinton and Biden. The African-American vote would probably split, with some holding strong for Clinton and others voting for Biden out of loyalty to Obama. That, too, would be a good outcome for Sanders. He could be the kingmaker, extracting liberal commitments from both contenders as the price of his support.

The Democratic Party is poised to lurch to the left. That’s even more likely if Democrats nominate Clinton or Biden and the Democrat loses next year. Then Sanders can say “I told you so.” Sanders is 74 and may be too old to run again in four years. Elizabeth Warren, however, is 66.

Source Article from

Joan Walsh: Fiorina Was Either Lying Or ‘Delusional’ About Planned Parenthood Videos

Carly Fiorina is “either a liar, or she’s delusional” regarding the Planned Parenthood sting videos, Salon editor-at-large Joan Walsh snarled on tonight’s edition of Hardball.

At issue was this statement Fiorina made during Wednesday’s debate:

As regards Planned Parenthood, anyone who has watched this videotape, I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes,” she said. “Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, it’s heart beating, it’s legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews brought up how the Wall Street Journal reviewed the videos in question and determined that no such footage was shown on any of them. Matthews and Walsh jumped on this as evidence that Fiorina had made a misleading statement, possibly deliberately so, during the debate. For his part, Matthews likened it to an incident where Ronald Reagan claimed to have walked around in concentration camps after they have been liberated, when in fact he had only seen filmed footage thereof.

Of course, for his citation of the Journal, Matthews left out this excerpt which puts a rather charitable explanation for Fiorina’s claim:

The video that most closely resembles what Ms. Fiorina described (starting around 3:42 until 6:25, with graphic medical images) features Holly O’Donnell, a former procurement technician at Placerville, Calif.-based StemExpress LLC, saying there was a fully intact fetus after an abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas. She said the fetus was in a jar and taken to a lab, where it was prepared and rinsed and put in a strainer. She asserted that a technician called her over, tapped the heart with an instrument and it started beating because electrical currents were still firing.

The woman says she doesn’t know if it was technically dead or alive. The video cuts to an image of a different fetus that came from other antiabortion groups, the Grantham Collection and Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. The former employee said a technician then used scissors to cut the head open to procure the brain.

Asked about Mrs. Fiorina’s statement, a spokeswoman for the Fiorina campaign pointed to a Youtube video that uses some of the same audio from the StemExpress technician as well as the same fetus imagery from the undercover videos and fetus imagery from other sources.

In other words, the most charitable and rather likely explanation is that Fiorina conflated the imagery and the testimony of the procurement technician and essentially mis-remembered it as seeing actual footage of a live aborted baby. At any rate, it’s undeniable that abortion itself is a grisly and violent taking of a human life, and if coupled with the deliberate harvesting of organs for profit, well, it just heightens the heinous nature of the act.

That liberals like Matthews and Walsh hope to glom on to this as a cudgel to bash Ms. Fiorina as lacking “character” is quite telling. Here’s the relevant transcript:

September 17, 2015
7:46 p.m. Eastern

CHRIS MATTHEWS: She says she has seen images of what we’re talking about here.

JOAN WALSH: Something horrible, horrible.

MATTHEWS: And, in fact, there were no images on the screen in the video.

WALSH: Right.

MATTHEWS: The Wall Street Journal says that tonight, reporting that tonight. It reminded me of Ronald Reagan saying he had been over there in the death camps. It turns out he had seen some footage on screen. She didn’t even see some footage. So I don’t even know what she’s talking about.

WALSH: Right, because what Ronald Reagan talked about actually had happened in history. What she’s talking about, I mean, I want to talk about character here. She’s talking about character. This raises questions about her character. She’s either a liar or she’s delusional. She remembers something that didn’t happen, but everybody who’s looked at these, the long, long tapes. We try to say we hope we’re seeing what’s unedited, but we still don’t know…

And here’s where Walsh could use a fact checker. The Center for Medical Progress has, for every video they’ve put out, released both short, edited pieces which rather cut to the chase about the point they’re making AND raw video which run much longer.

Left-wing critics of CMP have sought refuge in the claim that the shorter videos are deceptively edited, yet they have the full videos for comparison and, if they were in fact deceptively edited, they could easily build their case for why by contrasting exculpatory footage that was edited out of the shorter pieces. That no one has done so, it seems to me, is a case of the dog that didn’t bark.

Update (8:45 p.m. Eastern): As my colleague Brent Baker noted on Twitter, shortly after this there was a bit of an awkward moment with the liberal Ron Reagan comparing Fiorina to noted fabulist and returning MSNBC anchor Brian Williams:

Source Article from