Monday, March 7, 2016



It irritates me to no end when conservatives cast the media as being too “Liberal” or to the left. However, it angers me when a piece such as the one that appeared in The Washington Post printed the morning after the latest Democratic debate. How someone can come to such a quick conclusion in giving their slant on such an important event is beyond my patience. The article to which I refer is entitled:
Five reasons Bernie Sanders lost last night’s Democratic debate  by James Hohmann

Upon reading this piece I reviewed some of the same video clips of the debate as the Post entered as links. What I saw and what words I heard cannot characterize Bernie Sanders as the loser. The points listed are weak, not to mention far from “reporting the facts” as a competent journalist is compelled.

1.      Clinton caught Sanders off guard with her attacks on his vote against the auto industry bailout.

This is in no way the complete picture. In fact when Bernie Sanders began his reply is when she began to over talk him with her rising tone. She then invited him to tell “the whole story.” However, this is when the so-called discourteous assault began and it only occurred because Hillary never let Sen. Sanders respond in full. (He was nowhere near his allotted time).

The moderator never intervened on behalf of Bernie Sanders. Had the Senator been given a chance to offer his “whole story” as his opponent implored him to do, she would be the one begging for relief and forgiveness. The truth of the matter is that Sen. Sanders chose not to vote in favor of this legislation for the auto bailout as it was tied to a much bigger package that included unnecessary relief for big banks.

Furthermore, Sen. Sanders had already introduced separate legislation to aid the failing auto industry on its own merit. His bill never came to a vote. Why? It is the way of a Republican controlled Congress with big lobby interests dictating how legislation is written. There is little left to the imagination that a complex bill was written with bankers taking the lead. To ensure that the too big to fail banks got their $400 Billion they “threw in the money for the auto industry.”

This is business as usual in Congress for several years now. By combining multiple aspects of important legislation in one bill, certain Congressman can avoid taking the heat for voting for the bank bailout. They can lie if necessary in the future that they only supported the bank bailout because the money for saving the auto industry was in that package. Individual Congressman thus have the option to save face if they are called to task on the measure by explaining their vote as one that was the only way to help the auto industry. And in many situations certain Congressman can hide their true agenda in giving aid and comfort to the enemy, the too big to fail banks. They chose to subjugate their vote in favor of the big banks. The oligarchy that now is the majority in congress wrote a huge spending bill as a free ride for the banks, most who did not need it. And I do not believe Congress was repaid with just a “free checking” account.

In conclusion, the real fact is that Secretary Clinton seized upon this opportunity in an attempt to discredit and embarrass Bernie Sanders by pointing a finger of blame as a trained attorney might act. Without actually stating it, Hillary was belittling Sanders for standing up for his convictions as a true statesman would. It is Clinton who should feel embarrassed for her lack of convictions.
2.      Sanders seemed condescending when he cut off Clinton.

The Post added a clip from this exchange for readers to view. When I watched and listened you can begin to understand Bernie’s interruption. Hillary made her declaration regarding the auto industry bailout with her voice escalating to a shrill. She taunted Sen. Sanders with her tone and if you watch carefully Hillary points her finger at Sanders as if to cast guilt.

It was clear, Sanders began to voice his rebuttal and within a few words Hillary began her usual tactic in over talking him. This is a failure of the moderator to cut off Hillary’s interruption. She made her point and Mr. Cooper did not turn to Sanders to say it is his turn to reply. This protocol was never clearly put forth by the CNN host as it has in other debates. Hillary should have been cautioned to “wait her turn.”

I do not believe for one moment that Senator Sanders meant any harm in what the media characterizes as demeaning or sexist. Furthermore, I do not believe this is the first occasion where someone attempted to quiet the shrill sound of her voice. Don’t agree? Ask Bill.

3.      Sanders once again seemed oblivious on racial issues.

In examining the responses of both candidates I do not believe Hillary even came close to satisfying the question. Mr. Lemon asked about any known “blind spots” they may have when it comes to race. I do not believe Hillary’s story gives her any more weight than Bernie Sanders. She recounted as a young woman she was “inspired” by her church and working as legal intern in the South that gave her such great “empathy” and a thirst for understanding of the plight of African Americans.

Hillary Clinton conveniently left out one fact. At the same time of her epiphany she supported the most conservative Republican known at that time in one Barry Goldwater.
4.      Sanders sounded like a protest candidate who is running to make a point.

I mean how self-serving a statement! Of course Bernie does protest. It is his responsibility to hold dear his convictions and to our betterment he stands, sometimes alone as an advocate for mankind. He is human. He acts out of a deep conviction for fairness, justice and the truth. What more can you expect from a man?

Hillary Clinton made arguments for the defense of the "Export-Import Bank" and once again pointed her finger at Bernie Sanders as one who opposed it. Conveniently, though surprising, Anderson Cooper then took the initiative to explain to the audience in Flint as to the role of this little known bank. Cooper's role and the very question itself is rather suspicious. It gives one reason for this segment as the question was orchestrated to embarrass Bernie Sanders.

Hillary went further to state that the bank is there to support local businesses with financial aid to promote American exports abroad. She cited the example how Airbus has an unfair  advantage over Boeing in building and selling passenger planes. Looking at the audience she reported that some 200 Michigan companies benefited from this bank.

Bernie Sanders defended his opposition to the Export-Import in his retort that in Washington D.C. it is the known as "Boeing Bank." Why? Because as Sanders accurately reported that the facts support that Boeing receives 70% of the funds from this Export-Import Bank. Hillary did not deny this fact and defended the virtues even if Boeing is the largest benefactor.

This is absurd. What Sanders, if given the time could have countered that here is this multi-international corporation receiving welfare. Boeing has  billions in profits  from government contracts and taxpayer money. What Clinton failed to recognize is that as we all know, Boeing manufactures the most advanced  war machine sold to the U.S. military at huge profit. Boeing is in the business of war, not passenger planes.

The fact that Boeing deserves corporate welfare to compete with Airbus is ridiculous! Boeing as one of the most profitable and recession proof businesses can and should fund their enterprise.
5.      Sanders failed to change the underlying dynamic of the race.  

I cannot see what the writer is actually referring to here. He states that Senator Sanders losses in states such as South Carolina and Louisiana are the basis of the argument that he failed to change the dynamics in this debate. Those dynamics can only be changed by the voters on Tuesday. There certainly was no change in the dynamics by Hillary Clinton. She is a trained attorney, well versed in one on one disagreements beginning with her time as First Lady and has had excellent coaching in the area of being the consummate politician. One who is now pulled to an uncomfortable and unfamiliar position. Mrs. Clinton is a bit uneasy now that she is on the Left.

The Washington Post article conveniently overlooks the rather "systemic voting record of Hillary Clinton during her service in the Senate. From her support of NAFTA and stacked trade agreements to her vote for funding the disastrous Iraq War to supporting the rescue of the Auto industry as part of a "Yuuge" bailout of a corrupt Wall Street in reality only reveals that Hillary cannot be trusted. Her dynamic is to vote with that same majority in Congress that hide the true agenda of legislation.