Sludge - Posting a factual report about Biden, Comcast, and MSNBC in particular. Is it time to boycott MSNBC, after two presidential election stinker efforts (2016 free time to Trump and 2020 Biden bias), why wait for a third strike and out?

Link.

A new low for DC, or mere business as usual? Lying Trump wants to be believed over Yellow Cake John. Phew!

Trump, but one example. On the other hand, search = "yellow cake" bolton

Using DuckDuckGo to search, the top three returns - here, here and here.

They both deserve to be put onto Epstein's island with no boat. Once there, then forgotten - for the good of the nation and world. Write them out of the history books just as Stalin used to have photos doctored to remove images of those he'd removed over politics and personalities. A movie scene brings John B. to mind.

UPDATE: Muck the stables, at the voting booth. Please.

Money whore.

Link. How is your pocketbook and family budget? Should you move to DC and shyster up some cash game, or do you lack connections?

With Iowa caucusing soon, and the three-ring-circus going on indefinitely in DC and locking three candidates into Senate attendance rather than campaigning beyond weekend events, Bernie is challenging Biden on their relative records on compromise to benefits programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

This screen capture from Bern Notice shows Bernie has consistently - without deviation or qualifications - defended needs of the elderly including sustaining and enhancing Social Security benefits across the board, disability benefits, retirement income, and all:

Bern Notice has steadily noted policy differences between Bernie and Biden: https://bernie.substack.com/?no_cover=true


The Jan. 28 link for the post from which the screenshot was taken:
https://bernie.substack.com/p/bern-notice-bernies-lifelong-fight

Readers are encouraged to check out the Bern Notice site. Or to at least follow the specific Jan. 28 link to read the full post.

There is no doubt - in the past when a balanced budget amendment has been considered Biden publicly stated that to him, "everything" is on the table including modifying Social Security to a more constrictive package.

Biden is on record saying precisely so.

Bernie consistently opposed any such "bipartisan" compromise to the extent it tampered with benefits. Bernie has always been open to curbing spending other ways, such as ending tax breaks for fossil fuel billionaires, or restraining massive spending on expansionist wars. Biden lacks such consistency, preferring over time the mood of the day.

-------------------------------
(Sens. Warren and Klobuchar also have their individual histories on federal decision making, for voters to see. Mayor Pete meanwhile has concentrated his career public service effort on South Bend, Indiana; paving potholes and meeting other municipal needs, while soliciting federal funding aid and applying federal funds the city received to subsidize its budget. That is the extent of his having a record to judge. He is a newcomer to federal budget decision-making, i.e., he has no experience or track record at all in that important arena. Biden and Mayor Pete are unconstrained in their campaigning, each having 24/7 time to campaign. Whether that extra opportunity will help either will soon be seen.) See: also, this and this.

From two month ago, a guffaw, a grin, and a smirk. Today? Well, Boss in Chief can change his mind, can't he? Or do you suppose, back then . . . But no. Not him. Never a falsehood from the Boss in Chief.

Nov.26, 2019 - source


__________UPDATE__________
Juan Cole asks the really only interesting question so far about the Bolton memoir snake someone has just thrown onto the table:

A Pence Presidency and an Iran War? Why does John Bolton really want Trump Out?

Juan Cole 01/28/2020

Common Dreams carries the Cole post in parallel, but titled,,
"John Bolton Is Not to Be Trusted, But the Question Remains: What Does He Want? -- What if Bolton is trying to get Trump removed from office? That would imply that he wants a president Pence."

Cole certainly knows how to think a really butt-ugly thought. A thought consistent with the threesome in the earlier photo - at least one would wet his pants over a Pence presidency via impeachment - now - no waiting his turn, with the other two then having more motive to schmooze. And Trump is schmoozing Bibi now, one indicted the other impeached, both as trustworthy as Bolton for whatever is under discussion, or at stake. Bolton has been close to Bibi, over time.

Any elderly poised to reelect Trump, he has it in for you; you will get precisely what you deserve; unfortunately I and others will get that too. Smarten up, please. However, Trump gutting entitilements is not the only threat voters face. Who else? Read.

screenshot from beginning, NYT, here

Compare and contrast:

source: HuffPo - Jan.23, 2020

WHO ELSE IS A WORRY? In 1995 one of the "Republicans in the Democratic Party," Status Quo Joe, contrasted with Bernie, per this video. 1995 was Newt Gingrich hayday times. So, who'd then play ball with Newt?

Biden was readily willing to play ball with Newt.

And he unabashedly said so. Bernie was not. So, watch the video!.

There is an alternative to Trump. It is not Biden. He'd shown in 1995 and at other times his willingness to cut Social Security and Medicare, in concert with actual Republicans,  the effect being to screw the elderly.

(Actual Republicans are those who do not hide as Democrats while riding on the Republican wavelength and message.)

--------------------------------------
 Any questions?If you have none, try this one:
Was Biden lying then in 1995, or is he lying now?

For credibility, we wait. If those pictured will vote for and pass that same bill when with a majority in both houses and controlling the White House, there will be credibility. Until then, who is part of the solution vs. being part of the problem?

image source

Activists on the left are surely correct that Buttigieg does not represent the disruptive spirit of the age and that he is not an especially plausible vessel for the kind of foundation-shaking change they seek. Looked at through the prism of temperament and character, as distinct from his policy positions, he may be the most conservative candidate in the 2020 race, Trump included. Buttigieg surely would be too conservative for his party and the moment alike—too establishment, too cautious, too Clintonesque—were it not for two things. The first wave of coverage that greeted his early presidential campaign tended to emphasize the potential of his campaign even though he is young and gay. It became clear over time that both of these are essential elements. Imagine tweaking those parts of the bio. A 48-year-old straight former mayor of a small city would hardly be quickening pulses on the 2020 presidential campaign trail. Two radical developments made it safe for someone like Buttigieg to be conventional in most respects. One of the developments—the legal and cultural embrace of same-sex marriage—is now so accepted that it’s hard even to recall that 20 years ago it was unthinkable and that even a decade ago it was a bridge too far for Barack Obama. The other radical development—Trump and his presidency—is even more consequential. If Trump hadn’t shredded the concept of plausibility, turning “I can’t imagine something like that happening” into an obsolete phrase, few people would find Buttigieg plausible in 2020. But Trump did shred the old standards, and Buttigieg is plausible"

image source

Ambition, even when in its strongest pose, is not an equivalence to competence or reliability. Nor is intelligence and skill on his feet with words. The man is just plain uber-annoying, being a Biden but with his glibness quotient not near zero.

Agree or disagree with Politico, here, (source of the extended headline), about the South Bend mayor who reaches beyond his current place in things, the item being bittersweet about the man. Key to understanding the equivocal view the item presents of the mayor:

Activists on the left are surely correct that Buttigieg does not represent the disruptive spirit of the age and that he is not an especially plausible vessel for the kind of foundation-shaking change they seek. Looked at through the prism of temperament and character, as distinct from his policy positions, he may be the most conservative candidate in the 2020 race, Trump included.

Buttigieg surely would be too conservative for his party and the moment alike—too establishment, too cautious, too Clintonesque—were it not for two things. The first wave of coverage that greeted his early presidential campaign tended to emphasize the potential of his campaign even though he is young and gay. It became clear over time that both of these are essential elements. Imagine tweaking those parts of the bio. A 48-year-old straight former mayor of a small city would hardly be quickening pulses on the 2020 presidential campaign trail.

Two radical developments made it safe for someone like Buttigieg to be conventional in most respects. One of the developments—the legal and cultural embrace of same-sex marriage—is now so accepted that it’s hard even to recall that 20 years ago it was unthinkable and that even a decade ago it was a bridge too far for Barack Obama. The other radical development—Trump and his presidency—is even more consequential. If Trump hadn’t shredded the concept of plausibility, turning “I can’t imagine something like that happening” into an obsolete phrase, few people would find Buttigieg plausible in 2020.

Some might find that commentary harsh, while others might find it spot-on. It is both.

Different author, Politico again, "Why Pete Buttigieg Enrages the Young Left - It’s deeply personal—and not just because he’s challenging Bernie," which begins:

As the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries draw near and South Bend’s boy wonder, Pete Buttigieg, seems buoyant in the all-important early-state polls, “Mayor Pete” has been perpetually dogged by a major issue: the youngest and most activated voters in his party all seem to—how to put this delicately?—hate his guts.

Normally the first candidate of a generation can expect to ride a wave of youth enthusiasm, as John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton once did. For the 37-year-old Buttigieg, it’s been quite the opposite. The newly radicalized Teen Vogue invoked a cringeworthy class-warfare pun to declare his campaign a “Lesson in ‘Petey’ Bourgeois Politics.” Jacobin, tribune of the socialist wing of the Democratic Party, has developed seemingly an entire vertical focused on slamming Mayor Pete. A writer for Out magazine, putting it in starker terms, tweeted that if he “had balls he’d run as the republican he is against trump in the primary.”

[all links within quoted text are omitted; see originals for linking]

After that, a segue, but only after pinning the tail dead square on the donkey's ass, pinned thus as a true closet elephant, little more needs saying. As mayor of a town few care about, he was able to pick his party. Why he laid that load on the Democrats is something he might explain, but in the Wine Cave Ultra Fundraiser setting of self-loving donor elite, with their status quo agenda, nobody seems to care to inquire about a Republican in Dem clothing.

Wrapping up the post with nostalgia, Heller in "Catch 22" had a character, Nately, described by Heller as, "Having lots of intelligence and no brains." The mayor by being who he is brings that recollection to mind.

___________UPDATE__________
The Atlantic writes of the mayor. To whatever extent he's the Bill Clinton of his generation, ambitious to a fault while deceptively well spoken, run him away - soon and far. We need no more of that. We need it as much as we need another Bush president. Where something in the mayor's attitude - beyond external style - shouts "George W." to me. As in "a failure waiting to happen if given the chance." Perceptions can vary, but the galling Bush-like expectation of entitlement, it is there when I look. 

Disclaiming much faith in early presidential polling, nonetheless: Bern Notice has an interesting poll-related recent post.

If not knowing the site, it is pro-Bernie.

https://bernie.substack.com/?no_cover=true = site link

The specific poll-related post is at

https://bernie.substack.com/p/bern-notice-bernie-tops-cnns-national

A decade ago, Jan 21, 2010, we experienced five assholes, united.

The Perps. [image from oyez.com]

This operation, in all of it's grandeur. changed things for the worse. It was a "down the toilet after this" decision. Kennedy wrote the opinion - dropping the load upon the citizens of our nation, before retiring. Thank's a lot Tony. Having four other assholes enabled it. One now sits in the highest chair in the Senate chamber, presiding over the circus going on there these days.

___________UPDATE____________
While not a bible-thumper myself, (nor am I wrapped in a flag), here nonetheless for those that are, twenty-seven verses. Those five gentlemen should have worn clown suits instead of robes when handing down that decision. When you contemplate any impeachment, each of those five should be impeached over Citizens United. Measured by egregiousness, Roberts should be impeached and tried first. But then who'd preside at the other trials?

And, finally, yes I am that pissed off. 
Why aren't you?

"Frank Ongaro is executive director of MiningMinnesota."

That is the footer on a Strib op-ed which, surprisingly, is pro-mining and against the currently proposed House bill to ban sulfide mining in areas which might drain mining pollutants into the Boundary Waters watershed, or cause cross-border pollution. Ongaro ignores the policy setting power of Congress to ban, as well as to regulate.

Yes, a general regulatory framework exists, and has failed for decades, which suggests a clean, tight ban is best since it forecloses all weaseling, by weasels.

The bill's text clearly and simply bypasses all the shit mining advocates routinely throw against the wall hoping some of it will stick. Without equivocation, it says, "No." There is noting wrong with that. The major impediment to the bill is impossibility of passage as long as Trump can veto bills, It is nice, but a futile effort, for now.

The bill is well-intentioned and on point Sophistry, even sophisticated sophistry by the likes of Ongaro, misses the point. (Readers may judge for themselves how sophisticated Ongaro's argument is.)

One might say Ongaro misses the point intentionally.

However, giving him the benefit of the doubt, guess that he's dumb as a board rather than duplicitous.

Jan. 18 - The Intercept reports the Sanders campaign is researching whether a Vice President could also serve in an administration as Treasury Secretary.

The presumably correct answer is that such dual service is proper. Cabinet portfolios are not Constitutional in origin; but clearly are ancillary to presidential duties. Nothing in the Constitution, itself, limits other governmental duties for the Vice President in addition to chairing sessions of the Senate, where that gavel gets handed off more often than not. The Intercept indicates a belief Bernie and folks might be considering Warren for both positions. Too little Intercept attention is given to the what-if where Warren gets the nomination; Sanders looking to his role?

Either way, the idea is great. What about VP -and- head of the Fed? Leading the Fed by Warren or by Bernie would not only be reform, but a fire-up-the-popcorn event. Fun over time. Opportunity. An enduring opportunity.

"Bend the arc of history," not "New World Order," as much as a fair deal for a change. Not that this speech has much fair deal to it.

Davos Joe gives the speech, where "the liberal international order" is something Bernie or Liz will reach toward, but with differing intentions than Joe would.

Forty minutes of pure tepid cliche-laden bullshit is something many could match, but Joe puts a cherry on top.

Would you expect a bunch of well compensated entrenched self-important poobahs of the swamp East Coast Ivy League establishment, who look like this, to endorse Bernie's appeal to regular working people?

Give us two other Senators, please.

If you are interested in The News most fit to print, you can even find it online, Strib carrying a WaPo feed:

MANCHESTER, N.H. - Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a rising star in the Democratic Party's liberal wing and one of the most prominent women of color in Congress, is endorsing Sen. Bernie Sanders for president, choosing him over Sen. Elizabeth Warren on the heels of an explosive confrontation over the question of whether a woman can defeat President Donald Trump.

In a telephone interview with The Washington Post on Sunday, Jayapal, D-Wash., said she decided to endorse Sanders because "he has a clarity on policy prescriptions that goes right to the heart of what working people need." She will unveil her endorsement Monday in Iowa.

Jayapal also told The Post she will be named national health policy chair for the Sanders campaign, as well as a Washington State chair.

The endorsement is a significant get for Sanders, I-Vt., and a blow to Warren, D-Mass., who has forged a friendship with Jayapal in recent years and is seeking to rally support from women as she makes her closing argument to voters before the first nominating contest in Iowa on Feb. 3.

The backing of Jayapal, who is Indian American and co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, reflects Sanders' growing strength on the left and his diversifying coalition. After building a following in 2016 that some saw as too male and too white, Sanders has secured endorsements this time around from barrier-breaking Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.; Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.; and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.

Sanders campaign officials are hoping to deploy Ocasio-Cortez in Iowa in the final stretch of the race there. They have built a busy schedule of events in the early states with a roster of surrogates as Sanders tends to his duties in the Senate as a juror in the Trump impeachment trial.

Jayapal's support comes days after Sanders secured an endorsement from Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., the other co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.The Progressive Caucus is the largest coalition of left-leaning members of Congress. It includes dozens of House members and one senator: Sanders.

[emphasis added] Nancy timing impeachment hearings for now seems to disadvantage three Senators by keeping them in DC away from the hustings, while helping Joe Biden. And Buttigieg. The three being disadvantaged, the two most liked by NYT elitists, Warren and Klobuchar, and Bernie.

Also of interest, DownWithTyranny, here, in closing a post with good sense:

If Warren and Sanders both enter the convention with healthy delegate totals — as long as both are gaining supporters and not at the other's expense — the contest can and should continue, for now at least, as it has. And if they enter the convention with, say, 60% of the pledged delegates between them, the case for nominating a candidate who appeals to progressive voters is strong.

But if Warren's candidacy becomes unviable, as it seems it might — and if the goal of both camps is truly to defeat Joe Biden — it's incumbent on Warren to drop out and endorse her "friend and ally" Bernie Sanders as soon as it's clear she can no longer win. (The same is true if Sanders becomes unviable, though that seems much less likely.)

Ms. Warren can do whatever she wants, certainly. But if she does anything less than help elect the last and only progressive with a chance, she damages them both to Biden's benefit, and frankly, helps nominate Biden. She has the right to do that, but not to claim at the same time that she's working to further the progressive movement.

We'll know about the consequences of this conflict soon enough. Perhaps she'll rise again, or at least triage her decline.

But if she doesn't, if she falls to the bottom of the top tier or into the second and stays there, her endorsement — or non-endorsement — of Sanders will be watched and noticed, closely and widely, and she will be defined, probably permanently, by her response.

Finally, there are two things to say about the collective [majority?] opinion of that bunch in the photo. FIRST: If you are going to want one of the Republican wing of the Democratic party to run against Trump, make it Amy. She is honest. She does not come across as hiding something. What you see is what you get; Warren being more the candidate who would rock the boat - more than Amy, but less than Bernie. That recognition of Klobuchar, as opposed to Biden or the mayor, goes a long way toward distinguishing among those running from the Republican wing. Not that Amy is great, just that she is not Joe Biden.

SECOND: If the Democratic Party's candidate ends up to be Elizabeth Warren, not Bernie, there should be no hesitation being soundly in favor of such a choice beating Trump, much as Bernie would. The situation between Bernie and Liz, being well described in the second above quote, needs to sort out much as the DWT post opines.

____________BOTTOM LINE UPDATE_____________
Which way the dice roll, we clearly do need a president who will publicly confront a rich idiot despicable tax-hating oligarch this way, rather than nominate one.

Ditto, this instance, this current candidate. A different plutocrat, same nationwide problem. Aside from those two, it will be business as usual over the next four years. If you can envision Klobuchar being equally forceful (with an equal intent) in wanting a better world, bless you, but I disagree. Klobuchar would never nominate a DeVos, she is not hateful nor attracted to those who are, but bankers? An entrenched banker perhaps as Treasury Secretary, as Obama did with Geithner? Would she cut more - too much - slack for bankers and Wall Street, even while expected to be better that way than, say, the young mayor?

It is just wrong that these three - arguably the best three of what's left - are being denied an opportunity to fully campaign because of Nancy's timing of moving impeachment to "throw it out" Mitch, where it will consume time without any reform.

(Because Senator Cory Booker has suspended his campaign, his being tied up in futile impeachment matters is less of a disgrace.)

__________ANCILLARY UPDATE__________
A YouTube video.

***

___________NECESSARY UPDATE___________
After some reflection, and while dismissive of the likelihood, my expectation of a Klobuchar presidency would be harder on white collar crime than Obama was, more pro-Isreal than Obama, not a war monger, and harder on Big Pharma than Obama. Not owned by fossil fuel. Less aggressive in any clean-up of business and finance and the Trump mess, than Warren. By a mile. Klobuchar having an approach more like Maria Cantwell, than like Warren. Less likely to feel urgency in addressing and constraining and undoing Citizens United. She'd likely view the first bill out of the current House - one McConnell side-tracked - as a road map of sorts. She'd possibly like it as a party platform. More Cargill than McKinsey & Company. Neither a Rhodes Scholar, nor a Biden. Her campaign website is detailed. I have not read it.
https://amyklobuchar.com/

Not Trump, no, no. US.

Bernie has us in mind.

In turn, we who think, have Bernie in mind.

We patiently await the primary voting chance to boost his chances. Hence:

Still, no one in Sanders-world interviewed by The Daily Beast said they were surprised that Trump has been privately expressing concerns about the appeal of Sanders and the senator’s brand of Democratic socialism, particularly in several states he won.

“I’ve always thought he would be obsessed with the senator,” Nina Turner, a senior Sanders adviser and his campaign’s national co-chair, told The Daily Beast about Trump. “He knows that he is the true progressive and the right person to go up against his faux populism.”

Sanders’ communications director Mike Casca put it another way: “They should be very worried.”

Others in Sanders’ circle point to his strength with working class voters, in part, who first voted for him in 2016 and swung to Trump in the general election. Multiple sources said they have worked to expand that base of support in the 2020 cycle.

“Bernie’s appeal,” Jim Zogby, a national surrogate for Sanders, said, “is to multi-ethnic and white working-class voters across the board. That is the crowd that the [Democratic] Party handed to Trump on a platter and Bernie is in effect saying, ‘Thank you, I’ll take that.’” Daily Beast - Jan 14, 2020

It was handed Bernie, in 2016, when nobody else stood up to say "I accept." Clinton from Day 1 represented "them," and surely not "US." "WE" are not wealthy corporate and Wall Street poobah-donors flowing massive cash amounts from the 1% to a horde of all too willing politicians, willing to dutifully represent the 1% instead of "US.".

Bernie has "US" flowing small amount cash donations, from many in the 99% who believe. Others had their best chance then, in 2016 to challenge the Clintons, but deferred. Bernie stepped up to the batter's box and tried. Now Bernie is in a race including at least one such prominent "other" who at the time was begged to run. Not begged this time when the begging was for Bernie --- Run again, please. FOR US. Bernie is who we need, and all we need, top down. Bernie stands for doing DC differently; bottom up instead of top money, down. The new thing: Trickle UP. It's worth the try, since Trickle Down has failed giantly, be it a Bush, a Clinton, a McConnell, a Pelosi, or a Trump.

Liz is fine enough, should she outdraw Bernie at the polls, but her big rock to push uphill is in 2016 she took a hike.

People were begging Warren to run against the Clinton machine. She should have. She declined then. When called when needed . . .

The fact is, one Bernie is all we need. So support his candidacy and thus befriend "US," all of "US," the best way possible. Yet be sensible about a second choice - bridges to another option, if needed. But don't forget that the direct road and bridge to initiating systemic reform is to put Bernie in the WhiteHouse, thanking others.

______________UPDATE_______________
Perhaps not needed, perhaps worth noting - Michael Moore and Krystal Ball are overreacting, and should cool off their hot rhetoric so as to later not have to eat their words, much as the plethora of "NeverTrump" Republicans have.

If we do not win with Bernie in the primaries then without Warren, instead, - who?

Biden? The Mayor? Steyer? AKlo? --- Get serious.

Warren's camp, apparently led by her, made a major mistake, but considering the old saying, she's "baby" and not "bath water."

Bernie people need to be adult about things. Have their aims but honor another cliche, about noses and faces.

For now, quell barking, and let Bernie and Liz resolve things with one another to where civility and joint hopes overcome the moment. Mainstream media will want to foster the arson of both campaigns, and neither campaign nor its supporters should fall into that trap.

The reality is aside from Bernie, Liz seems the only other viable chance "WE/US" have. Steyer does talk the talk. There is that. And as an equally remote likelihood as Steyer, there is Tulsi, who broke DNC comitted ranks in 2016 to endorse Bernie.

That's about it, though.

______________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
Bernie is who Bernie was, thirty years ago, as documented in a 1988 CSPAN video when he was mayor of Burlington, VT. It's a 25 minute video, which everyone wanting to vote in the Democratic primaries should watch. Consistency matters. Warren at the time was an entrenched academic, not active as an office holder or candidate, and had even less a popularly known persona than the little known Vermont mayor:

Academic

Warren began her academic career as a lecturer at Rutgers University, Newark School of Law (1977–78). She then moved to the University of Houston Law Center (1978–83), where she became an associate dean in 1980 and obtained tenure in 1981. She taught at the University of Texas School of Law as visiting associate professor in 1981 and returned as a full professor two years later (staying from 1983 to 1987). She was a research associate at the Population Research Center of the University of Texas at Austin from 1983 to 1987[20] and was also a visiting professor at the University of Michigan in 1985. During this period, Warren also taught Sunday school.[13][26]

Warren's earliest academic work was heavily influenced by the law and economics movement, which aimed to apply neoclassical economic theory to the study of law with an emphasis on economic efficiency. One of her articles, published in 1980 in the Notre Dame Law Review, argued that public utilities were over-regulated and that automatic utility rate increases should be instituted.[27] But Warren soon became a proponent of on-the-ground research into how people respond to laws. Her work analyzing court records and interviewing judges, lawyers, and debtors, established her as a rising star in the field of bankruptcy law.[28] According to Warren and economists who follow her work, one of her key insights was that rising bankruptcy rates were caused not by profligate consumer spending but by middle-class families' attempts to buy homes in good school districts.[29] WIKIPEDIA

So, Bernie taking that same decades-consistent message to the people in 2016 and against Wall Street's owned darling awakened belief and true HOPE. Now he is not jealous of others "surfing his wave." Instead, "It's not me, it's US." Warren is or should be like-minded, i.e., specifically without throwing a gender sabot into the works when the issue is money and class warfare against the poor and middle class, by the ultra rich and their hangers-on.

Warren threw that sabot. And should not have done so. Especially an unverifiable sabot, one with no backing or decisive evidence beyond two people recollecting an ancillary point of discussion during a major political pow-wow between the two, held two years ago. It was bad form to instigate that. Now that it is done, damage control suggests the two candidates need to meet again in private as before, to reach an understanding - not about "THEM, HIM AND HER," but about US.

____________FURTHER UPDATE____________

A screen capture from the 1988 Sanders-CSPAN video,
same passion, same accent, more hair.

FURTHER: If not wanting to view the entire 1988 video, taking only 25 minutes, that part of it which recently is growing legs, under a minute in length, is on YouTube, here. It refutes a recent assertion. It is about US, our issues, our aims, how the system treats US. The forest, not individual political interactions or inconsistent recollections. The forest and not individual trees. Show sense.

The USPS - the mail must go through. Cut services, contract out to undercut labor, McKinsey advised, Buttigeig working for that consultancy on postal service advisory issues.

HuffPo, from the ending paragraphs of last month's item: "Pete Buttigieg Was Part of McKinsey Team That Pushed Postal Service Privatization -- Buttigieg's campaign insists he had nothing to do with the McKinsey report's cost-cutting recommendations." By Tara Golshan

Republicans have long called for severe cost-cutting measures and for the system to be turned over completely to private companies. Democrats point out, however, that much of the financial turmoil is attributable to a 2006 law requiring the Postal Service to pre-fund retirement benefits, unlike any other government pension system. USPS is currently $150 billion in debt, in large part because of the mandate to pre-fund retirement payments.

There are two schools of thought on how to get out of this debt. The Trump administration has called for major cost-cutting, which the union warns will hurt workers and put consumers — particularly seniors who rely on the Postal Service for timely access to prescription drugs — at risk of worse service. The McKinsey report, which acknowledges the detrimental pension system, strongly errs on the side of privatization and cost-cutting; their proposals amounted to reducing hours, consolidating processing facilities, offering kiosks and potentially charging more to send mail and packages to difficult-to-reach locations.

On the other end of the spectrum, politicians like Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have been strong supporters of expanding postal services far past greeting cards — into financial services like banking. The Postal Service already does some of this, issuing money orders and cashing some checks.

Buttigieg’s campaign has said the candidate is considering a form of postal banking that would expand access to financial services and credit, and work against predatory lending practices. Those policies would be a departure from the McKinsey recommendations his former employer supported, and would get likely serious pushback from corporate banking interests.

“It gets to the role of government,” said Donald Cohen, the executive director of In the Public Interest, a think tank that promotes democratic control of public services. “What do we think we should be doing together?”

Should the post office expand its services in the community? Should it become a bank? Provide more census services? Notary?

“Folks that McKinsey work with would say that’s not the role of government,” Cohen said.

Mayor Pete's problem is that McKinsey has a bias against expanding public sector services, toward privatization and profits chasing - and he worked in that environment for a few years. That is fine for Apple selling phones. It is not okay for public goods, such as postal services, roads, bridges,sewers, electricity and water. It seems the post office could be expanded into services where it would shut down payday lenders, by being more honest, less greedy, and less costly in servicing the poor, not like an exploitative Republican-laced private sector scronger. The Post Office can do more, and should. Nobody likes payday lenders except the sleazy politicians [e.g., Debbie Wasserman Schultz] who play ball with Payder Lending industry lobbyists and donors. When the private sector evolves yet another way to fuck the poor, Democrats, at least, should not show blind enthusiasm, lest they be mistaken for Republicans. So, Pete disclaims, but McKinsey was paying his rent and putting food on the table, in exchange for Postal Service consulting, which ended as it did, but after Pete had jumped ship. Again, this key link.

Joe Biden and Bernie get Nina Turner's attention, in a South Carolina online op-ed. Turner is a major person working on the Sanders campaign, so expect a pro-Bernie orientation.

The thing to keep in mind - while pro-Bernie, she misstates nothing in presenting her analysis. Others might focus on different factors when suggesting important voter considerations. However, read the item, understand it is by a Bernie backer, but do any and all fact checking you choose, the factual basis of the Turner distinctions is solid and real. It is argumentative - yet factually rigorous argument. Again, this link.

May the quality differential prove decisive.

A great image from Daily Beast, here. One can defeat Trump, the other falls prey to being like Trump; family similarities.

A candidacy the inner party corporatists cannot control, vs one that cannot win.

Bernie will bring out the vote. Biden would discourage new voters from voting. He would be poison as the candidate. The inner party functionaries want Joe, but if they persist, they get four more, little else. Perhaps they'd rather that, than losing a major bit of their power within the Party - a power to mess things up royally when they don't like popular choice - which their actions suggest to be the case, 2016, and now. 

BOTTOM LINE:
The image tells the story, while the words of others do injustice to truth.

________________UPDATE_______________
Biden is good at lessening promising avenues of CHANGE. Few do that as well. Joe did it top notch, while in the Senate and within both Obama terms. Not that Obama wanted CHANGE, beyond it having sloganeering value. He followed traditional DC masters, and has done well for his family since leaving office. Biden saw, and wants. Bernie? It is not about him, it is about us. For us.

*************

Either run Bernie, or put a "FOR SALE" sign on the entire Democratic Party apparatus as corrupt beyond help. 

Beyond HOPE. 

Things seem poised for an inner party cramdown error, again. Hopefully the people, by voting, intervene.

Each has his/her one single vote. Just like you.

Websearch.

UPDATE: Forbes, Nov. 2019, handles the question of billionaire contributor identities and which billionaire donors match to particular candidates.

BERN NOTICE provides an old-farts' reintroduction to Joe Biden.

Link.

Two intelligent and well-intentioned gentlemen have a decidedly bad idea and want you to buy into it. What is an educated person? Is "teach to the test" worth a pinch of dirt? It is what they will get, and teaching to the test presumes the test itself is worth a pinch of dirt in predicting a youngster's future.

If either of the two gentlemen can tell me, no twitter word limit, what a "quality education" is then think about their idea. The proposal is instead circular. If a measure is touted as able to define at a young age whether someone is "educated" with "quality" then, does it? It measures only what it can, differences between how different students do, at the standardized test. A no-good test can produce negative quality, turning out tuned persons who may be good with that test, but failures and ill-educated, in truth.

These two gentlemen can cause much more harm than good, if taken seriously. Read three items, Strib on the proposal and the teachers union's reaction to it, here and here respectively; and the proposal, here. Nobody seems attuned to the fact that being educated is not something you can put a yardstick upon. I consider Obama more educated than Pence. Am I right? Wrong? Taking a position that says, better school, better spoken, are measures of better education.

These two gentlemen are chasing a ghost and in the process messing in areas where they are more danger than help. Each has succeeded where you and I have acheived less. Should we blame our third grade teacher? Chance? Politics? All such outside of school factors.

Some people are smarter than others. You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but schools passing ill-prepared students into grades according more to their age than their capability makes the range of "education" received differ, within a school, and while using some average test result, School 1 scores higher on average, vs some average for a School 2 elsewhere, who can legitimately say School 1 is a higher quality school than School 2 - providing a higher quality education - based on a test having no guarantee of measuring any truly meaningful thing whatsoever. Any cogent adult knows that is actually nothing but blowing smoke. Junk test; worthless results. Perhaps even counterproductive results - changing a curriculum to better test scores, but providing misguided inferior "education" by doing that.

Standardized testing gives a measure of differences in test results, but how can you go from that to saying, "Perfect test, perfect measuring tool, one school is educating young children better than another if student average test scores differ school to school. It does not follow. The tests do not measure anything worth believing in, and until you can say that is not so, stop touting unverifiable claims about "fixing" education.

As a start, the two proponents of change should first read and understand, "The Education of Henry Adams." It starts things at a more insightful level than "Teach to the test."

Big question someone should ask the two savants - has either looked at the standardized testing used to "measure" student and school differences? Not even studied it and its rationaile in the eyes of the test authorship cabal, just read through a copy, with an open mind? Can either say, "I checked it out, and it seems a fine, near-perfect measure of a student's future quality and worth to society?"

If each answers, "No," send them home, each with a demerit. If either says "Yes," and cannot cogently explain that answer; two demerits, and a note to parents saying "Failed wannabe reformer."

___________UPDATE_________
Strib publishes about testing in Minnesota. At a time when the State cuts reliance on the ACT standardized test, the two proponents of a greater reliance on test results - inevitably causing teaching to the test - have ducked the "quality of the measurement" question which haunts their idea, via injecting some reality.

These two men are on a mission with a half-baked idea they cannot ground upon anything beyond a reliance upon testing to measure  relative quality between two schools - presuming without any sufficient evidence that the test actually measures something worth measurement, and that a school with a higher standardized test average is de facto a better program with the lower average score institution obliged to change. Dumb? Ya betcha. What change besides teaching to the test in managing curriculum design/modification.

To the extent teaching to the test is employed, and encouraged by civic leaders, a false sense of testing reliability attaches, whether deserved or not. If not "falsle" reliance, it is unjustified reliance. Again, has either of the gentlemen looked at the test in order to form any personal opinion of its worth? It appears from reporting that testing is presumptively embraced as legitimate. Is it? Who can say?

Finally, consider a college-prep oriented test - used by some higher educators as an admissions measure -  What cause or value is there in wanting non-college oriented students to take a test, so that an average over the entire student body can be calculated to say whether the school needs change. Turning to over-simplifications of what "an education" is and how it is brought to light is a doomed or potentially doomed way to regress in educating the Starte's young population.

Extreme care with hare-brained suggestions is merited. A banker, and a judge who built his name and fame initially in football, paired, still have to prove they know what they are talking about when moving outside of their narrow professional experiences and expertise, to tell others how to do other jobs that neither of the two gentlemen have held at all, never mind length of tenure as a seasoning thing.

__________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Latest Strib item, an LTE from Steve Ford, a former middle-school teacher.

What a vulgar bunch of twisted semi-human war-mongerers for votes, looks and feels like, acts like.

Who else, the Trump campaign. (If the headline says "vulgar" you know it is about Trump. "Vulgar" is his middle name.) And the sleazebuckets he has campaigning, they must love assassination and likely crave more of it.

We killied a general; let's take a poll; see if we should kill another. That level of human being.

Three senior AP reporters write:

"Americans want to see their President acting decisively and defending the nation's interests and that's exactly what President Trump did," Trump campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh said.

"Republicans are good at killing terrorists and this is a reminder of that," added Michael Ahrens, communications director of the Republican National Committee.

The president was expected to amplify those messages on Thursday in Toledo, Ohio, during his first campaign rally since the drone strike last week. Trump's campaign purchased ads on Facebook highlighting the Soleimani killing.

The Pentagon said Soleimani "was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region." But the Trump administration has refused to provide any specific information about the nature or timing of the alleged plots, leaving Trump open to suspicions that the attack was driven, at least in part, by a belief that it might help him in the polls.

Those around the president strongly dismiss any suggestion of political motive. But they have been happy to use the killing to contrast Trump with his Democratic rivals, painting him as a strong leader and accusing Democrats of appeasing Iran with a failed foreign policy approach.

Despite the short shelf life of most Trump news stories, Trump aides recognized immediately that the strike — approved by the president at his private club in Florida during his winter break — could play an outsize role in the upcoming campaign, particularly if Iran retaliated and the region descended into chaos.

[italics added] This is the most vulgar thing that Trump has done, dancing for votes on the body of an assassinated Iranian general. Chest beating and all. The bastard should Google "Archduke Francis Ferdinand" to see what level of infamy could attach to his lack of culture and courage, and plain good sense. In elevating his reelection hopes above sensible policy, he is inviting special grief onto other American families, when none was as threatened before his drone strike. There is nothing "neat" about shooting a human to death from a pilotless airplane. It took no courage, only a willingness to risk hell breaking loose, where he and kin will go untouched but military families will suffer. Is it an escalation that would have happened anyway, one merely accelerated, or was it a calculated step to avoid peace? Is the policy to avoid peace at any cost? What is the purpose, if not that? Deterrence? We'll see.

The bastard would dig up John Lennon's corpse and shoot it again, if thinking it would be worth two votes. Tune time for the threat to sanity's reelection team and their ghoulish chops. Were the war-mongers firmly dislodged from office and their budget used to help our people instead of for killing Muslims a world away from our soil, for their oil, we could finance oil independence - becoming the world's leading renewable energy nation, green and proud. With funding for healthcare for all, single payer, and other overdue progress, for our citizens, against nobody, a nation in peace with its own people, and others.

Park the drones, now, if it remains an option after what's recently been "accomplished" by Trump and crew. Parked on ground, nobody gets murdered in cold blood by 'em, for the reason Trump wants reelection and lacking a sense of decency he will stop at nothing, including bending a national foreign policy intent of both houses of Congress to fund Ukraine against Russia, without demanding dirt on Joe Biden or his family.

BOTTOM LINE: Reveling in having murdered somebody is not Presidential. You have to wonder, if the man had a conscience, what he'd be doing and who'd be his Vice President instead of what he does and who got installed that heartbeat away.

_____________UPDATE_____________
The war drum pivot is not new with Trump. Not any more a new thing when used by Bush with Iraq. Countering the threat of those WMD's.

Julian Castro served with Biden in the Obama administration. With that background, on quitting his Presidential bid, he endorses Warren.

After being there, he's done that. CBS reports:

Castro will be an active surrogate for Warren who is planning to travel the country for her, according to people familiar with the plans. He will keep a handful of staffers from his campaign with him while others from his policy team are likely to join hers.

The endorsement forms a political marriage of like-minded campaigns and candidates. Castro and Warren are credited by the rest of the field for churning out some of the most detailed and liberal policy proposals, on issues like immigration, criminal justice reform and taxes. Castro often released his plans first and Warren followed with her own similar proposals, which inevitably garnered more attention.

Not ol' Joe. Not young Pete. Nor Amy. Castro knows quality when he sees it; and knows Biden after years of Biden's love of credit card companies and such.

Is it a surprise, with Warren not blessed with offspring like Hunter Biden? Without all those Senate years of being Joe?

Last, I do not know Corey Day, but am I supposed to be impressed with his judgment? Likely there's a salary involved. A breakaway from Minnesota Dem gravitation in large measure to embracing the Klobuchar candidate; with no signs of Day having been offered a job with Amy.

Go where the getting is good?

_____________UPDATE_____________
The Castro endorsement is more than a formal one, appearing to involve staff adjustments and support in campaigning much as AOC has done with Bernie - her endorsement being more than merely formal, although she has to concentrate on reelection this year. Castro has no such other opportunity/duty, at present. See, e.g., NYTimes. Newsweek.

Was Iranian Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani the first assassination of the Trump Presidency?

Link. Think about it yet more.

Kill the problem was Trump's Iran answer, so how exactly was the earlier problem handled? No drone, but ...