On Bernie Maniacs Boasting About the Money He's Raised

My first reaction is Gee, I thought he was going to get money out of politics. No more dirty money. 

I don't mind him raising some cash but why be so self-righteous about it?

The reality is that we Democrats oppose the Post Citizen's United world but we still have to play by its rules-for now.

Now in a few years after Hillary is President and she appoints a few liberal Supreme Court Justices we may see this world change markedly. But for now you have to raise money.

As Bernie rightfully is as well.

Now I know some Bernie Maniac will come running in and chirp But Bernie doesn't use a Super PAC which proves he's an angel while she's a Wall St. devil.

But Bernie doesn't have to deal with the level of attacks that Bernie does. While Bernie fans claim that he hasn't been treated fairly by the press this is dead wrong.

Political scientist John Sides:

"In the case of Sanders and Clinton, I don’t think the volume of coverage reflects a problematic bias. Surely dominant candidates don’t deserve all the news coverage. But I don’t think that the volume of Sanders coverage has been “too low” — especially given his likely chances of winning the Democratic nomination — currently, 12 percent in the prediction markets. Indeed, if anything, you could make the case for the opposite: that Sanders is getting more coverage than he “should” based on his chances of winning, perhaps because the media’s framing the Democratic race as competitive makes it more interesting to readers."

"(You might also ask: Should media coverage even be indexed to the candidate’s changes of winning? That’s another blog post, probably. But I think the answer is yes.)"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/09/23/is-the-media-biased-against-bernie-sanders-not-really/

So Bernie is getting his fair share of coverage-arguably a little bit more.

Now when you move from volume of coverage to tone, it's obvious that Hillary has gotten just brutal coverage for three months while Bernie has gotten very little negative coverage at all.

He has suffered no negative scrutiny whatsoever, while she has suffered relentless slings and arrows. So she needs a Super PAC as he doesn't-as there are so many Right wing Super PACs out to get her-Citizen's United itself is who is driving the Emailgate scandal with its FOIA lawsuits.

There are literally 17 different FOIA cases with 18 different judges led by Right wing legal groups trying to troll her emails. 

It's easy for him to preach unilateral disarmament-the missles aren't pointed at him. 

However, there is another thought about Bernie Manaics' boasts about money. 

"All told, Clinton, the former secretary of state, raised $28 million between July and September of this year, a haul that her campaign called the “largest off-year third quarter for a non-incumbent.” That figure falls short of the $47.5 million she raised in the preceding three months, though it still puts her on track to reach her campaign's goal of $100 million goal for the year."

"Sanders was right behind her. According to a campaign aide, the senator is on track to raise over $25 million during the third quarter. Early reports put that figure at $24 million, but the aide explained that the campaign was experiencing its best fundraising day of the cycle on Wednesday, helping to stuff its coffers even more."

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/huffington-post-is-becoming-anti.html

The real story is less how much Bernie made-he want up from $15 million in the second to $24 million in the third-the Bernie Maniacs are trying to inflate the numbers further by including money Bernie claims he has raised the last day. 

But you'd have to know how much she made the last day to include that. 

Hillary's donations did come down a little in the quarter. Is this cause for concern?

I definitely would not say it's Time to wet the bed-that was the Obama's campaign slogan: No bed-wetting and Hillary supporters should do the same. 

The media and GOP want us to wet the bed-ie, panic. Is it possible that some Democrats reduced their donations in the last quarter out of worry over Emailgate? Are they taking the bait and looking at Biden as some savior?

That'd be absurd. Biden is a terrible Presidential candidate. I love the man and he's been a great partner to the President but those who think he's better than Hillary seem to forget that he lasted seconds against her and the President in 2008. 

On the other hand maybe even some diehard Hillary supporters like me and you have been too complacent. 

I'm hardly a rich guy but I donated a little to her before. But I myself haven't felt like I can donate too much for now-I did my bit I figured and in a few months when I'm more comfortable I'd do more. 

Besides, I figured she is a big shot and will get plenty of donations from rich Hillary donors. But I see this as a wakeup call. After reading some Bernie Maniacs bragging they have donated but will donate more I made another donation-not huge, but $50. 

She needs our help folks and those who can afford it shouldn't assume she doesn't need it.