Thursday Reads: #WeWontBeErased

Good Morning!!

This is going to be a truly consequential election. Electing a woman to the presidency of the U.S. is going to be more difficult and more radical than electing a African American man in 2008 was. Some day America will elect an African American woman as president. How long with that take?

This is how change happens–very very slowly. In the beginning of this country only white men who were landowners could vote. It took until the mid-19th century for most states to allow universal white male suffrage. In 1870, African American men won the right to vote, but most states found ways to keep them from exercising that right. It wasn’t until August 18, 1920 that the 19th Amendment was ratified and women finally could vote in the U.S.

So it’s not surprising that an African American man was the first to break the white male hold on the presidency. If we really want to have a woman president in 2016, we are going to have to speak up loudly and demand it! And finally, more women are doing that. On Tuesday I wrote about how supporters of Hillary Clinton were able to get Twitter to remove the misogynistic hashtag #WordsThatDontDescribeHillaryClinton from its list of trending topics.

Yesterday female and male supporters of Hillary took it a step further after being inspired by a brilliant post by Joan Walsh at The Nation despite the magazine’s endorsement of Bernie Sanders. I know many or most of you have already read the piece, but I still want to quote from it today. Why I’m Supporting Hillary Clinton, With Joy and Without Apologies. I’ve come to feel passion for Clinton herself, and for the movement that supports her.

Walsh begins by admitting she was hesitant to “come out of the closet” as a Clinton supporter because she is a journalist, but she spontaneously did so while talking to a woman in France who asked her if Americans–especially American women–were really ready to vote for a woman for president. She had turned down the opportunity to write a response to The Nation’s endorsement of Sanders, but while watching Monday’s CNN Democratic Town Hall, she changed her mind.

The town hall itself was great; Clinton, Sanders, and Martin O’Malley all looked admirable and presidential, in contrast to their awful Republican rivals. Democrats have a lot to be excited about this year.

But one moment got me particularly excited, and not in a good way. It came when a young white man—entitled, pleased with himself, barely shaving yet—broke the news to Clinton that his generation is with Bernie Sanders. “I just don’t see the same enthusiasm from younger people for you. In fact, I’ve heard from quite a few people my age that they think you’re dishonest. But I’d like to hear from you on why you feel the enthusiasm isn’t there.”

That Catch-22 question–sort of analogous to asking a man “when did you stop beating your wife?” enraged Walsh, as it likely did millions of women.

“I’d like to hear from you on why you feel the enthusiasm isn’t there.” I’m not sure I can unpack all the condescension in that question. I heard a disturbing echo of the infamous 2008 New Hampshire debate moment when a moderator asked Clinton: “What can you say to the voters of New Hampshire on this stage tonight, who see a resume and like it, but are hesitating on the likability issue?” Yes, the “likability” issue. I found myself thinking: Not again. Why the hell does she have to put up with this again?

My problem wasn’t merely with the insulting personal tone of the question. It was also the way the young man anointed himself the voice of his generation, and declared it the Sanders generation. Now, I know Bernie is leading among millennials by a lot right now in the polls. Nonetheless, millions of millennials, including millions of young women, are supporting Hillary Clinton. And my daughter, as Nation readers know, is one of them. I find it increasingly galling to see her and her friends erased in this debate.

That’s it. We are continually erased. Women are more than 50% of the U.S. population, but the issues that are important to us are casually dismissed by many (most?) male politicians, including Bernie Sanders. Sanders turns every discussion of racism or sexism back to his core issue of income inequality, seeming to deny that people of color and women are held back not just by economic factors, but also by bigotry and prejudice based on skin color and gender.

When I’ve disclosed that my daughter works for Clinton—in The Nation, on MSNBC, and on social media—we’ve both come in for trolling so vile it’s made me not merely defensive of her. It’s forced me to recognize how little society respects the passion of the many young women—and men—who are putting their souls into electing the first female president. It’s one thing to note that Sanders is winning among millennials; that’s true. It’s another to impugn the competence and dignity of the literally millions of millennials who support Clinton. Social-media trolls have had several fascinating and stunningly sexist reactions to the news of my daughter’s position. Obviously, she can’t be competent; I must have gotten her the job (in fact, she got it through a high-school friend who worked for Clinton and recommended her.) Obviously, she can’t think for herself; I must have indoctrinated her to support Clinton over Sanders. Or the flip side: Obviously, I have no integrity, and I support Clinton over Sanders only because my daughter is on her payroll.

This article by Joan Walsh is huge. She is a well respected, influential writer who frequently appears on T.V. and who is highly visible on social media. Yesterday her article made a big impact on Twitter. Hundreds of women thanked her for speaking up and describing what so many women had been thinking and feeling when that entitled young man insulted one of the most admired and respected women in the world.

Then Peter Daou suggested a hashtag, #WeWontBeErased that hundreds of people used. It even got on the trending list for awhile.

This is so true. We have been erased again and again in my lifetime. We were erased in school when we were told that girls couldn’t participate in sports, that we couldn’t do math or science, that we couldn’t grow up to have “serious” careers. No. We should be housewives and mothers period. And if we were really so desperate as to want a paying job, we were told we could be teachers, nurses, or secretaries–certainly not lawyers or doctors or university professors.

We were erased during the political struggles of the 1960s and ’70s when we demanded our rights, when we wanted rape to be prosecuted as a serious crime, when we demanded that child abuse and incest be seen and punished, when we wanted equal pay for equal work. Our years of work for an Equal Right Amendment were also erased.

We were erased in the 1980s when the fight against AIDS and the struggle for gay rights took precedence over our silly demands for equality with men. We were erased in the 1990s when the Senate ignored Anita Hill’s claims of sexual harassment and put her abuser on the Supreme Court. We were erased in recent decades as right wing Republicans (and even some Democrats) passed laws that restricted reproductive choices and voted against laws to protect women from gender-based violence.

When will it end? The election of a woman president could be a beginning of the end. To the “progessives” who think the election of an African American man was transformational, to those who argue that electing a 74-year-old man who identifies as a socialist would be a “transformational moment”: electing a woman as President of the U.S. would be even more “transformational.” It would be radical.

Maybe I’ll be mocked for saying this–as Hillary was mocked in 1993 for her speech in Austin and for her vision of “love and kindness.” I don’t care. I’m excited and enthusiastic at the prospect of electing a woman to the presidency. Not only that, I’m exited and enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton as that person we will elect.

I wholeheartedly agree with Joan Walsh:

I appreciated Sanders supporter Kathy Geier’s acknowledgment here in The Nation that her candidate once again came off as tone-deaf on an issue of gender. Yet Geier seconded Sanders’s assertion that these two groups fighting for reproductive justice deserve to be termed “establishment”—and therefore unfavorably compared to the upstart, grassroots, and genuinely radical groups that back Sanders.

I just don’t see it that way. I think there are few issues as radical as advancing the reproductive autonomy of women. And I think it’s hard to be truly establishment when dangerous men are shooting up your clinics, and the Republican Congress is persistently voting to strip you of your funding. Yes, Planned Parenthood and NARAL have worked hard to become respected political players in the last 30 years, because the women they represent need political clout, not just services. But I’m old enough to remember when feminists were told that our issues—“cultural” issues like abortion and contraception—were costing Democrats elections, so couldn’t we pipe down for a little while? Now we’re the establishment?

Just like my lefty friends who praise Sanders for loudly promoting the single-payer solution to healthcare because it’s important to raise the issue’s standing and profile, I praise Clinton for making repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which bars Medicaid from paying for abortion for poor women, a major public campaign issue. I acknowledge Sanders has voted the right way, and I’m grateful for it. But Clinton is leading on it, the same way she brought up the vile Planned Parenthood video hoax in the very first Democratic debate. That leadership matters to me.

Dorothy Rodham and Hillary Clinton

And this:

Finally, I’m struck by the insistence among Sanders supporters that Democrats who support Clinton—and right now, we are still the majority—are doing so joylessly, like party automatons.

Because our enthusiasms and excitement don’t count–see how it works? Our words, our thoughts, our wishes, our dreams, our goals are erased because we are just silly women. Well, I won’t be silent. I’m sick and tired of being told there is no enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. I’m enthusiastic about her and so are millions of other women and men. If Hillary is elected, we’ll face more of this garbage, but we have to get her elected if we want real change and a real voice in government for women.

Please post your thoughts and any links you want to share in the comment thread. We’ll have a live blog later for tonight’s GOP debate.

Tuesday Reads: Getting Knocked Down and Getting Back Up

Clinton speaking at the University of Texas in Austin in 1993. Courtesy Clinton Library

Good Afternoon!!

Apologies for the late post. I had to spend my morning getting my bearings. When I first get up, my routine is to get some tea or coffee and open up Google News to see what people are talking about. Lately I’ve been looking at Twitter too.

The first story that caught my eye on Google is this one by Collum Borchers at The Washington Post.

Why Hillary Clinton is struggling, in 3 CNN audience questions.

Boy, did Hillary Clinton get a dose of reality in Iowa, where polls are all over the place but show her losing ground one week before the state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses. Right out of the gate, questioners hit the former secretary of state with some of the least flattering narratives about her.

This was the first question from the audience:

It feels like there is a lot of young people like myself who are very passionate supporters of Bernie Sanders. And, I just don’t see the same enthusiasm from younger people for you. In fact, I’ve heard from quite a few people my age that they think you’re dishonest, but I’d like to hear from you on why you feel the enthusiasm isn’t there.

And this was the second:

Secretary Clinton, earlier this month Vice President Joe Biden said you were a newcomer to the issue of income inequality, while praising Senator Sanders for his authentic voice on the issue. How do we know that you will keep this issue a top priority? ….

Even the third question, which came from a man who identified himself as a strong Clinton supporter, introduced the troublesome topic of Benghazi. (The man said he was impressed by Clinton’s performance during a congressional hearing on the 2012 attack last fall.)

When compliments come with that kind of baggage, you’re having a rough night.

Borchers admits that Hillary gave good, non-defensive answers, but gosh–those questions!

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks during a CNN town hall at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, Monday, Jan. 25, 2016. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

Reporters do this again and again. Maybe Borchers needs to take a look in the mirror and ask where the “narratives” about Hillary Clinton came from. Obviously, it’s from the media. Republicans attack Hillary, of course; but the media is responsible for their decades of ugly, sexist reporting and opinion pieces on this “narrative” they created and pushed.

Besides, does anyone really believe CNN didn’t screen the questions and choose those? Give me a break.

After that, I took a look at Twitter. This hashtag was trending: #WordsThatDon’tDescribeHillary. I hated to look at it because I already knew what I would see–vicious misogyny, sexism, and probably violent threats. But I clicked anyway and I found just what I expected.

What did surprise me is that many Twitter users pushed back and eventually Twitter took down the hashtag. Of course one of them was Peter Daou, a tireless fighter against the war on women.

and Tom Watson.

And Twitter took it down!

And there were thank yous.

Suddenly I saw that there are good people in the world too. The Bernie bros are probably not even the majority of people who support Bernie Sanders. But they are hurting him badly with undecided voters who witness their behavior. If you need evidence of that, look at this tweet from Sanders’ “rapid response director.” He even pinned the tweet to top of his feed.

I don’t know how Hillary does it. She was wonderful last night–friendly, warm, genuine, and willing to answer every question–unlike grumpy old man Bernie Sanders. But what Bernie bros (sadly, a lot of them are women) heard was just the ugly voices in their heads.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton greets attendees after a CNN town hall at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, Monday, Jan. 25, 2016. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

I guess we’ll find out next Monday whether the Bernie bro strategy works on Iowa voters. Meanwhile, I’m going to follow Hillary’s lead and “get back up” every time I get “knocked down” by this garbage.

Last night RalphB shared a wonderful article on Hillary by Ruby Cramer at Buzzfeed. (That’s where I found the photo of Hillary at the top of this post.)

Hillary Clinton wants to talk to you about love & kindness.

On this particular day, after a routine campaign event at a college in Manchester, New Hampshire — after taking photos and giving a speech, after getting a question from the audience about the women who’ve alleged they were sexually assaulted by her husband and answering it without hesitation or alarm, after moving onto the noise and chaos of a crowded rope line —Clinton is shepherded away to the quiet of an available room: the building’s industrial-style kitchen. And it’s in this setting, seated in a fold-out chair at a small table, that Clinton seems almost surprised by the most basic line of questioning: why she runs.

“I think most people who interview me never ask me,” she says. “They nibble a little bit around the edges but there’s very—” Clinton turns to the one aide present, her press secretary, also seated at the table, and asks him to think back: “I don’t know of very many instances in the last 14 years that we’ve had these kinds of conversations.”

She has been asked every day, for decades, what she thinks, but rarely why. And here, next to a dishwasher, Clinton slides right back into the subject. Her words are slow and deliberate and she takes the conversation to this discussion she’s been trying to talk about, to bring up on the trail, as she is again ensnared in a campaign that’s more difficult than expected, in an election dominated by the language of anger and fear.

“I am talking about love and kindness,” she says.

As Clinton sees it, she’s really talking about a “shorthand” for her personal and political beliefs, for all the impulses that shape what she does and how she does it. She is talking about the core of “what I believe and who I am.” Even if no one views her that way. Even if she’s never been quite able to explain it. Even if she still isn’t known for the vision she’s been trying to share for decades, going back to the beginning. Even if her earnest efforts to connect with people are hampered not just by her image, but by the actual barriers of public life. After so many years, how do you convince a nation full of people who think they know everything about you that they don’t?

Hillary Clinton during giving her keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2008.

The article goes back to Clinton’s early days as First Lady, and how she was “mocked” and ripped to shreds by the DC Villagers.

This was 1993. She is first lady — a few months into the job, head of her husband’s health care effort, split between the White House and the hospital room in Little Rock, Arkansas, where her father lies brain-dead, 18 days after a stroke. There is a speech she can’t get out of — 14,000 people at the University of Texas — and on the plane ride to Austin, in longhand, she sketches out a second appeal for the same “mutuality of respect.”

“We need a new politics of meaning,” she tells the crowd. “We need a new ethos of individual responsibility and caring… a society that fills us up again and makes us feel that we are part of something bigger than ourselves.”

Again, she makes news. Again, reporters come calling. And again, Clinton tries to explain. That spring, she gives a series of interviews on the subject of her beliefs — political, philosophical, and spiritual….

The speech and subsequent interviews — earnest, unembarrassed, and decidedly open — are laughed at in Washington. Columnists call her a New Age “aspiring philosopher queen.” One compares her remarks to “a cross between Jimmy Carter’s malaise speech and a term paper on Siddhartha,” with all the “distinctive marks of adolescent self-discovery.” The New Republic asks: “It is good to hear the First Lady is also pro-meaning, but before we sign on, one question: What on earth are these people talking about?”

Another two decades pass, and Hillary Clinton doesn’t sound like she did then.

This was 2015, back at that small table in New Hampshire, a couple weeks before Christmas….This was the day in June after nine people were gunned down, mid-prayer, inside their church in South Carolina. Clinton had even been there that day, in Charleston, and received the news of the shooting on the plane ride out. She was speaking at a conference on the West Coast, and that’s where it slipped out for the first time. “I know it’s not usual for somebody running for president to say what we need more of in this country is love and kindness,” she said. “But that’s exactly what we need more of.”

What an amazing article! It will be lost on the Bernie bros and the other Hillary haters, but let’s remember that Hillary Clinton is very popular in both Iowa and New Hampshire. In 2008, after Barack Obama and John Edwards ganged up on Hillary in a debate (“you’re likable enough,” Obama said) New Hampshire voters went out to the polls and gave Obama the shock of his life so far when Hillary won the primary. It’s never over until the votes are counted.

Hillary and NH Sen. Jean Shaheen

Here’s New Hampshire Senator Jean Shaheen, a Hillary supporter on the polls in her state:

“Well, listen, I think it’s always nice when you’re ahead in the polls, but I’ve been involved in politics long enough to know that the polls don’t mean much. They’re a snapshot in time and they’re based whoever you happen to reach in your polling sample,” the New Hampshire senator said to WKBK Radio on Wednesday.

“They’re gonna fluctuate. They’re go up and down,” she added, citing Clinton’s win in New Hampshire in 2008 after several polls showed that she would lose.

Sanders leads Clinton 60% to 33% in a recent poll from WMUR/CNN of Granite State voters.

“The thing that I think is important about this poll is that it shows almost half of the voters in New Hampshire that plan to vote in the Democratic primary still haven’t decided who they’re gonna vote for. So there’s still lots of room for movement in the race,” she said.

We’ll find out in the next couple of weeks.

More interesting stories, links only:

Poynter: Media strains to analyze Dems’ Iowa town hall.

Michael Cohen at The Boston Globe: Could President Sanders defeat a Republican Congress?

LA Times: Sanders turns confrontational and Clinton emphasizes her record in Iowa town hall.

Des Moines Register: Students to choose between class, caucus.

Jill Abramson on why many young women pick Sanders over Clinton: ‘Hillary, can you excite us?’: the trouble with Clinton and young women.

Rebecca Traister on Samantha Bee’s new late night show: Smirking in the Boys’ Room.

Mother Jones: This Is What Happens When We Lock Children in Solitary Confinement.

That’s all I have for you today. I hope you enjoy the rest of your Tuesday.

Lazy Saturday Reads

New York: Blizzard Of 1888.

Good Afternoon!!

I’m really being lazy this Saturday. I’m sitting here drinking hot tea and wondering how all the piano lessons are doing. So far it doesn’t look like we’re going to get anything more than an inch of two of snow from the “monster blizzard;” but if you’re getting hit, I definitely feel for you. After the winter we went through in Boston last year, I’m very happy to miss this one (I hope).

NBC News on the storm so far: Monster Snowstorm Leaves At Least 10 Dead As It Pummels East Coast.

A killer snowstorm that battered the South and the nation’s capital turned its sights on greater New York City on Saturday, packing gale-force winds, heavy snow and coastal flooding as it churned up the East Coast.

The weekend winter wallop has already knocked out power to hundreds of thousands, led to more than 8,300 canceled flights and been blamed for at least 10 deaths.

By the time the storm is over Sunday, one in seven Americans from Kentucky to Connecticut could be under at least half a foot of snow. Washington, D.C., and New York City each could flirt with record snow totals.

The storm paralyzed major cities: Public transportation in Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington was shut down, and hundreds of drivers in various states were stranded on icy roadways.

In D.C., which was forecast to be in the crosshairs of the potentially historic storm, snow was falling at a rate of up to 2 inches an hour early Saturday, The Weather Channel said. The north lawn of the White House was blanketed by 20.5 inches of snow.

In Silver Spring, Maryland, which already had 20 inches of snow by morning, lighting and thundersnow lit up the skies, the Associated Press said.

Wow! I guess this storm is for real. I hope you all are safe and warm.

Frederick Childe-Hassam, A New York Blizzard

ABC News has a report on a different kind of storm.

ANALYSIS: The Storm That’s Hit the GOP.

As voting is set to start, Republicans have a dozen choices in front of them. Yet polls show more than half of the vote going to two candidates who combined do not have a single governor or senator behind them.

The conservative National Review has taken the unprecedented step of publishing an entire issue aimed at blocking the party’s leading candidate. Generations of prominent conservative journalists, tea party activists, and former administration officials are uniting to say that Donald Trump should not even be considered a true conservative.

Meanwhile, in the halls of Congress, Republican lawmakers are coming together to argue that one of their own, Sen. Ted Cruz, is the candidate who must be blocked. Their argument is that Cruz would not just lose but damage the party brand for years to come.

Cruz and Trump are holding up such opposition as the predictable gasps of a wheezing establishment. In a sign of the constantly changing face of the party, the party’s 2008 former vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, is backing Trump and complaining about an establishment that’s trying to bring him down.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, himself a former candidate who’s now backing Jeb Bush, summed up the Cruz vs. Trump frustration succinctly: “It’s like being shot or poisoned.”

Nothing the GOP leadership does seems to work. The National Review article doesn’t seem to have had any effect on the populist uprising.

Sudden Blizzard, Robert Bateman

Jeet Heer at The New Republic: National Review Fails to Kill Its Monster.

…when National Review launched its special issue “Against Trump” last night, it was keeping to a venerable tradition of policing the right. The magazine has been fiercely skeptical of Trump since he announced his candidacy last summer, but the special issue, which boasts an array of right-wing media personalities and pundits as well as a feature editorial, seems designed to be its definitive statement, a historical milestone on par with William F. Buckley’s denunciation of the John Birch Society in 1965 or the magazine’s rejection of Pat Buchanan’s anti-Semitism in 1991.

Yet, despite some good polemics, “Against Trump” is a weak-tea effort. Too much time is spent trying to prove that Trump is not a real conservative, while ignoring the fact that the racist nationalism he is espousing has its origins on the right. Trump, the editors argue, is “a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones.” There’s much that can be questioned here: After all, National Review didn’t have a problem with “free-floating populism” in 2008 when it celebrated Sarah Palin (now an enthusiastic Trump cheerleader), and historically the magazine has loved strongmen dictators like Mussolini and Franco.

Read all about it at the link.

Winter Forest, Walter L. Palmer

Ever reliable concern troll Joe Klein has a piece at Time about socialism and the Democratic party. Unfortunately, while I find much of what Klein writes distasteful, I can’t really disagree with him that “socialism” is still a dirty word in American politics; but I disagree that Hillary should use it to attack Bernie. As Dakinikat wrote yesterday, there is a populist impulse among some voters on both sides of the aisle in 2016.

The Democrats Stumble Toward 50 Shades of Socialism.

A specter is haunting the Democratic Party–the specter of socialism. A question is being asked, mostly by Republicans, but also by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: What is the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist? Debbie Wasserman Schultz got it last July and, ever the robotic partisan, answered by saying the more important difference was between Democrats and Republicans. Senator Chuck Schumer said it depended on how you define the two, and then refused to define the two. And, most significantly, Hillary Clinton said, “Well, I can tell you what I am … I’m a progressive Democrat.”

Now this is not a difficult question to answer. Webster’s says socialism is “a social system or theory in which the government owns and controls the means of production.” Democrats tend to believe in free enterprise. They think government should regulate the means of production, not own it. They have taken great pains to separate themselves from socialism, which has always been a poison word in American politics. And yet, according to a recent Des Moines Register poll, 43% of Iowa Democrats describe themselves as socialists. What gives?

Well, they’re not really socialists. They’re European-style social democrats, who believe in a robust redistribution of wealth (“from each according to her ability, to each according to his need”) and government control of some of the means of production–like the health care system. The question of how much government should redistribute has been the central argument in American politics since the passage of the graduated income tax in 1913. Even the vast majority of Republicans believe in Social Security and Medicare.

So we’re talking about 50 shades of socialism here, but the gradations are still important.

Klein writes that Bernie Sanders’ ideas are not really socialist, “but even Bernie should worry about his party strolling into the general election unwilling to distinguish itself from socialism.” I don’t completely agree with Klein–I never do–but I do think the GOP is salivating at the notion of the Democrats running a candidate who calls himself a socialist.

Packis I Stranden, August Strindberg

I also want to call attention to this piece by Jonathan Capehart, because it’s about something that is indicative of Sanders’ tone-deafness:

How Cornel West hurts Bernie Sanders.

Much has been written about the Vermont independent’s appeal to blackvoters and whether he can pry them away from Hillary Clinton. And all I can say is good luck with that. I and plenty of other African Americans won’t soon forget the deranged ravings of the revered Ivy League professor against President Obama.

During a November 2012 interview with Democracy Now, West branded Obama “a Republican, a Rockefeller Republican in blackface.” Then there was that May 2011 interview with Truthdig where West called the nation’s first African American president “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats.” In that same sitdown, West talked about his 2010 run-in with the president. “I wanted to slap him on the side of his head,” West said, who took his significant policy disagreements with the president down an ugly path zealously cut by birthers….

Joining West on the Sanders campaign is another African American who has thrown brick bats at Obama, the rapper Killer Mike. In “That’s life II,” the Atlanta-based musician denigrates the president as a “house slave” when he raps, “We know that House got air conditioning and the sweetest lemonade, but don’t forget your color, brother, we still mutha——- slaves.” No doubt his endorsement surely earned Sanders cool points with some.

I have little patience for the “Blacker than thou” crowd under normal circumstances. So you better believe I have zero patience for it on the presidential campaign trail. That’s why I can’t possibly take Sanders’s outreach to African American voters seriously. Adding to that sense was his “when the African American community becomes familiar with my congressional record” response to a question at the Charleston, S.C., debate about his lack of black support.

Bluebird Blizzard, Robyn Ryan

I have quite a few more stories to share, so I’m just going to give you the links and let you choose the ones you want to check out.

Jamelle Bouie: Bernie Sanders Is Right That Reparations Would Be Divisive.

MSNBC: Sanders walks back Planned Parenthood, Clinton ‘establishment’ comments.

Consequence of Sound: Donald Trump’s father was Woody Guthrie’s landlord, and also a racist asshole.

Think Progress: Why Bernie Sanders’ Misinformed Supreme Court Tweet Matters.

Imani Gandy: I Don’t Know What Dr. King Would Have Thought About Abortion and Neither Do You.

Emily’s List: 43 Years After Roe v. Wade.

Ilyse Hogue at HuffPo: It’s Now or Never for Reproductive Rights.

Eric Boelert at Media Matters: For Clinton, Good News Is No News When It Comes To Polling.

Dissenting Justice: The Voices: Why Do White Male Progressives Hear Things That No One Else Can?

The Cook Political Report: For Clinton, It’s Time to Stay Cool in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The Daily Beast: Gillian Anderson: I Was Offered Half Duchovny’s Pay for ‘The X-Files’ Revival.

I hope you find something here to your liking. Please post your thoughts and links in the comment thread, and have a great weekend!

Thursday Reads: Bernie Bros Hop on “That Old Volkswagon Bus” Back to 1972

Good Morning!!

After 24 hours of discussion of Bernie Sanders’ attacks on Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the the Human Rights Campaign,  we have a response from the Bernie bro camp at MSNBC. Rachel Maddow addressed what he had said on her show on Tuesday night. She invited Bernie himself to come on the show again, but he declined.

So Maddow did her best to clean up Bernie’s horrendous remarks. She Bernie-splained that there is that there Hillary herself started the backlash (not true, people were tweeting about it while the show was still going on). Next she quoted the Human Rights Campaigns’ statement that they had been fighting for LGBT rights for more than 30 years and then implied that the fact that they have been around that long indicates they are in fact part of the establishment. Then she argued that in terms of support for reproductive rights and gay rights there is no real difference between Clinton and Sanders.

Maddow went on to claim that this is the first big disagreement in the Democratic campaign for the nomination. Seriously? She hasn’t noticed the vast differences on and arguments about gun control and health care? Did she watch the last debate? Anyway, you can watch the entire 10-minute segment at the above link.

This morning the issue was even addressed on the front page of DailyKos by David Nir:

Sanders camp confirms it thinks Planned Parenthood is part of the establishment out to beat Bernie.

On Tuesday night, Bernie Sanders alarmed many liberals when he appeared to include Planned Parenthood among groups belonging to the “political establishment” that he says he’s “taking on”:

“What we are doing in this campaign—and it just blows my mind every day, because I see it clearly—we’re taking on not only Wall Street and the economic establishment, we’re taking on the political establishment.

“And so I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund, in Planned Parenthood. But you know what, Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very, very long time and some of these groups are, in fact, part of the establishment.”

In response, some Sanders supporters argued that Sanders was not including Planned Parenthood among “establishment” groups, pointing out that he spoke only of “some” groups without specifically naming Planned Parenthood.

However, in an interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd Wednesday afternoon, Sanders’ top strategist, Tad Devine, confirmed that the campaign does indeed view Planned Parenthood as part of a Democratic establishment that’s actively opposing Sanders:

Todd: Do you believe that Planned Parenthood and Human Rights Campaign—that these are part of the Democratic establishment that’s trying to defeat you?

Devine: I do, Chuck. I think the leadership of Washington-based groups—and it’s not just those two—are part of a political establishment here in Washington.

Don’t bother reading the comments. They’re filled with Bernie bros shrieking that the leadership of DailyKos, which supports Hillary Clinton, is also part of the “establishment.”

The other news the Bernie bros were pushing yesterday was a poll by CNN and WMUR that found Clinton trailing Sanders in New Hampshire 60% to 33%.   Sorry, but that has to be an outlier. I don’t doubt that Bernie is leading in New Hampshire, but the folks up there have a tendency to switch back and forth and makes up their minds at the last minute–sometimes as they arrive at their polling places. WBUR Boston poll independent New Hampshire voters:

WBUR Poll: Large Share Of N.H.’s Undeclared Voters Yet To Settle On A Candidate Or A Party.

A new WBUR poll out Thursday (topline, crosstabs) finds that with less than three weeks before primary day, a large share of New Hampshire’s undeclared voters have yet to make up their minds about who to vote for — or even which party to support.

New Hampshire’s undeclared voters — those who aren’t registered as Democrats or Republicans and can choose either ballot on Election Day — represent over 44 percent of the state’s voters, more than either political party. They are notoriously independent and play a crucial role in picking the winners.

“And a lot of them, about a third, still haven’t made up their mind,” said Steve Koczela, president of The MassINC Polling Group, which conducted our survey. “That to me is the thing that could still cause the biggest change.”

So 44% of the states’ voters could still affect the outcome of the primary.

Sadly for the Bernie bros, there’s a new Iowa poll out today showing Clinton leading Sanders 9 points. From TPM:

The poll showed support for Clinton at 48 percent, compared to 39 percent for Sanders. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley also registered an unusually high level of support at 7 percent.

Though substantial, Clinton’s lead is narrower than in the previous iteration of the Monmouth/KBUR Iowa poll, which showed her leading Sanders 46 percent to 32 percent.

Several major polls lately have shown Sanders leading in Iowa, and some others have put Clinton’s lead within the margin of error, suggesting a collapse in support for Clinton in a state where she previously had been in a strong position. This poll contradicts that narrative.

The Monmouth/KBUR poll, conducted by Douglas Fulmer & Associates from Jan. 18-19, surveyed 570 Democratic voters in Iowa by phone. It had a margin of error of 4.1 percentage points.

Lots can happen between now and the vote counting in Iowa and New Hampshire. In fact, CNN announced yesterday that they will hold a town hall for Democratic candidates on Monday night.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders will field questions from Iowa Democrats in this prime-time event hosted by the Iowa Democratic Party and Drake University.

“We are honored to partner with CNN on their town hall with our three fantastic Democratic candidates,” said Dr. Andy McGuire, chair of the Iowa Democratic Party. “With this event airing just one week before the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, it’s an incredible opportunity for Iowans to see our candidates detail their plans to move our country forward and their vision for Iowa and the nation.”

The town hall, which will be moderated by CNN anchor Chris Cuomo, will air from 9 p.m.-11 p.m. ET, the network announced. A CNN spokesperson added that it will make the town hall available to its Iowa affiliates to air live.

That should be really interesting! Of course we’ll be posting a live blog to discuss what happens.

Simon and Garfunkel at a benefit for George McGovern in 1972

Today the Bernie bros are all talking about Sanders’ new ad set to Simon and Garfunkle’s 1972 classic “America.” To me that’s a reminder that if Sanders were to get the nomination he’d go the way of George McGovern. But what do I know. I’m just a clueless old fogy who doesn’t want history to repeat itself this year. I only voted for George McGovern in 1972 and felt my heart break when he lost to Richard Nixon in a landslide. The networks called the election before 7PM.

Greg Sargent is one of the younger journalists who is thrilled with the new ad.

Bernie Sanders wants to be this year’s hope and change candidate.

As Iowa comes down to the wire, the parallels to the 2008 battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are striking. Clinton has reverted to a hard-boiled message about the need for experience and toughness to confront a dangerous, complicated world.

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders is increasingly sounding an optimistic, inspirational message that promises a bright, progressive future that can, and will, be secured through mobilizing the masses, particularly younger voters, a vision that Clinton surely sees (just as she saw Barack Obama’s vision) as vague, airy, and naive.

Sanders is up with this remarkable new ad in Iowa whose tagline — “a future you can believe in” — conspicuously echoes Obama’s 2008 “change you can believe in” formulation.

In a way, this ad perfectly captures Bernie Sanders’ theory of change, or at least, a version of it that has had its more pessimistic or even apocalyptic edges airbrushed away to make it easier on the eyes and ears. Hence the dulcet tones of Simon and Garfunkel’s “America,” which tells a tale of young lovers on a road trip, suffusing this ad with an odd mix of nostalgia (this song was recorded in the late 1960s, when Sanders and Clinton were both in their twenties) and idealism about the future.

The Sanders argument, to put it simply, has essentially been that America is in deep, deep trouble — it faces structural challenges so pressing and urgent, from climate change to soaring inequality, that the failure to meet them with proportionately outsize solutions risks a slow motion slide into disaster that could prove irreversible. Sanders’ message has been that the version of progressive change that we’ve seen during the Obama years — from Dodd Frank to Obamacare to the global climate deal — is basically small beer compared to the epic problems we face. That’s what makes this new ad so striking: it doesn’t detail these challenges, instead suggesting vaguely that inspiration and mobilization can secure America’s future.

That sounds kind of negative to me. He’s essentially running against Obama’s legacy. How will that go over with Iowa Democrats who overwhelming support President Obama.

Here’s something from an older and wiser journalist, Gene Lyons: In That Old Volkswagen Bus With Bernie, Rolling Toward 1972.

Unpack your old tie-dyed T-shirts, roll yourself a fat doobie, and warm up the ancient VW bus. We’re going to do Woodstock and the 1972 presidential election all over again. And this time, the hippies are going to win! Four years of peace, love, and single-payer health care.

But do take care to clear the path for Bernie Sanders. Because if he steps in something the dog left behind, he’s going to blame Wall Street and start yelling and waving his arms around.

And you know how much that upsets Republican congressmen who are otherwise so eager to oblige his plans to soak the rich and give everybody free college, free health care, free bubble-up and rainbow stew—as the old Merle Haggard song had it.

OK, so I’m being a smart-aleck. I was moved to satire by a couple of moments from last week’s Democratic and Republican presidential debates. First, Sen. Sanders, boasting about a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll that shows him beating Donald Trump by 15 points—54 to 39. Hillary Clinton tops Trump only 51-41.

Both would be huge landslides. In 1972, Richard Nixon defeated George McGovern 61-38. The Democrat won only Massachusetts.

The part Sanders left out and that Hillary was also wise enough to leave unmentioned is that the same poll shows her leading him 59 to 34 percent in the Democratic primary contest nationally. Twenty-five points.

There’s lots of other news, and I’ll add some links in the comments. What stories are you following today?