;)
The Commentariat -- February 5, 2016
Whiteout. We're having quite a little winter wonderland moment today. If history provides any lesson, I may lose power. For a while. -- Constant Weader
Presidential Race
Michael Memoli of the Los Angeles Times: "A long-simmering battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders burst into public view Thursday, as the former secretary of State denounced her rival for what she said was a campaign of 'innuendo' and 'insinuation' amid a continuing fight over each other's progressive credentials. The first one-on-one debate between the Democratic presidential hopefuls delivered fireworks immediately, as Clinton delivered a spirited rebuke to the charge Sanders has been making on the campaign trail that she is not a genuine progressive." ...
... Here's the first half-hour of the debate, which might be titled "Democrats Yelling at Each Other":
... Eric Levitz of New York thought it was boffo: "One of the Best 10-Minute Exchanges in The History of American Political Debates." CW: That part of the debate, at the end of the clip above (beginning about 26 min. in), was fewer than ten minutes. ...
... Within his column Levitz notes what Jordan Weissman of Slate (and others) have pointed out: "Hillary Just Successfully Attacked Bernie Sanders for Supporting a Bill Her Husband Signed." Bill Clinton has later said his support of the bill -- "the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, a bill that essentially banned the government from regulating derivatives, such as the credit default swaps that helped bring down the global economy during the financial crisis" -- was a mistake.
... MSNBC has a highlights page here. Full debate video, of the pirated sort, is here, for now. ...
... The Washington Post has an interactive annotated transcript, which includes some snark & fact-checking. ...
... David Graham of the Atlantic has a good -- and I think fair -- overview of the debate. The "Who Won?" headline sucks, but Graham isn't very interested in pursuing it. He concludes, "Sanders entered with momentum and did nothing to lose it, meaning he probably gains more from the debate -- but it's hard to make a case that Clinton lost the debate. The big winner from the night might be the American people: After months of overcrowded debates, the chance to see just two serious presidential candidates engage each other was a valuable and refreshing change of pace." Graham's analysis is followed by a fairly useful liveblog of the debate by other Atlantic writers." ...
... Jonathan Chait thinks he has a handle on the essential difference between Clinton's & Sanders' views. CW: I think he's close, but he may be painting Sanders as too much of a one-note candidate while giving Clinton a bit too much credit for a sort of enlightened pluralism, and that may be Sanders' fault as much as Chait's. ...
... Greg Sargent expands on Chait's argument. ...
... Jamelle Bouie: "The big takeaway from the MSNBC debate is that the DNC should have held more debates.... "On the main, anyone who watched the debate had a chance to see two politicians and public servants argue for their vision of the country and its future. This was a real contrast to the Republican debates, which tend to focus less on policy and more on dominance displays (Trump versus Bush, for example) and outright aggression (Cruz on carpet bombing)." ...
... CW: Josh Voorhees of Slate comments on Hillary's claim that she couldn't possibly be an establishment candidate because she's "a woman running to be the first woman president." Voohees misses the point: Clinton did this in 2008, not in 2015 or '16. And her husband helped, a lot. During my lifetime, ante-Clinton, every American president except FDR (who as undersecretary of the Navy attempted to enlist) was a veteran (yeah, even Reagan, sort of). Bill Clinton broke that mold, & not without controversy. But his successful run provided a huge opening to women, few of whom served in the military until recently. Today, even most Republicans & other traditionalists at least pretend that women are as qualified as men to serve as president. Hillary was the trailblazer who establish women's credibility in her first run for president. She deserves full credit for it. But it doesn't make her any less a member of the "establishment" today because -- thanks to her -- there is no longer much of a crusty old counter-revolutionary movement to insist she stay home & bake cookies. (Anyone who wants to cite Bob Woodward's complaint that Clinton has an "unrelaxed" delivery [see Amy Chozick's report on shouting, linked below] as evidence to the contrary would be justified. Woodward is indeed a vestige of the good ole days when women knew their place.) ...
... Elizabeth Bruenig of the New Republic: "Like her 9/11 answer in November, her new strategy on Thursday night to downplay her relationship with Goldman Sachs and to win trust for her plans for Wall Street regulation will likely fail, if not backfire. And despite her insistence that she stridently agrees with Sanders on how to address Wall Street, the two differ in both tone and tactics, something voters aren't likely to miss. Lastly, this particular effort at wrapping up the Wall Street question on Clinton's behalf has the potential to call her opposition to Citizens United into question, given her claim that money in politics shouldn't necessarily be read as a corruption threat." ...
... CW: To me, the Clintons' Wall Street connections are only part of the point. The objections to Bill & Hillary's profiteering should extend to all the corporate entities (here & abroad) who have paid the Clintons. Here's the list of paid speeches Hillary Clinton reported from 2013 to 2015. Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge: "... the disclosure omits an unknown number of speeches that the Clintons delivered while directing the payment or honoraria to the Clinton Foundation, despite instructions on the and guidance from the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, saying that honoraria directed to a charity should be reported. Still, as readers will note, even the 'modest' data that Hillary chose to share is quite stunning." Durden also appended a list of Bill Clinton's speeches during the period. ...
... Amy Chozik of the New York Times seems to do a fair job of reprising Hillary Clinton's relationship with Wall Street. She puts 2008 Clinton to the left of 2008 Obama. (And I would say to later Obama.)
... Steven Cohen of the New Republic: "Bernie Sanders can do better on foreign policy than bringing up Hillary Clinton's Iraq War vote." Cohen points to a moment in the debate which he says contrasts the candidates' basic differences on U.S. foreign policy: "Sanders, in other words, is primarily concerned with proliferation and the possibility of war, while Clinton is preoccupied with a more traditional understanding of American hegemony, and the great power rivalries it implies.... It would be nice if [Sanders] could find a more compelling way of conveying that." ...
... MSNBC is airing a debate at 9:00 pm ET Thursday night, in Durham, New Hamshire, between Bernie Sanders & Hillary Clinton. The New York Times is liveblogging the debate. The Washington Post liveblog is entertaining.
Nia-Malika Henderson of CNN: "Ben Jealous, the former head of the NAACP, will endorse Bernie Sanders, a source familiar with the campaign told CNN." ...
... Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post on why the kids feel the Bern: "... millennials actually seem to prefer socialism to capitalism.... It's not just Sanders's socialist label that sells; it's his socialist ideas, too. To a generation that's broke, in debt, underemployed and stuck in its parents' basements, promises of a political revolution, more equitable distribution of (other people's) wealth, a more robust social safety net and free college can sound pretty appealing.... It is precisely Sanders's au-naturel-ness that endears him to his young fans: his unkempt hair, his ill-fitting suits, his unpolished Brooklyn accent, his propensity to yell and wave his hands maniacally.... These qualities are what make him seem 'authentic,' 'sincere' even -- especially when contrasted with Clinton's hyper-scriptedness." Rampell says female candidates can't get away with unkempt authenticity. ...
... Or Shouting. Amy Chozick: Critics are criticizing critics of Hillary Clinton's "shouting" voice. CW: I've got news for women & men: shouting is offputting. It bugs me when Bernie shouts; it bugs me when Hillary shouts. It doesn't bug me when Trump or Cruz shouts because I never listen to them anyway. What with the new invention of microphones, it is possible to speak with force & passion without raising one's voice. Neither Angry Hillary nor Angry Bernie is an attractive general election candidate. "Undecided" voters are weighing whether they want a candidate in their living rooms for four years. They don't want a shouter. ...
... Update: I've been listening to some of the debate. Both candidates have shouted every word. Why? They're responding to questions posed by people who are not yelling at them. Are they called "moderators" because they don't holler?
Burgess Everett of Politico: "The number of Democratic senators willing to insert themselves in the increasingly divisive contest for the Democratic contest remains slim despite the fact that 39 of the caucus's 46 members have endorsed Clinton. But it is growing."
Outrageous Fortune. Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News: Hillary "Clinton has been fueled by millions from a network of well-connected Washington lobbyists, Wall Street bundlers and billionaire donors. Here is a Yahoo News guide to some of the key players in Clinton's $157 million campaign."
... Karen DeYoung & Greg Miller of the Washington Post: "Hillary Clinton gained an apparent ally Thursday in her fight to limit the political damage from her growing email controversy, as former Republican secretary of state Colin L. Powell said he disagreed with a State Department decision to retroactively classify two emails from his personal account while in office.... Powell has said in the past that he found the State Department computer system, including Internet and email, to be woefully inadequate when he took office there in 2001. He devoted substantial resources to improving it but also made liberal use of his personal AOL account." ...
... Hillary Clinton has another ally who hasn't formally endorsed her (and won't): Paul Krugman. Today's column is Krugman's third in fewer weeks unloading on Bernie Sanders. Krugman starts by slamming Ted Cruz, but he quickly switches to Sanders.
... James Hohmann of the Washington Post on Hillary Clinton's "flip" answer to Anderson Cooper's question about her well-paid Wall Street speeches. "The most problematic part of her answer came when she insisted something that is demonstrably untrue: 'They're not giving me very much money now, I can tell you that much. Fine with me.'... The latest FEC reports reveal that Hillary reached a major milestone during the fourth quarter of 2015: Donors in the financial sector have now given more to support her campaigns than Bill's." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Nick Corasaniti of the New York Times: "ABC News made the Republican primary in New Hampshire a single-debate show in a news release on Thursday, and [Carly] Fiorina, who did not meet ABC's polling requirements, was not added. Donald J. Trump will again find himself at the center of the podium on Saturday, making his return to the debate stage after skipping the last debate in Iowa because of a feud with Fox News. On either side of him will be Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida. Rounding out the stage will be Jeb Bush, Gov. John R. Kasich of Ohio, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Ben Carson. Republican candidates past and present had been arguing for Mrs. Fiorina to make the stage." CW: Because they're feminists.
Arturo Garcia of Raw Story: "Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-TX) campaign called precinct chairs in Iowa to encourage them to misrepresent Ben Carson's campaign status, Breitbart News reported. A precinct captain supporting the senator, who identified herself as Nancy Bliesman, produced two voicemails she received from the campaign telling her to tell Carson supporters he was leaving the race. 'It has just been announced that Ben Carson is taking a leave of absence from the campaign trail,' one voicemail stated. 'So it is very important that you tell any Ben Carson voters that for tonight, uh, that they not waste a vote on Ben Carson, and vote for Ted Cruz. He is taking a leave of absence from his campaign.' The two voicemails were left at 7:07 p.m. and 7:29 p.m. local time, after CNN reported that Carson would be traveling to his home in Florida after the caucuses, but not ending his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination." ...
... Ruthless People. Steve M. has the goods on Cruz's campaign guru Jeff Roe: "Kevin McDermott of the St. Louis Post Dispatch notes that this and other eyebrow-raising Cruz tactics are being ascribed to Jeff Roe, a Kansas City political consultant who's managing Cruz's campaign, and who has a reputation for ruthlessness." Read on. Roe has pulled this very same trick in the past. CW: No wonder Cruz hired him; they're vultures of a feather. ...
... Caitlin MacNeal of TPM: "Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R) on Thursday slammed Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-TX) presidential campaign for disseminating reports that Ben Carson was planning to drop out of the race during the Iowa caucuses. 'Cruz did some questionable things,' Branstad told Radio Iowa. 'This thing that they distributed on caucus night saying that Dr. Carson was likely to drop out and his supporters should support Cruz, that is, I think, unethical and unfair and I think there'll be repercussions to that. We have a strong sense of fairness in Iowa,' Branstad added. 'Distributing information that was not true about a candidate right at the time people are voting in the caucuses is an inappropriate thing.'"
Michael Kranish of the Washington Post: "In a GOP presidential campaign dominated by anger over illegal immigration, distrust of establishment leaders, and aggressive courtship of evangelicals..., Ohio governor [John Kasich] is trying to turn Tuesday's New Hampshire primary into a test of whether his party has room for a throwback brand of Republicanism.... He opted not to compete in the Iowa caucuses, which were heavily influenced by religious conservatives, and tells New Hampshire voters that he will drop out if he does poorly here."
Robert Costa of the Washington Post: "Ben Carson ... will cut more than 50 staff positions Thursday as part of an overhaul and downsizing of his campaign. Salaries are being significantly reduced. Carson's traveling entourage will shrink to only a handful of advisers. And instead of flying on private jets, Carson may soon return to commercial flights." CW: I'm thinking this means he flew a private jet from Iowa to Florida to pick up "a change of clothes." Your donations were well-spent, Carsonites.
Other News
Coral Davenport of the New York Times: "President Obama's budget request to Congress will include a new fee on oil companies, requiring them to pay $10 to the federal government for every barrel of oil they produce, the White House said on Thursday. The money, which could bring in up to $32 billion in new federal revenue annually, would be spent on a variety of transportation and infrastructure projects, including bridges and highways, high-speed rail and research on advanced vehicles such as electric and self-driving cars. The proposal to further increase costs for fossil fuel production is part of a broader effort by Mr. Obama to fight climate change.... [CW: Speaking for oil barons everywhere,] The House speaker, Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, attacked the proposal."
Laura Koran of CNN: "President Barack Obama addressed the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday, speaking about the need to overcome fear through faith, just one day after making a historic visit to a Baltimore mosque where he delivered a message of religious inclusivity.... Ben Carson ... attended the event but did not address the crowd." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) CW: I expect most of the GOP candidates to express "disappointment" in CNN for allowing a reporter named Koran to report on the Christian nation' prayer breakfast. I listened to the end of President Obama's speech. It was very moving:
Ken Dilanian of NBC News: "State Department officials have determined that classified information was sent to the personal email accounts of former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the senior staff of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, NBC News has learned. In an interview with NBC News, Powell challenged the conclusion, saying nothing that went to his personal account was secret. A Rice spokeswoman said the emails were about diplomatic communications."
CW: This, if true, is surprising. Jake Sherman & Rachel Bade of Politico: "House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz has been quietly planning a probe into the federal government's record keeping -- an investigation he acknowledges could put Hillary Clinton in the cross hairs. In an interview with Politico published Tuesday, Chaffetz said the probe wouldn't focus on Clinton, but "when she creates her own private email system, she's ensnarled herself.' But on Wednesday evening, Speaker Paul Ryan and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy summoned Chaffetz (R-Utah) to the Capitol to let him know that he is not permitted to launch an investigation that involves Clinton in any way.... Ryan and McCarthy ... believe the FBI and Justice Department should handle the investigation into Clinton's use of personal email..., and that congressional involvement could disrupt the criminal probe and give the appearance of a GOP witch hunt. Ryan, however, had given Chaffetz a green light to proceed -- with caution -- investigating systematic problems within his committee's broad jurisdiction, while making clear his preference that Chaffetz steer clear of Clinton personally. Now, following the Politico story, GOP leadership says he may not even investigate systematic issues if they involve Clinton."
Andrew Pollack of the New York Times: "In a testy exchange with lawmakers, Martin Shkreli declined to testify before a House committee on Thursday about his actions in increasing the price of a decades-old drug fiftyfold overnight. Mr. Shkreli, who left Turing Pharmaceuticals, the drug company he started, after being indicted on federal securities fraud charges in December, repeatedly exercised his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination, angering various members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 'I don't think I've ever seen the committee treated with such contempt,' Representative John Mica, a Florida Republican, said after Mr. Shkreli was excused and left the room.... The theatrics surrounding Mr. Shkreli's appearance, which included his smirking at some remarks by committee members and calling them 'imbeciles' on Twitter after he left the hearing, overshadowed some of the more substantial discussion about huge overnight price increases in the prices of old drugs by Turing and another company, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...
... ** Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times: "Members of the House Oversight Committee were probably giving each other high-fives Thursday for making Martin Shkreli look like a smug jerk under their questioning about the high drug prices at his former company, Turing Pharmaceuticals.... Some of [the Congressmen] were smug jerks about it themselves. (I'm looking at you, Reps. Jason Chaffetz [R-Utah] and Trey Gowdy [R-Va.]).... Not only is it no big challenge to make Shkreli look like a jerk, but the responsibility for sky-high prices charged even for old generic formulations is entirely their own.... The reason that the U.S. leads the world in stratospheric drug prices is that government policy allows it. For example, the largest single pharmaceutical customer in the U.S., Medicare, isn't permitted by law to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers. U.S. customers are forbidden to acquire their drugs in Canada or overseas, where they're often cheaper.... Why won't Congress act? As always, it comes down to money. Pharmaceutical companies are consistently among the biggest contributors to Washington campaign chests."
CW: By my count, that's two lowlifes who got something right during yesterday's news cycle. (1) Cruz: "Trumpertantrum"; (2) Shkreli: "imbeciles." Maybe we should add Kerry Eleveld's "Crump." And kudos to Gloria, via Akhilleus, for coming up with "the Crumps & the Rubes." Sounds like a couple of street gangs, which is appropriate.
Robert Barnes of the Washington Post: "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said late Wednesday that partisan extremism is damaging the public's perception of the role of the Supreme Court, recasting the justices as players in the political process rather than its referees.... Roberts said he thought the public skepticism concerning the court starts with the Senate confirmation process." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
CW: David Brooks gets 800 words a column (I think), and in today's it's worth reading two: "concrete leap." I suspect Brooks missed many of his high-school English classes. Or else his copy editors gave up before she got to the last graf & has departed to some forsaken land in search of saving the needy for her own fulfilment.
Beyond the Beltway
Progress Michigan: "An email obtained by Progress Michigan shows that Harvey Hollins, a principal adviser to Governor Rick Snyder, was aware of an uptick in Legionnaires disease in Genesee County and that a county health official was attributing the cases directly to the Flint River as the source of drinking water in Flint. The email, sent to Hollins by former DEQ Communications Director Brad Wurfel, was sent on March 13, 2015 ten months prior to Governor Snyder informing the public. Governor Snyder claimed he had only recently been informed of the outbreak at his press conference in January."
Way Beyond
Liz Sly & Zakaria Zakaria of the Washington Post: "Syrian rebels battled for their survival in and around Syria's northern city of Aleppo on Thursday after a blitz of Russian airstrikes helped government loyalists sever a vital supply route and sent a new surge of refugees fleeing toward the border with Turkey. The Russian-backed onslaught against rebel positions in Aleppo coincided with the failure of peace talks in Geneva, and helped reinforce opposition suspicions that Russia and its Syrian government allies are more interested in securing a military victory over the rebels than negotiating a settlement."
Andrew Roth of the Washington Post: "Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill I of the Russian Orthodox Church will meet in Cuba for the first time next Friday as part of an effort to heal a schism that has divided Christianity between East and West for nearly 1,000 years. The meeting, the first ever between a sitting pope and Russian patriarch, will take place at José Martí International Airport, where the two will sign a joint declaration."
Share Article 
