This might surprise some readers: There are organizations aiming to shape opinion in ways contrary to what's best for regular citizens; and, get this, they are doing it for MONEY. Can you believe ...

Really. And they gravitate to politics and politicians, lobbyists, and dirtbags in general. Flocking together. And - this may be a hard reality - these kinds seem to congregate to Washington, DC. For some obscure reason we could waste time guessing about.

click to read

While doubting minds might seize upon a detail or two to explain away this explanation of healthcare policy deadlock or this further explanation, accepting minds might think, "If only Bernie ... ". The truth is that even Bernie as President would be a force such people might need to reckon with, Bernie as President will not by magic make such hangers-on go away, nor would it even quell their selling of services. Indeed it might boost such effort, for wrong reasons, but for strong ones. So, let's give Bernie as President a good eight year try, and see how much it helps.

If every story has to have a "moral" or a theme to it, citizens should know and despise - and remember - their enemies is a theme that fits. Remember this benignly titled operation which is the subject of this post, with its aims dead set and contrary to our best well being.

If Bernie is elected in hope of attaining single payer [a/k/a decent] national health policy, who knows, there could be a collateral benefit.

2016: Bernie would have won.

Given the universally poor quality of political ads, may the billionaires' excess stage a turnaround and bite them.

Two thirds of present political advertising [television adverts for those who still watch television] are from billionaires, per Guardian.

Most of that stuff is hatefully awful, but candidates buy, and consultants count their payouts. A quick early-in-the-item Guardian excerpt:

Bernie Sanders said: “I’m disgusted by the idea that Michael Bloomberg or any other billionaire thinks they can circumvent the political process and spend tens of millions of dollars to buy our elections.”

Elizabeth Warren similarly derided Bloomberg’s shortcut approach.

She said: “His view is that he doesn’t need people who knock on doors. He doesn’t need to go out and campaign, people. He doesn’t need volunteers. And if you get out and knock on 1,000 doors he’ll just spend another $37m to flood the airwaves and that’s how he plans to buy a nomination in the Democratic party. I think that is fundamentally wrong.”

One of the Bloomberg ads, titled “Promise”, explains: “Mike is running for president to beat Trump and have the wealthy pay their fair share to build an economy that works for everyone.”

If Mike does win, and does meet that promise, many might be surprised - by the win, and by the promise kept, given how it comes from a lightly taxed billionaire.

Either of the billionaires ... in my opinion.

In terms of the two billionaires running presently for President on the Dem Party side, Srteyer and Bloomberg, the feeling here is that either would be a superior choice to party hack Joe Biden. Neither billionaire would have a financial incentive to get into potential family-centric bribery situations, and that is a plus. Neither billionaire is responsible for the bankruptcy bill Warren has criticized Biden for cramming down the nation's throat. Bloomberg as mayor was not a hack. Biden as VP had son Hunter Biden in Ukraine when he was there as the Obama administration's foreign policy rep. Steyer has had no experience to speak of in government management, making him the functional equivalent of Mayor Pete, without the secret McKinsey backgrouned. Biden is experienced, and not in a necessarily good way. Biden knows Senate norms and values. The belief here is that is a negative relative to the billionaires; even with having to admit Bernie and Liz know the Senate too. Just differently from how Biden knows things. Biden has built a fortune as a career politician. That is not said in praise. As fact, but not as praise.

So, billionaires considered a better choice than a "seasoned" Senator or a small town mayor; and ignoring other Senators still contesting from single digit popularity positions, i.e., Harris, Booker and Klobuchar.

Indeed, Booker and Klobuchar are viewed here as more desirable bets, in comparison to Joe Biden. Biden is the one as experienced as Ms. Clinton was last cycle. As appealing too. Experience in the swamp is not necessarily a positive attribute, except for swamp denizens themselves; a lot we may not want to advance with appealing alternatives, Bernie and Liz. Or even the billionaires.

____________UPDATE_____________
While Bloomberg has critics such as when The Intercept publishes, Biden nonetheless is positioned to represent the same part of Democratic politics into which Bloomberg fits. The simple truth, however, is that Bloomberg for all criticism he may deserve, has no Hunter Biden type of cross to bear. He is free from that aspect of shabbiness, appearing, by comparison, more virtuous than the family he is challenging in the race of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Bloomberg is more likeable? Yes, at least as opinioin here exists, today, on the eve of Bloomberg's candidacy.

Trump's EPA: "The proposal, issued by the EPA this fall, is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to roll back the reach of the Clean Water Act and speed up the approval of federal water-quality permits. The rule change targets Section 401 of the law, which has granted broad authority to states and tribes over the last 48 years to make sure any federally approved project meets local water-quality laws."

The headline is from the middle of Strib's "Minnesota says new federal pollution rules would 'kneecap' water protections -- Minnesota regulators say proposal would trample their enforcement rights." By Greg Stanley, Star Tribune - November 23, 2019 — 6:34pm.

The proposed changes are “akin to tearing up Section 401 and throwing it in the trash,” wrote Katrina Kessler, assistant commissioner for water policy and agriculture at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The changes will “directly harm state and tribal water quality,” Kessler wrote.

Local authorities have also raised concerns over a strict deadline the new rules would impose. From the date a developer proposes a new project, state regulators would have exactly one year to approve it, deny it or impose conditions. No extensions would be allowed, even if developers leave proposals incomplete or fail to respond to requests for information, leaving Minnesota officials worried that developers could simply run out the clock with delays.

Minnesota’s business community, however, welcomes the changes, [...]

Given how MPCA was negligently pliant, if not willfully disposed to bend PolyMet environmentally dangerous proposed mining effluent requiremenhts in a way that declined to police tightly heavy metal and other discharges, MPCA seems not to be the agency claiming ability to do things better. That said, DNR and not MPCA appears to be the lead agency on the Twin Metals EIS review, so let's see how one State agency might show better public responsibility than another. If the TRumpians had their way, his henchpersons would call all the shots and States with sterner requirements would be sidetracked into a powerless cringe, as the Trumpians lay waste to our lands. That worry seems a sound reason to want overlapping jurisdiction with any proposed conduct of business held to meet the stricter of regulatory regimens, State or federal. That seems best, where mistake cannot be undone as with sulfide mining being permitted to happen or being forestalled at least until another day, but not now, in anything like a half-assed fashion, as was to be the sloppy situation with PolyMet before PolyMet's fan loaded up via citizen activism and judicial wisdom.

There is a lesson in all of that, and discerning the lesson is not difficult. Let Minnesota protect Minnesota being the idea, with a federal oversight at play too, so that the stricter of constraints would govern. There is nothing wrong with that. Dual authority, business constrained to conform to whatever environmental protections are most truly protective, is the only policy making sense.

Washington Examiner: The decision, announced by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, is “the latest in the Trump administration's consistent and considerable support” for Israel, said Pastor John Hagee, founder and chairman of Christians United for Israel. The organization boasts more than 7 million members and is the largest pro-Israel group in the United States.

Link. The headline above is a mid-item paragraph, with the full item titled by WE headlining, "Trump evangelical base 'thrilled' by determination that West Bank settlements are not illegal, (by Katherine Doyle - November 20, 2019 06:00 PM).

Hegseth seems to stay within Trump's loyal inner circle existing outside of those employed in government service. He gets featured attention at left.mn

Link.

Try this. Google = nunes shokin parnas Then filter the returned list for “NEWS” or by time/recency. Apparently Vicky Ward at CNN broke the story. It is Parnas speaking through counsel, Parnas wanting Fifth Amendment concessions [immunity] before willingly testifying per such offer of proof. There may be documents? That would be Nunes wanting to dig dirt on Biden, dating back to then – but under the same claim as Trump of soliciting foreign interference in U.S. elections.

Try it. Vicky Ward - CNN link. DailyBeast. Then detailed and lengthy, DownWithTyranny, ending:

UPDATE: Nunes Says He's Suing

The Central Valley crackpot says he's suing CNN and the Daily Beast. Nunes to right-wing media site Breitbart: "These demonstrably false and scandalous stories published by the Daily Beast and CNN are the perfect example of defamation and reckless disregard for the truth. Some political operative offered these fake stories to at least five different media outlets before finding someone irresponsible enough to publish them. I look forward to prosecuting these cases, including the media outlets, as well as the sources of their fake stories, to the fullest extent of the law. I intend to hold the Daily Beast and CNN accountable for their actions. They will find themselves in court soon after Thanksgiving." I wonder if they get to sit next to @DevinCow, who Nunes is also supposedly suing.

Yes, Nunes says he will sue. SAYS. So -- Popcorn time, but is this an ongoing smokescreen with what other news happening at this time, but getting less attention? Always wonder that. BOTTOM LINE: Always!

FURTHER: Breitbart.

Strib, carrying an AP feed about Michael Bloomberg's billionaire ego trip; Bloomberg suggesting he'd be better for the people than Bernie. [UPDATED]

From the tediously long item indicating a formal Bloomberg declaration of candidacy to the press:

“I’m running for president to defeat Donald Trump and rebuild America,” Bloomberg wrote.

“We cannot afford four more years of President Trump’s reckless and unethical actions,” he continued. “He represents an existential threat to our country and our values. If he wins another term in office, we may never recover from the damage.”

If he thought, honestly, that defeating Trump was crucial, he'd have stayed out of the way of ones who could get that job done more easily and with more public trust than one whose fortune grew to billions of dollars out of providing information services to Wall Street wonks.

Speaking of which, wouldn't a candidate differing more from Trump generate a stronger push toward ousting Trump? Warren for example. Bernie. And what would Bloomberg have as a slogan, "Feel the Bloom?"

"Feel the Bern" rings better.

_____________UPDATE_____________
Forbes coverage links to the official campaign website, which has an "about page," but, at present, no "issues page." Running on billions, or what? Running on Empty? Running proud? Would somebody please lead Mr. Biden off the stage now, billionaires are directly into play without surrogate faces. East Coast Bloomberg. West Coast Steyer.

Dueling Banjos.

FURTHER: PBS, text coverage.

Anyone can spin early polling. That said, a link to:BERN NOTICE: 5 Key Poll Numbers That Illustrate the Bernie Surge Here's the data that show exactly how much Bernie is gaining -- and how his rise is being fueled by a working-class coalition.

Link. This is from the Sanders campaign, so do not expect an objective polling survey article. Nor does it say anything about other candidates beyond posting a closing chart of where the Democratic Party can look to recruit and cement a bloc of new members and allies, (were the right candidate to emerge as the Party's Convention choice, a candidate who can ignite passion for CHANGE).

2016? Bernie would have won

Chomsky. Always relevant. This item from last week, Nov. 12, 2019 as its dateline.

No excerpt. Read it.

The Pelosi-Hoyer House and reauthorization of the hated "Patriot Act."

What is going on? The politics of an abomination.

click the screen capture to read it

With all the impeachment smokescreening, the House did it. Or say the Democratic Party leadership and rank and file did it. Commentary exists online, here, here, here, here, and here; while excerpting here will be primarily from New Republic coverage, and Common Dreams [source of the opening screen capture].

New Republic excerpt:

It may seem to many Americans that Washington is entirely consumed by the impeachment inquiry, and that no other important business is getting done on Capitol Hill. But on Tuesday, in a break from televised hearings, the House of Representatives voted to fund the government through December 20. If passed by the Senate, the continuing resolution would prevent a government shutdown and forestall a debate about border-wall funding.

That’s all well and good, except that Democratic leaders had slipped something else into the bill: a three-month extension of the Patriot Act, the post-9/11 law that gave the federal government sweeping surveillance and search powers and circumvented traditional law-enforcement rules. Key provisions of the Patriot Act were set to expire on December 15, including Section 215, the legal underpinning of the call detail records program exposed in the very first Edward Snowden leak.

“It’s surreal,” Representative Justin Amash told me on Tuesday, just before the vote. Amash, an independent who left the Republican Party over his opposition to President Trump, pointed to the hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. Republicans have “decried FISA abuse” against the president and his aides, he said, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, “and Democrats have highlighted Trump’s abuse of his executive powers, yet they’re teaming up to extend the administration’s authority to warrantlessly gather data on Americans.”

By tucking the measure into a must-pass bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi forced many members who oppose the Patriot Act to vote in favor of its extension. “Although I do have serious concerns with reauthorizing Section 215,” Representative Bobby Rush of Illinois told The Hill, “we must focus on the bigger picture here.” In late October, Rush signed a letter co-authored by Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Earl Blumenauer, which read, “We will not support any legislation that extends Section 215’s sunset date if it fails to contain robust reforms that protect innocent people from unjust surveillance.”

On Monday night, Amash submitted an amendment to strip the Patriot Act language from the budget bill, but the amendment was blocked by Democrats on the Rules Committee.

Just 10 Democrats defied the leadership to vote against the resolution, including Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, and Ilhan Omar (a.k.a. “the Squad”). [...] Ultimately, the funding bill passed 231-192, mostly on party lines.

Some advocates have questioned whether the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), which includes the Squad, should have done more to combat—or, at least, register its dissatisfaction with—the last-minute maneuver by Democratic leadership. On Wednesday morning, leaders of the CPC and the libertarian House Freedom Caucus circulated a joint letter on Capitol Hill calling for extensive reforms to the Patriot Act before it is reauthorized. But when it came time for the floor vote, CPC co-chairs Pramila Jayapal and Mark Pocan voted in favor of the funding measure. So did most of the caucus’s members. The only person in CPC leadership to vote against the bill was Omar.

[...] “There’s no other way to spin this,” a progressive staffer on the Hill told me. “This was a major capitulation. The progressive caucus has touted itself as an organization that can wield power and leverage the votes of its 90 members. And they didn’t lift a finger. Democratic leadership rammed this down their throats.”

[...] Jayapal, the CPC co-chair, denied that this was a situation of Democratic leadership bearing down on progressives. “That happens pretty often,” she said, laughing. “So I actually know what that feels like. This wasn’t one of them.”

According to Jayapal, negotiations between members of the Judiciary Committee and the NSA-friendly House Permanent Subcommittee on Intelligence (HPSCI) were going well. “Almost every single thing in our letter has been addressed, but not quite to our level of satisfaction,” Jayapal said. “We’re still pushing really hard, and we need this extra time to be able to finish that.” Without HPSCI’s buy-in, she said, “there’s no point in marking up a bill … because that is often where we run into problems.”

[...] If the House had not passed the extension, she said, the GOP-led Senate would have sent over a clean reauthorization bill (with no reforms), and she worries moderate Democrats might have gone along with it—especially if faced with the alternative of allowing the provisions to expire altogether. “You could go through and name any strategy for me, and I would tell you why it would fail,” she said.

As for allowing the Patriot Act to sunset, Jayapal told me, “There was no scenario in which this thing was going to expire.” Eighteen years after 9/11, raising the specter of “the next attack” still has political potency. “We already heard that from the Senate,” Jayapal said.

These views represent competing visions for how progressives should wield power in Congress. Jayapal’s pragmatic streak has often contrasted with the more openly confrontational approach of Ocasio-Cortez or Tlaib. While members of the Squad have seemed to relish fights with top Democrats, Jayapal has advocated for sticking to principles, while finding ways to work collaboratively with leadership.

“In my ideal world, we wouldn’t have the Patriot Act. Period,” Jayapal said, “but that’s not where we are.

That extended quote captures most of the report. The Common Dreams item parallels New Republic, in less detail, and aside from the opening paragraphs in the screen capture, it will not be quoted here.

BOTTOM LINE: The reauthorization measure is aimed to avoid a holiday government shutdown, and allows at a later time the opportunity to trim or quell offensive Patriot Act provisions. The action was to include it in a temporary funding package to avoid confrontation over spending extension authorization if proposed without kicking the Patriot Act abomination can down the road, for tomorrow or the day after. While the damned surveillance of citizens provisions should never have been passed, the time to refight over such crap will be after the holidays, during the primary season and the ramp up to November.

Whether that was the wisest thing to do now, or not, is moot now because the choice to kick the can down the road has been made by the House, with the Senate now forced to consider and do something, or to be responsible for a shutdown and its costs if the Senate does nothing.

Politics sometimes carries a miasma. Even when done in relative stealth. And you thought the impeachment show was the only show in town ... The old shell game. The pea is always under a different shell than you thought you saw it end up. Pelosi leadership, with Hoyer, the pair shown in the screen capture; as great as they are (perhaps a much smaller image was due).

Note that links in either featured article are omitted; e.g., New Republic links to a pdf of the continuing resolution bill which the House passed. (For following several links, seek out the original online items; however, you can read the actual resolution text online, in pdf form, here; at p.25 of 26 pages; SEC. 1703. SUNSETS.)

Two essays that offer little encouragement for populist progressives wanting a better Democratic Party than the Party elders seem inclined to yield.

Suggested reading order, here and then here.

UPDATE: One related item. Neither of the three items says the donor base and the populace held then different ideas of what the Obama presidency was to be; the donors winning. Our Revolution and Bernie's ability to raise cash via small contributions from a large support base must really piss off the deep wallets used to calling the shots for the two parties, less clearly for the Democrats, yet the promoting of a Joe Biden, faults such as Hunter Biden included, and the media freeze in covering the popular support Bernie commands both show that the donor group took over and killed the grassroots opportunity CHANGE and HOPE had fed.

It was using grassroot hope, then compromising HOPE for no good reason. It was short-sighted. It was conscious choice to try to fold grassroots into the inner party control mechanism as a taken for granted part of the electorate willing to play lesser evil. It allowed DNC to offer evil, while contending, "lesser,lesser, lesser." This cycle offers a chance to forestall an evil, any and all evil, in exchange for a felt Bern. You can feel that Bern free of evil of any kind and focused on what is best for the nation and its people. Irrespective of serving billionaires first, others wait outside, there is an alternative, Bernie apart from the inner party, or even Warren begrudgingly accepted by the deep wallets - as a sane alterntive to four more years of Trump and his party retaining the spoils of winning an election.

Killing off the Obama grassroots support after the election was won surely did not anger any billionaire, but now we have Trump. And the billionaires.

And Bernie.

Warren is the next best choice, but is next best good enough when you've got the real thing? One hundred percent, no compromise lurking in the background on Bernie's part just resonates better than Warren, or at least that is the perception feeling here. However, Warren, if the convention's nominee, is foreseen to be elected and serve as a fine progressive head of state - a likelihood in terms of head-to-head pairings (in present early polling, Warren polls significantly higher than Trump).

Sondlund testified under oath that everyone was in the loop; i.e., it was known among top adminstration players that quid pro quo was what Trump demanded. Sondland testified that Pence knew.

Strib carrying an AP feed:

November 20, 2019 — 8:33am

WASHINGTON — Ambassador Gordon Sondland told House impeachment investigators Wednesday that Rudy Giuliani was pushing a “quid pro quo” with Ukraine that he had to go along with it because it’s what President Donald Trump wanted.

“Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the president,” Sondland testified.

[Sondland said]

[,,,] Trump told him and other diplomats working on Ukraine issues “talk with Rudy” on those matters. “So we followed the president’s orders.”

[...] he spoke with Trump on a cellphone from a busy Kyiv restaurant the day after the president prodded Ukraine’s leader to investigate political rival Joe Biden.

[...] he kept Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other top administration officials aware of what was going on.

[...] he specifically told Vice President Mike Pence he “had concerns” that U.S. military aid to Ukraine “had become tied” to the investigations.

“Everyone was in the loop,” Sondland testified in opening remarks. “It was no secret.”

[...] He has told lawmakers the White House has records of the July 26 call, despite the fact that Trump has said he doesn’t recall the conversation.

The ambassador’s account of the recently revealed call supports the testimony of multiple witnesses who have spoken to impeachment investigators over the past week.

Sondland recalls the phone conversation and says it is documented. All Trump says is he cannot recall it happening, not that it did not happen. It is clear that quid pro quo was the requirement, and the players all maerched to that tune.

Pence. Pompeo.

What about Barr? Was Barr in the loop? Barr not knowing what Rudy was going about doing seems, at best, grossly negligent. More likely, he knew and did what he could to aim at plausible deniability. But Pence. He was part of what Trump faces as potential grounds for removal from office. It the shoe fits Trump, then by Sondlund's testimony, it fits Pence; who stands now as Trump's possible successor.

What did Pence know, and when did he know it?

"Joe Biden is still questioning if marijuana is a gateway drug, even though research doesn't support the idea" - by Ellen Cranley - BusinessInsider - 2019-11-17

BI's item, here. ZeroHedge, here, (image included). Ainslinger. Put that on your record player and get the youth informed about the pernicious "Gateway" Ainslinger learned to detest.

UPDATE: Pew Research polling shows Biden's viewpoint on Cannabis is distinctly in a minority.

Deval Patrick and Michael Bloomberg belong where Beto is. On the sidelines looking in. Ditto, Booker, Klobuchar and Harris.

Narrow the field to the real candidates. The massive number of remaining single-digit polling folks should move on to more productive endeavor.

I.e., get out of Bernie's way. Then there is Mayor Pete and the Ukraine question man with his son, Hunter the Gatherer. Both of those candidates are expendable, from the perspective of the peoples' needs and desires. They only resonate with the fat wallet Republican wing of the Democratic Party, and should be sent packing, home, to whatever Joe does, paid speeches or such, and then back to being a small town mayor for Pete.

The contest is Bernie and Warren, one being the candidate to move on to unseating Trump. But clean up the "debate" act by having fewer participants and holding real debates with issue orientation. The single minute soundbite format is entertainment. Not much else. An oral version of Twitter, as to depth of ideas.

Beto and Kirsten had good sense, Gillibrand earlier than Beto. Leaving from where they did not belong.

And, Amy from Minnesota. Be happy as a Senator. It's your level and you get easily reelected.

Obama speaks in DC to party donor insiders. Like Bernie in 2016, Obama was a clear better 2008 alternative to Ms. Clinton. However, in office he did sell us out to big Pharma and big Insurance to get warmed-over Romneycare passed nationwide. Now Obama counsels, go slow about the status quo. The audience, big money donors acting in concert, may have liked what they heard... [UPDATED]

On Nov. 15, NY Times published online, "Obama Says Average American Doesn’t Want to ‘Tear Down System’[subheadlined] Former President Barack Obama, in an address to liberal donors, warned candidates not to go too far left and sought to calm those who were concerned about the state of the Democratic primary." That subheadline "warned candidates" language might stretch things into editorializing. The item stated in part,

Acknowledging that candidates must “push past” his achievements, Mr. Obama urged his party’s candidates not to push too far, as he urged them to adopt a message that would allow them to compete in all corners of the country.

“I don’t think we should be deluded into thinking that the resistance to certain approaches to things is simply because voters haven’t heard a bold enough proposal and if they hear something as bold as possible then immediately that’s going to activate them,” he said.

The fact that Mr. Obama offered his reassurances at the annual meeting of the Democracy Alliance, a club of wealthy liberals who donate hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to recommended political organizations, only underscored the intended audience of his message. In recent weeks, establishment-aligned Democrats, top donors and some strategists have expressed fears that the party lacks a strong enough candidate to defeat President Trump.

[italics added] Tom Perez could not have said it better. (Who knows, Tom Perez may have written the speech.)

On Nov. 16, NY Times published online a follow-up, "Too Far Left? Some Democratic Candidates Don’t Buy Obama’s Argument [subheadlined] One day after former President Barack Obama cautioned against being out of touch with voters, Democratic candidates said there was a winner among them." That item stated in part:

During a televised forum sponsored by Univision, Jorge Ramos, an anchor for the Spanish-language station, asked Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont if Mr. Obama was right in saying that “the average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system.”

Mr. Sanders chuckled briefly and responded, “Well, it depends on what you mean by tear down the system.”

“The agenda that we have is an agenda supported by the vast majority of working people,” he said. “When I talk about raising the minimum wage to a living wage, I’m not tearing down the system. We’re fighting for justice. When I talk about health care being a human right and ending the embarrassment of America being the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care for every man, woman and child, that’s not tearing down the system. That’s doing what we should have done 30 years ago.”

Julián Castro, who served as the housing secretary under Mr. Obama and has embraced some of the most left-leaning policies during the primary, said [...] “I don’t think that anybody in this campaign has articulated a vision for the future of the country that would not command a majority of voters in November of 2020,”[...] “Their vision for the future of the country is much better and will be more popular than Donald Trump’s.”

[...] Among the liberal wing of the party, Mr. Obama’s remarks prompted fierce backlash online and the creation of the hashtag #TooFarLeft by Peter Daou, a former adviser to Hillary Clinton.

[italics added; re that hashtag traffic, see, e.g., CommonDreams, here]. Adding to some of the thinking, Obama's record as viewed here hinged on HOPE and CHANGE being slogans, not promises.

______________UPDATE______________
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/12/warren-obama-2020-228068



__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Last, there is the "who'dat" -- "The Democracy Alliance" is the inner party Dem big-money donor club Obama was addressing when saying don't tear down our edifices; Wikipedia:

The Democracy Alliance [...] has been described by Politico as "the country's most powerful liberal donor club."[5]

Members of the Democracy Alliance are required to contribute at least $200,000 a year to groups the Democracy Alliance vets and recommends. As of 2014, the Alliance had helped distribute approximately $500 million to liberal organizations since its founding in 2005. Members of the Democracy Alliance include billionaires George Soros and Tom Steyer.[6]

[...] According to the Democracy Alliance's website, the group "was created to build progressive infrastructure that could help counter the well-funded and sophisticated conservative apparatus in the areas of civic engagement, leadership, media, and ideas."[7]

[...] In 2012, the Democracy Alliance ceased funding a number of prominent progressive organizations. According to the Huffington Post, "The groups dropped by the Democracy Alliance tend to be those that work outside the [Democratic] party's structure." This move cost the Democracy Alliance the support of Soros ally Peter B. Lewis, the billionaire founder of Progressive Auto Insurance.[14]

According to the Huffington Post, the Democracy Alliance "is largely divided into two camps: one that prefers to focus on electing Democrats to office, and another that argues for more attention to movement and progressive infrastructure building in order to create a power center independent of the Democratic Party apparatus."[15]

[...] Under its latest strategy, the Democracy Alliance will divide its funding streams into four categories. There are 35 groups funded in these categories. This is the old STRATEGY, and in 2017 the issue of Latino and maginilized communities was addressed in the Alliances New American Majority Fund, with specific investments in Latino engagement and African American electoral funding.

As of 2015, the Democracy Alliance, which does not disclose its membership, is reported to have about 110 partners who are required to contribute at least $200,000 a year to groups it vets and recommends. Members include Tom Steyer and some of the U.S.'s biggest labor unions.[10] It has recommended that its donors financially support the Black Lives Matter movement.[17]

[links and footnotes omitted] The Democracy Alliance has its website
https://democracyalliance.org/

and describes itself:

For nearly 15 years, the Democracy Alliance has helped to raise significant resources to promote progressive ideas, impact media coverage, develop new leadership, create sophisticated civic engagement strategies, and engage young people and communities of color. In our collaborative giving strategy, an informed and engaged body of donors comes together to aggregate resources for focused investment, for which we have marshaled as much as $80 million per year.

Our collective giving is grounded in a shared set of values, namely that we work to build and support a fair democracy, an inclusive economy, a safe and sustainable planet, and an equitable and just nation.

At a time when nearly every democratic institution of our country and collective values as a nation are under attack by an administration fueled by negligence, false truths, and ego, the need for a more powerful and cohesive progressive community has never been greater.

As a donor group with a two hundred grand annual buy-in, it is high rollers only. It is more radical in self description than other wealth-centered political contribution apparatus; but with 2020 looming, for now, who do they love? Are they a part of some Bernie blacklist? Will they partner with the bloc behind the PAC being formed to promote Joe Biden? How autonomous is each member-donor in raining its two hundred grand among the approved other subordinate political outlets - which Wikipedia lists (as does the Alliance website).

Getting the influence of money out of politics likely is not to them their key 2020 issue.

____________FURTHER UPDATE__________
So, a big-buck donor collective audience and a middle of the road past president addressing them, what about the one Bernie quote above, “Well, it depends on what you mean by tear down the system?" What "system" would be "torn down" as opposed to made more just via the Sanders proposed "21st Century Economic Bill of Rights?” Where is there too much radicalism there to justify the Obama view of fair systems being in teardown peril?

Ads.

Here and independently, here. Where do we go next? Will the Democratic Party awaken to its only future being opening up to the young? Do the inner party ones say, again as in 2016, "It's our football, we're taking it home, be without one. Fuck you very much," The death wish seems to persist, needing a decisive burial. There seems a mood that four more Trump years would be okay, but Bernie would not be. That is a mood to be buried deep, quickly, and finally.

UPDATE: Aspirations. Compare that with the earlier linked ad about empathy. There is a difference between positive and negative advertisements, in politics. But when a man clearly says he has no empathy, he is stating policy. As clear as AOC in the latter item states aspirations. Pick your winner, shun your loser. Or be the same old, same old, with four more years of Trump running things and distributing the spoils. Bernie is the answer. The question? Who, really stripped of BS, can beat Trump? Not a man lacking empathy for an increasingly important voting demographic. Not yesterday's heartbeat away. After all, that is Mike Pence now, so it's nothing special, not at all.

This has to be somebody's idea of a bad joke.

Link. Flabbergasting. Not funny. Not funny at all. They want to impeach one narcissist, and then this. Shut it down, nail it shut.  End it now.

Juxtaposition.

Free the Democratic Party from itself.  Bring it home.

Conscienceless thugs, nationwide, want to suppress voting by the young. Frustrate them. Get Out The Vote - the old GOTV, but aim at the young who are freer of built in prejudice and are not married to business as usual.

See, e.g., Strib, carrying a NY Times feed. Do not expect Joe Biden supporters to be enthusiastic about millions of the young voting. Biden supporters embrace a status quo that aims to hammer the young, to keep the military and the healthcare industries in control of things, to mess up our planet and climate, and to advance perpetual war against terror, (despite it being an abject failure and a sucking of resources better spent on making things decent and promising at home). The wealth is there if we tax it, wealth sufficient to improve the lives of all our people. Just tax the greedy bastards, and we as a nation will prosper.

BOTTOM LINE: Pound those thugs, of either party, wanting to suppress voting among any of us.

2016 TRUTH - Bernie would have won. We'd already be a better nation, had the DNC and others not stymied the Bern. Hillary Clinton, for Christsakes, what were those people thinking? Have they a learning curve, or are they currently Biden touts? Sad.

Zach Stephenson, a Rep from the Champlin area in Minnesota's House, has an idea which is overdue. That more legislative might has not been mustered over the glaring social need is an indictment of Stephenson's colleagues. Follow the question, Zach promoting righteousness and good sense against an array of vested evil ways and means.

Stevenson has a Wikipedia page and a campaign website,
https://www.zack.mn/

so bio background is given by link. He is DFL, not the dark side of the force. So what earns him today's gold star? Strib's featured online editorial today explains:

We can put an end to those awful robocalls - My bill will require companies to use preventive technology at no extra cost.
By Zack Stephenson -- November 8, 2019 — 5:44pm

We all have experienced it — the perpetual buzz on our mobile phones from familiar numbers, with a local area code, but are actually spoof calls, commonly known as robocalls. However, these calls aren’t just a nuisance — swindlers also use them to prey on senior citizens, vulnerable adults, and landline phone users, many of whom do not have caller-ID.

According to statistics gathered by the State Department of Commerce, Minnesotans have received more than 387 million robocalls so far in 2019, which is approximately 58 calls per impacted person. Scammers use “spoofing” technology, which allows telephone calls originating from across the world to show up on a caller ID with a local area code.

Once a robocaller gets someone on the phone, they engage in increasingly aggressive fraud. Posing as a utility company, bank, or the IRS, fraudsters attempt to convince people that their power will be shut off, their checking account closed, or even that a warrant will be issued for their arrest unless they make an immediate payment.

In fact, cases of financial fraud and exploitation against senior citizens are on the rise nationwide. According to the 2010 Investor Protection Trust Elder Fraud Survey, one out of every five people over the age of 65 has been a victim of a financial swindle.

In Minnesota, several cases of fraud have emerged. In September of 2016, the Star Tribune reported on an 88-year-old Robbinsdale man with Alzheimer’s disease who was swindled out of more than $200,000. Eagan Police Chief Roger New reported last month that he expected telephone fraud to result in over $500,000 in losses just in his city.

As the explosion of fraudulent robocalls grows, we must demand a strong response that holds bad actors accountable. That is why I am proposing bold legislation to crack down on these predatory schemes.

There is more, at Strib, with that being Stephenson's opening.

Fraud in the robocalling is real, but the actual burning nuisance is the plethora of such calls, themselves with whatever orientation the caller has - your bank account in peril, social security needs, or your computer needs attention from the caller misrepresenting himself as "Microsoft" when he's doing a sham if you let him. The calls themselves are the essence of evil, even when we stand not gullible enough to be suckered, but bothered from better things by the asshole callers. Any bill that curbs that abuse of the population is a godsend. So read the remainder of the Stephenson editorial, and get behind the effort to end the unnecessary abuse the phone companies are selling to swindlers and grifters as a way to annoy everybody.

End that crap, and the world will spin better on its axis; ya sure, ya betcha. Again, the Strib link, and this from the online item -

Under my proposed toughest-in-the-nation anti-robocall legislation, all telecommunications companies would be required to use the latest and strongest anti-robocall technology at no extra cost to the consumer. Criminal charges would result in a felony whenever identify theft or a swindle is a result of a robocall. My bill also gives legal tools to the Minnesota Department of Commerce, the Attorney General and consumers themselves to take action when they receive these would-be illegal calls.

LAST: Strib does not link to Stephenson's bill text. Nor is it listed here, suggesting the bill text exists but has not yet been put on record. Which is the case. Websearech, and this item explain,

Under Rep. Stephenson’s legislation, robo-calls would be illegal, and would include criminal enhancements to felony level whenever identify theft or a swindle is a result of a robo-call. The bill also gives legal tools to the Minnesota Department of Commerce, the Attorney General, and consumers themselves to take action when they receive these would-be illegal calls.

Rep. Stephenson’s legislation requires all telecommunications companies to implement the latest and strongest anti-robo-call technology at no additional cost to the consumer. While current technology exists to allow telecom companies to block spoofed calls before they ever reach a caller, Rep. Stephenson’s priority is to ensure technology is strengthened and working to benefit every single Minnesotan.

“Robo-calls are at best a constant nuisance for Minnesotans and at worst a scam targeting some of the most vulnerable among us,” said House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler. “It’s time for us to act and make sure Minnesotans are protected.”

Rep. Stephenson’s legislation will be introduced when the 2020 legislative session begins on February 11.

[italics emphasis added] Interestingly, Stephenson is lead author on a Minnesota proposed Net Neutrality bill, so the man understands what the public needs from service providers - decency and respect, net neutrality, and an end to the abject evil of robocalls.

What is there NOT to like? Bless wisdom, in all its manifestations.

UPDATE: Reporting, PiPress, Strib, Bemidgi Pioneer.

Bloomberg, a billionaire, does not want his wealth taxed. Fuck him.

He feels the Bern. Marley Tune time: The Bern.

Mainstream corporate-owned media, and Bernie.

A sidebar post points to a ZeroHedge item explaining the reality of concentrated corporate media's biased coverage of "news" involving Democratic Party presidential contenders seeking the party's endorsement. The bias is as it was during the Sanders run in 2016. You doubt?

The Onion works the theme. The only way Bernie would be able to get fair attention from within the corporate media machinery is
______________________________________,
[fill in the blank, if there is an answer]

Steve Bullock calls bullshit on what is, (there being no other fit characterization), pure and unmitigated BULLSHIT. From the Biden folks, of all people; apart from any money to Hunter [or at least his name is not featured in reporting although there is money on the table].

Here is an image of Hunter, Hunter's partner on the Ukranian gas board, and Joe, golfing. Where Hunter's business dealings ostensibly were not discussed. It is just an opening bonus link, having nothing to do with the main part of the story. An appetizer.

ONWARD - The Hill, "Bullock blasts Biden for being open to super PAC funding - BY JUSTINE COLEMAN - 10/29/19 05:54 PM EDT, stating in part:

Presidential candidate and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D) blasted former Vice President Joe Biden for reversing his [Biden's] stance on super PACs.

Bullock called out Biden after reports emerged that his [Biden's] former aide filed paperwork to form a super PAC a week after the Biden campaign indicated its openness to super PAC money.

“You don’t ‘Unite the Country’ by buying an election,” Bullock said in the release. “Vice President Biden and I are fighting for similar core values, but as long as super PACs and dark money groups are able to flood our elections with millions of dollars, Washington won’t be able to make true progress on the big issues facing our country.”

The Montana governor called the news about Biden “deeply disappointing.”

“I’ve spent my entire career fighting to get Big Money out of politics, and I’m not going to back down now,” he said in the release.

Bullock also touted his own record in fighting “Big Money,” saying he passed “the most progressive finance disclosure laws in the country,” and he’s been described as the “biggest threat to Citizens United.”

Progressives were also quick to criticize Biden after his campaign signaled that super PAC money might be necessary to defeat President Trump. Candidates such as Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have vowed not to take money from super PACs, opting instead to fundraise mostly from small donors.

However, Biden defended his stance earlier Tuesday in an interview with MSNBC, saying his campaign’s announcement last week was an “understandable response” for people who want Trump out of the White House.

[...] The Biden campaign did not immediately return a request for comment.

[links in original omitted] " ... interview with MSNBC" means Comcast putting its corpoirate thumb on the scale, Comcast whose chief lobbyist was the very first big-money fundraiser host for Creepy Ol' Joe. Anything but an unbiased outlet being used by Biden to tell his story, sans any speculative questioning. Earlier the same day of its reporting of Bullock's condemnation of PAC money influence buying, The Hill independently reported of MSNBC's playing softball with Joe:

Biden said in an interview with MSNBC that his campaign has the necessary funds to win the presidential race in 2020.

“The fact is we got in several months later than most of the candidates did, but we’re doing well,” he said. “And we’re approaching a significant number of individual contributions. I think we’ll have all the money we need to run a full-blown campaign in every one of the early states.”

The former vice president said he’s not currently accepting PAC or super PAC money but hinted that he may need to in order to take on Trump.

“Here’s what happened: You know there’s been a grassroots response out there to the fact that Trump has gone out and decided to not only ask the Russians and the Chinese to get involved and making sure I’m not the nominee, but he has his folks are [sic] spending an awful lot of money … telling lies about me,” Biden said on MSNBC.

He called his campaign’s signaling last week to be open to using super PAC money in an election an “understandable response” for those who want Trump out of the White House.

“My guess is they would have done the same thing for anybody who was attacked in the Democratic primary if they were leading,” he added.

The former vice president has fallen behind other candidates in fundraising in the most recent quarter, raising $15.2 million last quarter and having $8.9 million on hand.

Other presidential candidates like Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have refused to take money from super PACs, saying they will mostly accept donations from small donors. Sanders raised $25 million and has almost $34 million in cash on hand for his campaign, while Warren has collected $24.6 million last quarter and has $26 million on hand.

Dissembling? You decide. Consider this days-later https://unitethecountry.com/about/ astroturf website, which insultingly publishes stock disclaimer language: "Paid for by Unite the Country, unitethecountry.com, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee." Yeah. Sure. Look at the screen capture.

click image to read phony disclaimer for Joe's PAC

Do you think those PAC folks and Biden campaign folks golf? While ostensibly not telling one another about anything besides strokes per hole and running score? Fat chance. They even have an asshole video. Blowing smoke, yelling loud, absolutely no content, none whatsoever. An insult to anyone who thinks, (even a little). Trump does empty-of-content videos much better than Biden, without that violent yelling at the end, at us. Like a bad boss would.

Jez. SO - Who are these PAC promoters; read this and this, (linking here for further detail), for truth. Hangers-on having an ongoing past to present investment interest in Joe, each a sort of shareholder, bets placed on Joe's number as the wheel spins.

And the money sources? All dark money. Joe's moved to the dark side of the force. How much from whom is inside-the-PAC info, and do you expect that is info for which there is insider interest to share?

To share: With real people, with real needs and sick and tired of the same old shit shoveled at them? These PAC-Man people aim things as if they collectively presume that there is reality to the mythical herd of unicorns, independents who voted for Trump but now would bet on Joe's number? They, those convertible independents, are nonexistent, despite our being told by Pelosi and others that it is myth to believe in energizing the young and those now excluded and disenfranchised (of any age) who want reform, that as the myth but with their unicorn herd being so real you can close your eyesand  touch one. Pelosi is out of touch with a trend.

The JOEPAC cronies should have called the site "Sell out the country" because Biden wants big money to hold sway, his way. He poses, he struts, he fumbles his lines, and shouts out his video lines like a raging bull. Yet, surprisingly, Dem establishment donors have put their chips on his number, as the wheel spins, the ball landing later after months of primary voter spinning and spinning. Expecting all that to yield Joe's number is not real. It is virtual reality, told and sold by a really dumb looking amateurish PAC website. It will attract dark money, for sure, but will it delude enough voters to matter?

A competency link, updating an earlier post about Rudy Giuliani. UPDATE THOUGHT: Might it have been an intentional wipe? For cause?

 Rudy Giuliani - Legend is Trump at one point of frustration asked, "Where's my Roy Cohn?"

Rudy G -- ain't it.

Earlier post. Now, this -- via a screen capture of the item's opening:

click image to enlarge and read

No joke. A real post about true events, Ars Techinca. Follow the link to read beyond the screen capture, and to get to the butt-dialing part of Rudy, the cyber-sleuth.

Ain't Roy. Meanness alone, yes there with Rudy, and ruthlessness and complete disregard for ethics --- but that begs the question.