Hey John Kass: the Beltway Media Isn't Too Popular Either

He again talks about how unpopular Hillary is. This is one of the Beltway's favorite subjects.

"Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the two most disliked candidates ever to run for president of the United States."

"I don't mean perhaps. I mean really. And if they win their party nominations, it will only get worse."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-kass-0421-20160420-column.html

This is a tired meme. On the issue of likability or favorability, a few stipulations:

1. In general we are living in such a hyper partisan era that not many actual politicians have positive favorability.  When Kass gloats about Hillary's 'unlikability' the question begs: compares with who, exactly?

Today no matter who you are, you're going to have about a third of the public hate you for purely partisan reasons. At best, hopefully your own partisans love you to make up for it. Then there are the independents who seem mostly interested in proving how nonpartisan they are. 

So if they see you hated by the other side then many of them will conclude this is with good reason. For this reason, simply getting to 50 percent is a major accomplishment for a partisan figure. 

2. As for Hillary Clinton, herself, she's been in national public life for 25 years. She's had many peaks and valleys. She was very unpopular in Bill Clinton's first term but then the public started liking her out of sympathy after Monica Lewinsky. 

In 2008, despite how testy the primary with Obama got, her approval rating never got beneath 48 percent. Again, even this was a slightly less partisan time than now. In the Obama years, partisanship has simply gone through the roof-which is ironic as he ran as the first post partisan Presidential candidate. 

3. Even Kass' history may well be suspect. In 1992, Bill Clinton had some very tough favorables as well. In June he was at 14 percent-with 40 percent unfavorable. 

4. When Hillary was Secretary of State, her numbers were considerably higher than Obama's: she was at 64 percent. 

Many thought that she had to distance herself from him. This is not how it turned out. Now he is more popular than she is again. Why? In large part because now she is the partisan figure, whereas he's the lame duck President who gets to be where he is happiest: above the fray. 

As Maureen Dowd puts it: Obama loves to be above the fray, but politics is the fray. 

In this primary what is interesting is that it's the losing candidates-John Kasich and Bernie Sanders who have the better favorability. This is no accident. Neither has been attacked by the other party, which makes the independents reason that they're a-ok. 

Trump is right about Kasich. If Democrats attacked him, his numbers would sink like a stone. No way does he beat Hillary by 7 points. 

Kass is the classic kind of Beltway hack, who you can't despise enough:

"She's widely considered to be a liar, and a bad one. He's considered to be vulgar and crude. She's the American political establishment's Madame Iron PantsSuits pretending to be a progressive, with that Wall Street cash and packs of hot sauce in her purse if she's on black radio and needs to pander."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-kass-0421-20160420-column.html

Just because something is 'widely considered' doesn't make it true. The world was once widely considered flat and the sun was once widely considered to revolve around the earth. Neither were true.

If she is considered to be a liar, this is probably because empty suits like Kass keep falsely calling her a liar.

And you have to say, Kass' example just shows how shabby the media is. She lied about packing hot sauce in her purse? How does Kass know with photographic knowledge the contents of her purse?

Why are pundits like him so obsessed with anecdotes like this? It reminds you of 2000 when the media spent all their time brooding over why Al Gore said he invented the Internet-which he never said-and why Gore made an ad that looked like he was paddling a boat in deeper water than he really was.

What the Jeff Kasses of the world didn't consider important at the time was George W. Bush's deeply dishonest and destructive budget and tax cut scheme. That was boring. Better to demand to know why Al Gore went to a Buddhist temple.

The sort of 'lies' that Kass and friends focus on, is so often just totally trivial. This says something about them.

When pundits wonder how Trump happened, they ought to look in the mirror.

As for whether Hillary is dishonest, the answer is no. The idea is actually the dishonest narrative of Kass and other pundits like him.

"One basic test of a politician’s honesty is whether that person tells the truth when on the campaign trail, and by that standard Clinton does well. PolitiFact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking site, calculates that of the Clinton statements it has examined, 50 percent are either true or mostly true."

"That compares to 49 percent for Bernie Sanders’s, 9 percent for Trump’s, 22 percent for Ted Cruz’s and 52 percent for John Kasich’s. Here we have a rare metric of integrity among candidates, and it suggests that contrary to popular impressions, Clinton is relatively honest — by politician standards."

"Jill Abramson, who spent decades as a journalist either investigating Clinton or overseeing investigations of her, and who certainly isn’t soft on the Clintons, concluded in The Guardian: “Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/opinion/sunday/is-hillary-clinton-dishonest.html?_r=1

Turns out the dishonest ones are those calling her a liar. 

Where Hillary Will be for Super Tuesday Says it all

I guess we can call it Super Tuesday-there are five states voting! And the fact that she will be in Pennsylvania tells us what her internal polling shows.

"With five northeastern states set to vote simultaneously this Tuesday, the biggest delegate prize by far is Pennsylvania. It has nearly as many delegates (189) as the other four states combined (195), meaning Hillary Clinton can win the day – and essentially seal the democratic nomination – simply by cleaning up in the Keystone State. As it turns out, Clinton just made a move which tacitly confirms that she knows she’ll win the state easily."

"Candidates try to choose their primary election night speech locations carefully. They generally have to set up such events in advance of voting, and they don’t want to risk the bad optics of having to speak in a state that was just called in favor of their opponent minutes or hours earlier. For instance on the night New York voted, Hillary had already made the decision to give her speech in New York City."

"That meant that her internal polling, which is much more detailed and more frequently updated than any external polling that we get to see as voters or journalists, had already confirmed to her that she was going to win New York by a safe margin. Bernie Sanders, whose internal data almost surely told him that he was going to lose New York badly, responded accordingly by giving a speech that night in an upcoming state instead. As it turns out, Hillary has already confirmed her speaking location for this Tuesday night, and it tells us everything we need to know."

"Hillary will be spending the evening of the Pennsylvania primary giving a speech at the Philadelphia Convention Center. That means her internal data has already confirmed to her that she’ll win Pennsylvania for certain, and that she’s ahead by a big enough margin that things have no chance of swinging the other way over the next forty-eight hours. Of course Philadelphia is also the location of this summer’s Democratic National Convention, so Tuesday night’s speech will allow her to symbolically pivot toward the general election."

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/hillary-clinton-campaign-just-confirmed-pennsylvania-is-a-lock-for-her/24575/

It should be a great night. 

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/04/according-to-benchmark-politics-next.html

With Jeff Weaver, Joy Reid Goes There: Bernie Winning Only White Caucus States

I love me some Joy Reid. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/23/msnbcs_joy_reid_vs_sanders_campaigns_jeff_weaver_you_only_win_white_voters_and_white_caucuses.html

She really called Jeff Weaver out here. Bernie has suggested now that he admits that he needs to win the majority of pledged delegates and votes or he doesn't win the nomination. But he also tried to add that general election polls should be factored in.

Weaver also hit that tired idea. Even Trump gets the fallacy of these general election polls. I don't believe for one second that Hillary loses to Kasich by 7 points.

"As soon as John Kasich is hit with negative ads, he will drop like a rock in the polls against Crooked Hillary Clinton. I will win!"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/724052308661772288

He's not going to beat Hillary. But it's true that Kasich's numbers will sink once Democrats started attacking him as Bernie's numbers would once the GOP started hitting him.

You have to remember as well that many independents are what you call 'negative partisans'-they dislike partisanship.

It's for this reason that if any of the general election polls are worth looking at, it's straight up Hillary vs. Trump. If Bernie or Kasich were the nominee, their numbers would both sink.

Anyway, it was great seeing Joy call out the Hillary hating Weaver who also tried to suggest Hillary has to reach 2383 on pledged delegates alone. Wrong Mr. Weaver.

She needs 2383 in total delegates. No Dem primary has ever made you reach the target number with pledge delegates alone. This is a new standard that Weaver has cooked up on his own.

At this point Hillary has 1941 total delegates, but there are 199 still outstanding SDs, the majority of which will go to her. Say she gets 180 of them: this means she has more like 2121 delegates. This actually means she's more like 90 percent of the way there.

Indeed, after Tuesday, you will likely see a decent portion of the 199 trickle over to her. After she won NY, 44 more SDs joined her.

On Tuesday she seems to have a good shot at getting around 220 more pledged delegates. So adding that to her 2121 delegates she realistically has-simply awarding her the SDs now that will come to her soon-and she's up to around 2341 in delegates after Tuesday.

That is just 42 short of 2383. That's before the May states, and the big June 7 primary in California and New Jersey.

It's now looking like she may even win Indiana on May 3 which is worth 83 total delegates. She could then win over 50 percent of those for around 43 delegates or so. This could put her very close to 2383.

That's on May 3. Of course, we don't know how many of the 199 undeclared SDs declare themselves for her by then-so the numbers may not reflect that yet. Though after Tuesday I think you will see a decent number feel that it's safe to come her way on a day where she may well win 4 of 5 of 5 of 5 states.

But even if the numbers don't quite show it yet, in truth she will probably be very close to 2383 after the May Indiana primary-even if she loses by a few points rather than wins by a few.

I think there's something in this DailyNewsBin post.

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/how-many-votes-does-hillary-gain-by-telling-bernie-to-piss-off/24578/

I half agree. She doesn't really need the Berners in November. In saying that, remember, my definition of Berners doesn't cover all who voted for Bernie Sanders.

I've spoken to friends who voted for Bernie who always vote Democrat and who will vote for Hillary Clinton if she's the nominee-and now we know she will be the nominee.

Still, she may be smart in not telling him to get out now. That's for friends of her like me and DailyNewsBin to do!

She can take the high road and say that she ran till the end in 2008 and he should too. But that doesn't stop us, her supporters, from grumbling that the sooner he gets out the better!

Truth is, he probably will run till June 7, though as the math I did above shows, she will probably in truth have 2383 before then.

Frustrated Hillary Hating Camilla Paglia Psychoanalyzes Hillary Supporters

Hillary hating anti-feminist Camille Paglia is besides herself now that it's' clear that Hillary is going to be the nominee.

"Enough with the Hillary cult: Her admirers ignore reality, dream of worshipping a queen
Clinton voters overlook money lust, shadowy surrogates, sociopathic policy shifts, horrific overseas record. Why?"

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/21/enough_with_the_hillary_cult_her_admirers_ignore_reality_dream_of_worshipping_a_queen/

"Yes. We have some sort of neurosis that makes us want to worship a queen. So does Paglia and her Berners want to worship a king? In our entire history we've voted for 42 Presidents. All have been male. Why not psychoanalyze all these votes for male Presidents?"

"What is it with the Hillary cult?"

"As a lifelong Democrat who will be enthusiastically voting for Bernie Sanders in next week’s Pennsylvania primary, I have trouble understanding the fuzzy rosy filter through which Hillary fans see their champion. So much must be overlooked or discounted—from Hillary’s compulsive money-lust and her brazen indifference to normal rules to her conspiratorial use of shadowy surrogates and her sociopathic shape-shifting in policy positions for momentary expedience."

Paglia will vote for Bernie in Pennsylvania but she will be in the minority. A new poll has Hillary up by 15 in PA.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/poll-trump-clinton-poised-for-victory-in-pennsylvania-222348

This is within line of the averages that show her up by 16.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary-4249.html

According to Benchmark Politics-which has been very accurate-they expect her to win 55-45.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/04/according-to-benchmark-politics-next.html

This is based on demographics and benchmarks. They do also hold open the possibility that her big NY win might positively raise the margin. You had that 27 point poll from F&M last Thursday. Today's 15 point margin from Maris is again higher than what we were seeing a week ago.

Still, I'd go with BM to be cautious. But, the fact is, Paglia's state is not Feeling the Bern either, it's Climbing the Hil.

I'm sure Paglia voting for Bernie will hurt Hillary as much as Paglia's vote for Jill Stein in 2012 hurt President Obama.

"So much must be overlooked or discounted—from Hillary’s compulsive money-lust and her brazen indifference to normal rules to her conspiratorial use of shadowy surrogates and her sociopathic shape-shifting in policy positions for momentary expedience."

Why is she not allowed to make money? When did Paglia become a socialist? She didn't used to be. I guess the fear of a female POTUS is that strong. Maybe she should move to another country that won't have a female POTUS.

She is not indifferent to normal rules. In truth, the Beltway press full of Hilary haters like Ms. Paglia hold her to absurdly different rules than anyone else. For instance, Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice both used private email while at State. Yet this has generated absolutely no feeding frenzy.

No other candidate has been asked to release their paid speeches either.

Paglia then sinks into catty agesist attacks on Hillary. As if Bernie's health isn't a bigger concern. Being that he's a male candidate, Paglia doesn't worry about it.

"Hillary’s breathtaking lack of concrete achievements or even minimal initiatives over her long public career doesn’t faze her admirers a whit. They have a religious conviction of her essential goodness and blame her blank track record on diabolical sexist obstructionists. When at last week’s debate Hillary crassly blamed President Obama for the disastrous Libyan incursion that she had pushed him into, her acolytes hardly noticed. They don’t give a damn about international affairs—all that matters is transgender bathrooms and instant access to abortion."

Now Paglia is defending Obama. In 2012, she voted against him. Regarding foreign affairs, Bernie sure is impressive.

1. He doesn't like Kissinger

2. He didn't vote for the Iraq War

3. He differs with President Obama in that he wants to use drones without collateral damage. Obama prefers drones with collateral damage.

Give it up Ms. Paglia. Hillary is going to be President despite your Maureen Dowdlike aversion to her. Again, there are lots of countries with male Presidents and Prime Ministers.

P.S. When of Paglia's colleagues at the capitalism hating Salon has a piece that celebrates that while Bernie won't win the nomination he has made it cool to hate capitalism.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/24/bernies_greatest_legacy_suddenly_its_ok_to_question_capitalism/

Maybe Paglia can hand with the other frustrated Marxists and cry in her beer. 

Bernie Surrogate Rosario Dawson Evokes Monica Lewinsky

Donald Trump said on Thursday that he loves Bernie staying in the race and he loves Bernie attacking Hillary's judgement, etc. No kidding.

Al Sharpton expressed concern on PoliticsNation about Bernie's negative slashing tone towards Hillary this morning.

I'm sure Trump really loved Dawson's outrageous evoking of Monica Lewinsky last night.

"At @BernieSanders' 2nd rally of the day, @rosariodawson makes some intro comments: "I’m with Monica Lewinsky on this: bullying is bad."

https://twitter.com/ElizLanders/status/723969464585342978

Interesting, as in making these comments, Ms. Dawson herself is engaging in bullying. She is taunting Hillary Clinton over something she as a woman, as the wife of Bill Clinton, was victimized by.

It's a mode of blaming the victim. Trump must love that one.

"Worth noting: Sanders said in Jan that he won't bring up Lewinsky because he wasn't "running against Bill Clinton."

https://twitter.com/danmericaCNN/status/724000260570382336

Who is Bernie's next surrogate? Ken Starr?

As usual, Bernie is doing a lot of whining. The Democratic Establshment has been 'unfair' to him. He doesn't know what unfair is. He should watch Hillary's' Benghazi testimony to see what unfair looks like.

Bernie Sanders says the Democratic Party hasn't been fair to him — but he has mixed feelings on the nominating process overall.

"Do you think this process has been fair to you? The Democratic nomination process?" moderator Chuck Todd asked the Vermont senator in an interview filmed Saturday in Baltimore and aired Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"Yes and no," Sanders said, going on to criticize the role of the media for neglecting to focus on "real issues facing America." The media, he said, emphasizes "political gossip" rather than "issues that affect working people."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-democratic-party-fairness-222355#ixzz46kf95bBx

"Sounds like Bernie wants the media to take his side. When he gives his stump speech, the media is supposed to come in and say 'Bernie is 100% right.'

So it sounds like the party, though, you feel like's been fair to you?" Todd asked Sanders.

"No," Sanders responded. "I think we have— look, we're taking on the establishment. That's pretty clear."

"Pointing to the Democratic debate schedule, of which three of the first four took place on weekend nights, Sanders said they were "scheduled — pretty clearly, to my mind, at a time when there would be minimal viewing audience— et cetera, et cetera."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-democratic-party-fairness-222355#ixzz46kgQjN5Z

Give me a break. This debate schedule thing again? Later on in the primary the GOP had some Saturday night debates and there was nary a complaint. By the latest Dem debate in Brooklyn, most folks on Twitter seemed to be rather burned out with all the debates. 

Few feel we haven't had enough debates by now. 

One other curiosity from the Bern:

"There is "almost the question as to why" cigarettes are legal in the United States, Bernie Sanders said in an interview aired Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"The remark came as Sanders explained his opposition to a proposed tax on sugary drinks in Philadelphia, which would fund pre-kindergarten education, reiterating that it is a "totally regressive tax" that results in poorer people paying even more in taxes if they buy a bottle of soda."

"When moderator Chuck Todd asked him if he felt the same way about cigarette taxes, Sanders said he did not."

"Cigarette taxes are — there's a difference between cigarettes and soda," the Vermont senator said. "I am aware of the obesity problem in this country."

"Todd replied, "I don't think Michael Bloomberg would agree with you on that one," referring to the former New York mayor's infamous effort to limit the size of sugary drinks sold in the city. (The state's highest court in 2014 ruled that the city had overstepped its regulatory bounds by implementing the rule.)"

"Well, that's fine. He can have his point of view," Sanders said. "But cigarettes are causing cancer, obviously, and a dozen other diseases. And there is almost the question as to why it remains a legal product in this country."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/bernie-sanders-cigarettes-222351#ixzz46ki8WxpO

1. So he's opposed to a tax on sugary drinks as they hurt the poor.

2. He thinks cigarettes maybe should be banned.

3. Yet he is for the legalization of pot.

Mood affiliation is a strange thing. Because cigarettes are legal, emoprogs despise it as it's big money for corporations. But as pot is illegal they think it's cool and want it legalized.

An interesting counterfactual: how would they feel if cigarettes had been banned all this years while pot were legal? Then there would be a Phillip Morris of marijuana who'd they'd probably want to arrest for war crimes.

Alcohol has all sorts of negative health risks-has Bernie heard of cirrhosis of the liver? Why not make that illegal? I guess we tried that and it didn't work so well.

President Obama Calls Out Brexit

The President while in Britain late this week, writes an editorial that pours cold water on Brexit

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/21/as-your-friend-let-me-tell-you-that-the-eu-makes-britain-even-gr/

This drew him criticism from some:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/04/22/mr-obamas-catchphrase-is-yes-you-can---so-why-is-he-telling-us-b/

Charles Moore and other on the Right seem to think the President doesn't have the right to even have a point of view on a British question. Ambrose Pritchard disagrees:

"Proud to have POTUS in our pages today. Obama entirely entitled to point of view on EU and European strategic order."

https://twitter.com/AmbroseEP/status/723449323820736513

"The reason those for Brexit didn't want Obama to voice an opinion is that it totally undercuts the whole premise for Brexit. The whole case for Brexit is that Britain will lose nothing in trade and prestige by leaving-it can pick up the slack by forming a new Anglophone allaince with the US and other English speaking countries."

But Obama comes and warns: 

"Brexit would put UK 'back of the queue' for trade talks."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks

"America, he told his British audience – hence his use of “queue”, not “line” – likes the fact that Britain is already married: it works out really well for all three parties involved. His message was unambiguous. Don’t rush into a hasty divorce because you think we’re waiting for you with open arms. We’re not."

"At a stroke, he had crushed not only a core part of the leavers’ economic argument – that it’ll be a breeze for Britain to exit the EU and trade just as prosperously as a solo nation – but something bigger: the notion that a brighter, non-European future beckons. Obama burst that bubble."

"He also explained that of course he had the right to speak, despite Brexiteer Liam Fox’s letter signed by 100 MPs urging him to stay out of the EU debate. As Obama put it, since the leavers are offering “an opinion about what the US is going to do, I thought you might want to hear an opinion from the president of the United States on what the US is going to do”. And the opinion he gave was devastating."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-crush-brexit-fantasy-eu-referendum

Some Brexiters grasped at straws dismissing these comments as coming from a lame duck.

However, here is what Hillary Clinton, by far his most likely successor,

https://electionbettingodds.com/week.html

has to say:

"After Barack Obama used his farewell trip to the UK as president to make the economic and security arguments for membership, Clinton, who is the favourite to win the Democratic nomination in July and become the first female US president, makes clear that if she enters the White House she will want the UK to be fully engaged, and leading the debate, within the EU."

"In a statement to the Observer, her senior policy adviser, Jake Sullivan, said: “Hillary Clinton believes that transatlantic cooperation is essential, and that cooperation is strongest when Europe is united. She has always valued a strong United Kingdom in a strong EU. And she values a strong British voice in the EU.” Sources close to the former secretary of state’s campaign said she stood fully behind Obama’s opposition to Brexit, which the president said on Friday would not only undermine the international institutions, including the EU, that had bound nations closer together since 1945, but would also mean the UK being at “the back of the queue” when negotiating new trade deals."

"Obama’s remarks drew angry responses from leading figures in the Leave campaign, including the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who questioned the president’s right to intervene. Leading backers of Brexit also tried to dismiss Obama’s view as that of a “lame duck president” soon to be out of office."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/23/hillary-clinton-britain-should-stay-in-eu

That kind of throws cold water on the idea that Obama's' point of view is just that of a lame duck. It suggests this is going to be the US point of view for a long time to come. Unless, Donald Trump is the next US President.

"The Conservative MP Damian Green, a board member of the Britain Stronger InEurope campaign and the chairman of European Mainstream, said: “This shows how misleading it is to say this is just the view of a president in his last days in office. It confirms that mainstream political opinion in the United States is in favour of Britain remaining in the EU, and that the transatlantic values that we share with the US are expressed most strongly in Europe by a fully engaged Britain.”

"A No 10 source said: “Not only do you have the serving US president setting out why the UK is better off staying in the EU, but now those who aspire to be president too. Hillary Clinton worked with the UK as secretary of state for a number of years and saw first hand how the UK’s influence was magnified by the role we played in the EU. When you face a big decision in life, most people listen to their friends, and we disregard such advice at our peril.”

Maybe the Brexit folks should bank on a President Trump

"The Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump has not offered a view on whether he thinks the UK should stay in or leave the EU, although he has said he believes there is a good chance the British people will vote for Brexit, partly because of their unhappiness with levels of immigration."

So Hillary Clinton and President Obama for staying in the EU and Trump for Brexit. Brits, you have your choices.

Indeed, they kind of sound like Trump.

On refugees they agree with Trump. One big reason they are giving for Brexit is to stop the flow of Syrian refugees.

Some even go Birther on the President.

"Hence the Brexiteers’ fury. They know how badly Obama’s words undermine their case, especially after what has been a week from hell for the out campaign. One that ended in the absurdity of a Ukip MEP, Mike Hookem, lurching into full-bore anti-Americanism, winding the clock back to 1939 to argue that the US had it in for us even then, seeing the second world war as a way of “smashing the UK’s influence in the world”. When a party defined by its loathing of the EU finds itself attacking the US, you know things have gone awry."

"The same is true of Boris Johnson’s Sun screed, which dipped into Donald Trump’s Bumper Book of Political Wisdom to suggest that the “half-Kenyan” president cannot be trusted because he is filled with “ancestral” loathing of Britain."

"What an interesting choice of word that “ancestral” was. Not “post-colonial”, which would have located this supposed antipathy in the 20th century, but “ancestral” to be run alongside “half-Kenyan”. It was a reminder of the brilliant slapdown Obama once issued to Trump, when the tycoon was demanding to see Obama’s birth certificate. From the podium at the 2011 White House correspondents’ dinner, Obama said he could go one better and show his birth video. He promptly played a clip from the Lion King, of Simba the newborn cub held aloft – as graceful a way of calling out a racist as one can imagine."
This has always been a problem for the British. They never wanted to be part of the EU anyway. They wanted to be part of some sort of Anglophone transatlantic alliance. But the US was not that into them then. We told the British to play and have a good time with its European playmates.

And isn't that into them now, either.

Hillary Team Putting Together VP List for Vetting

Interesting piece that looks at her possible picks.

"While the nomination fight is still fluid, Hillary Clinton is confident enough of victory that she has described a vision of a running mate and objectives for the search, according to campaign advisers and more than a dozen Democrats close to the campaign or the Clintons.

"She does not have a front-runner in mind, they said, but she is intrigued by several contenders and scenarios."

"Among the names under discussion by Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and campaign advisers: Sens. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, former governors from the key state of Virginia; Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who represents both a more liberal wing of the party and a swing state; former Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, a prominent African-American Democrat; and Thomas E. Perez, President Barack Obama’s labor secretary and a Hispanic civil rights lawyer."

"But Hillary Clinton is also open to a woman, campaign advisers said. One obvious possibility is Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who is hugely popular among progressive Democrats, though she has not been helpful to Clinton’s campaign, declining to endorse the former secretary of state."

"Still, Warren has not been ruled out, according to the campaign advisers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the confidential search process."

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/04/23/clinton/w7kU7j2HqgD6JTH2Abo9EL/story.html?s_campaign=bostonglobe%3Asocialflow%3Atwitter

It seems to me that Warren is unlikely for a couple of reasons:

1. Hillary is saying publicly she's open to a woman and probably wants to at least be able to say she vetted a female candidate. But my guess is ultimately they'll decide she is making enough history herself to need an all female ticket. The idea is usually to balance out the ticket-though, to be sure, Al Gore, who's choice Hil had a lot to do with, was a kind of double down, another Southern moderate to go with Bill. 

2. Warren is too ideological. In the VP you need someone who understands that they're public position now has to be the President's position. I just feel like Warren believes so strongly in her tough on Wall St. banks message, she'd have a hard time biting her tongue if there was something she disagreed with the Administration on. 

As for Deval Patrick, the trouble with him is he was fairly cool to her throughout the primary. He didn't endorse her or really say much of anything particularly positive about her. 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/darrensands/deval-patrick-the-man-who-isnt-running-for-president#.ljKJ07OD1

Overall it seems to me she wants someone who checks at least one of these two boxes in terms of balancing out her ticket:

1. Ideally, she wants someone who adds to the diversity of the ticket. She is making history as the first female POTUS. Still as an older white person she would benefit from having a younger person of color to balance the ticket out. In this vein, Julian Castro and Thomas Perez are both excellent picks. 

2. If she has a white male, then she wants to find someone who has a liberal reputation, someone liked by the progressives. Sherrod Brown or Timothy Kaine. 

In addition, she wants someone younger, I strongly believe. 

Hillary herself has these concerns:

"Clinton has offered general guidance as her team begins the search: She cares less about ideological and personal compatibility than about picking a winner, someone who can dominate the vice-presidential debate and convince Americans that Clinton is their best choice."

"She also wants a partner who is unquestionably qualified for the presidency and would help create the strongest contrast with the Republican ticket, which could be dogged by questions about Donald Trump’s fitness for the presidency or Sen. Ted Cruz’s unbending conservatism, according to those interviewed. And she wants someone who could be an effective attack dog against either candidate."

Makes sense, though this might mitigate against Castro or Perez.

"Advisers to Clinton said she was in the unique position of having firsthand expertise at the vetting and selection process: She was deeply involved in Bill Clinton’s search in 1992 that resulted in the selection of Al Gore, then a senator from Tennessee, with whom she later clashed at times. She supported Bill Clinton putting another young Southern moderate on the ticket, which was seen as a bold choice at the time — and which her advisers point to as evidence that she may be unconventional if she is nominated."

"Her experience with Gore colors her perspective in two ways, according to Democrats who have spoken to her about the vice presidency."

"She knows that if she chooses a younger and ambitious vice president, she will have someone by her side who may be making calculations with an eye toward running for the presidency in 2024. The past two vice presidents, Joe Biden and Dick Cheney, were widely seen as devoted to their jobs; they appreciated and sought power, but given their ages, they were not determined to seek their bosses’ job in the future. Clinton, 68, likes that fact, Democrats say, and has to decide if she wants a rising star or a seasoned hand who is not interested in the presidency, like Bill Nelson, 73, a senator from another key state, Florida."

I have to say that of any of the names I've heard, Bill Nelson is the one name I don't like. He balances her out in no way, either ideologically, in terms of diversity, or even age as he's older than her.

My sense is that she needs someone considerably younger. To nominate a white male older than herself who doesn't exactly have the image of a progressive I think would be a mistake.

I agree she doesn't need to cater to the progressives but Bill Nelson is someone they'd absolutely hate. There's a big difference between catering and nominating someone they don't hate. What is Nelson most known for?

The Cornhusker Kickback in ACA.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/82621-obama-healthcare-plan-nixes-ben-nelsons-cornhusker-kickback-deal

I didn't think there was anything wrong with what Nelson did-we've come to rue the elimination of all earmarks, etc, as it's just slowed down the wheels of governance to an absolute crawl.

Still, Hillary hardly needs a VP candidate for which her team will immediately have to start defending. You want someone to create positive buzz. I don't see how Nelson does that. She doesn't need him to win Florida.

As for experience, remember, she's in the opposite position of Obama in 2008 or George W. Bush in 2000. Both of them suffered from concerns that they were not up to the job, were not ready, didn't have the experience and gravitas. Both were relatively young and brand new to Washington.

They needed old hands to assure the public that they would be ready on day one. Hillary has the opposite problem: she is the old hand. So she could use someone who is an infusion of youth, etc.

But I'm not sure how much a Julian Castro would be a good attack dog-he might be. I don't know enough about him to know if he will or not. 

Yglesias makes a decent case for Tim Kaine.

"I'd give pretty heavy odds to Tim Kaine."

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/723879686774857729

"Kaine is experienced but not old, in the party mainstream, speaks Spanish well, from a key state, & doesn't hand the GOP a Senate seat."

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/723879686774857729

All of this is true. I just wish Kaine were Hispanic, to be honest. If he were, he'd literally be the perfect candidate, as I believe he has a decent reputation as a liberal. At least he speaks Spanish...

P.S. This Daily KOS piece from a year ago talked up Kaine. Though it said he is seen by some as dull and uninspiring and not a good attack dog. 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/4/11/1377100/-Tim-Kaine-for-veep-in-2016-A-safe-choice-The-safest-choice

If that's the case, then why not go with Julian Castro or Thomas Perez?








https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/723880029231439872