Watching the Titanic set sail. [UPDATED]

Actually a steam-pressure driven vessel, no sail, now touted worldwide as state of the art. Notice the ship's captain in the background, who, for reasons of judgment or otherwise motivated by forces which we can only guess about, is dead set to pilot things on a foreseeable course inexorably toward a gigantic looming iceberg, (called Hunter), with 9/10th of its destructive mass invisible so far, below see level.

__________UPDATE__________
With Biden committed to picking a woman vice president, make it Elizabeth Warren to balance the ticket, and he'd lock in my vote. And he'd have a chance. We'd have HOPE. That there'd be CHANGE. (The real thing.) Down ticket would shake out fine with that choice. It would reassure progress.
 [UPDATE was edited a bit from its initial posting].

_____________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
The Politico item linked to in the UPDATE states in part:

There’s a powerful current of thought in Democratic circles that Biden needs to choose a black woman after African American electorate indisputably revived his campaign in South Carolina and the South. But it's by no means a certainty.

“I think it’s necessary for it to be a woman and I prefer an African-American woman. That’s my preference,” Majority Whip Jim Clyburn told POLITICO in an interview. Clyburn’s endorsement of Biden before South Carolina’s Feb. 29 primary was a transformative moment for the Biden campaign.

Clyburn said Biden’s pick for a running mate is one of the most important decisions he’ll make. Biden’s age — he'll be 78 on InaugurationDay 2021, the oldest person to take the oath of office of the presidency if he wins — only heightens the importance. While Clyburn has publicly discussed possible running mates, he said he hasn’t made recommendations personally to Biden.

“Here’s the thing, when you choose a running mate, you have to choose based upon compatibility. You have to choose based upon what I would like to call competency. A lot of vetting is going to take place. A lot of polling is going to take place,” Clyburn said. “And I’m certain he will choose what he thinks is best to complement his candidacy for the presidency and capable of becoming president, if the situation called for it.”

“I think it’s necessary for it to be a woman and I prefer an African-American woman."

Majority Whip Jim Clyburn

Biden has been dogged by questions about his age and his failure to attract younger voters, putting pressure on his campaign to balance his ticket with a fresh face. Geography, too, is a consideration. The imperative to win back the Rust Belt, said Biden advisers, will be one major factor in the decision.

Read that in context of Axios reporting:

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), the highest-ranking black member of Congress, told The Daily Beast Wednesday that Sen. Bernie Sanders did not make specific efforts to court his endorsement for the 2020 presidential race.

[...] --61% of voters in South Carolina said that Clyburn endorsing Biden was an important part of their decision. 27% said that endorsement was "the most important factor."

-- 61% of black voters in South Carolina threw their support behind Biden in the state's primary, while only 16% supported Sanders, exit polls by Edison Research show.

What he's saying: “I find it very interesting that someone is referring to African American voters in South Carolina as the establishment,” Clyburn told The Daily Beast, referring to Sanders' claims that the Democratic establishment is coalescing around Biden in order to stop his campaign. “I don’t understand how that vote can be dismissed."

"I don't need to be courted," Clyburn added, noting that he "had a lot of conversations with almost every one of the candidates."

The big picture: Biden garnered the most black support among any candidate in Minnesota, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Massachusetts, California, Alabama and Virginia, according to preliminary exit poll estimates from the New York Times.

[links in quoted originals omitted]

Finally, the last woman on the face of the earth to pick? Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Second, Ms. Clinton. A minority woman, a new face, whom all sides might find acceptable, Washington State's Rep. Pramila Jayapal. She is well spoken and bright, and would solidify recognition of multiple blocs, women, minorities, progressives, and conservative Democrats could show sincere recognition of other blocs by accepting and strongly supporting a Biden-Jayapal ticket, for solidarity. However, not to be. Absent a Constitutional Amendment to the requirement of birth within the US - lands and overseas duty stations (recall Trump assertions during Obama years and John McCain's birth during parental military duty, Canal Zone). Jayapal was born in India. There is Nina Turner, who fits Rep. Clyburn's mention of Biden's need to consider African American women, in choosing, with Turner meeting that consideration while having progressive cred. Tulsi, in quitting, endorsed Biden. As a VP candidate she'd be a Somoan-Hindu livening up a ticket, but that will not be. Parting from the commit to a woman, how does this pairing grab you?

Yeah. Right.

FURTHER: After a day or two reflection Stacey Abrams seems the betting favorite, it's Biden's choice not mine. Barbara Lee would be a better choice should Biden care at all about progressives, if Lee would take it. Sen. Harris is a deal killer. Too much like Biden himself, all bluster, substance questionable, more a climber than a sagacious executive, or that seems the persona the public sees.

SO -- A Biden-Harris ticket? I would not buy an "I am that little girl," tee shirt. Like Trump-Pence as a ticket, but with more syllables and with the two tickets having to be viewed as a reflection in a distorting fun-house mirror.

Biden was the worse choice next to Bloomberg.

Clyburn along with Pelosi and Hoyer make up House "leadership." Upgrade is possible.

That said, second ticket spot - Abrams? Last cycle, 2016, another Yale JD ran, but top of ticket, and Trump is in the White House. In the 90's there was a Yale JD getting two terms, and the Democratic Party sunk low and has not yet come near to a populous/progressive rebound. Even while getting two terms, of spoils under Bubba, he devastated things for the soul of the party. Wall Street uber alles still has that the same Bubba miasma.

A frustration, win or lose; Biden. Flawed as he is, Ukraine dealings and all. The Dem inner party establishment wants the spoils, but may see four more. Ukraine Joe will be vulnerable.

Last retrospective thought, Clyburn saying he's not "establishment" is a joke that deserves no laughs. If he calmly propagates that lie, what else is there to judge him on beyond that and his campaign financing IOUs?

Unimpressive on those dimensions, while as a politician-deal maker and power broker Clyburn has cunning (if not wisdom). Clyburn seems to know which side his bread is buttered on, and we've too much of that ruining DC and causing regular people to distrust and even despise federal government to where bellowing out "Deep State" and "Drain the Swamp" gets heard.

DC is bought and reciprocates.  Bernie offered a retreat from money talks, bullshit walks politics, and would have won. Biden is as awful a choice as was Ms. Clinton. She had her Goldman Sachs speech fees, he has son Hunter as an apparent cut-out. Yet, Again, a Biden-Warren ticket would get my vote in an eye blink over Trump-Pence or Trump-Haley. Expect Abrams, a career politician but not a bad one, however. Someone who may be a fine choice, (we'll see); and surely not the deal killer Sen. Harris at the VP spot would be.

FURTHER: One cannot dismiss Abrams as a VP choice unacceptable to progressives, however, as she has credibility, per Wikipedia, in a footnoted paragraph:

Abrams ran for governor of Georgia in 2018.[21] In the Democratic primary she ran against Stacey Evans, another member of the Georgia House of Representatives,[21] in what some called "the battle of the Staceys". Abrams was endorsed by Bernie Sanders and Our Revolution.[22][23] On May 22, she won the Democratic nomination, making her the first black woman in the U.S. to be a major party's nominee for governor.[24]

[italics added]. Further, Abrams' Wikipedia page discloses an important personal knowledge of how debt squeezes ordinary people (not billionaires):

In April 2018 Abrams wrote an op-ed for Fortune revealing that she owed $54,000 in federal back taxes and held $174,000 in credit card and student loan debt.[81] Abrams was repaying the IRS incrementally on a payment plan after deferring her 2015 and 2016 taxes, which she stated was necessary to help with her family's medical bills. During the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, Abrams donated $50,000 to her own campaign.[82][83] In 2019 she completed payment of her back taxes to the IRS in addition to other outstanding credit card and student loan debt reported during the gubernatorial campaign.[84]

You have to suffer to sing the blues, and Abrams has suffered the all-too-prevalent squeeze of burdensome debt, and survived, and prospered. That shows character above and beyond other Abrams' achievements.

Read the Wikipedia page, and there is YouTube. Abrams' Fortune op-ed is behind a subscription wall; hence, Wikipedia gave this CNN open access link.

That to me shows a leavening life experience which should keep her genuine, in advancing to VP. (Coincidentally, there is a Barbara Lee YouTube "conversation" which, like the Abrams item, is over an hour in length, each worth viewing in its entirity.)

BOTTON LINE: A Biden-Abrams ticket seems to be one I'd vote for; subject to a wait-and-see caution up to election day, in case ...

Even aside and apart from the great incentive to vote that way posed by Trump, it would be the difficulty with the first spot on a Biden-Abrams ticket, not the second, which would give pause. Abrams likely is more promising and cogent than Biden, and such a ticket arguably would be better, roles reversed.

Surely if for any reason Biden might fail to serve a complete term, Abrams as VP suggests a better outcome than if Trump wins again, but fails to serve that term completely (even if there's a Trump dump, a Pence goodbye and a Haley hello).

Biden picking Abrams, should he make that choice, would add cause to favor the ticket among progressives. Surely more than the hypothetical posed earlier.

LAST A CAVEAT: LATimes suggests five VP female front runners. Please, please, please, PLEASE - Abrams or Warren - not Klobuchar. She's fine at getting reelected in Minnesota to the Senate by large margins, has not done much, and should stay there. She simply IS NOT A PROGRESSIVE and her selection would alienate that very large and needed Democratic Party bloc.

One presumes Bernie would endorse and campaign for a Biden-Abrams ticket, in more than a pro forma manner.

Such a ticket would help progressives to believe they are not taken for granted, yet again, as has perpetually happened (or too frequently happened), at the hands of the same Democratic Party establishment people who foisted off Perez at DNC in place of Ellison.

Readers can do their own web research, to see whether they feel there is a mainstream media bias favoring Klobuchar, because she is a conservative dumpling, and NOT a progressive. The MSM reporting searched and read here found all touting Biden choosing Amy; and that would be a mistake Biden most surely could make. Warren and Abrams simply offer some hope for progress. Having balance 0n a ticket with Status Quo Joe.

Wait and see. The sooner Biden commits, either way, the better. And do not forget Barbara Lee. If deciding a Californian African American VP would balance the ticket - Lee. NOT HARRIS. Harris would be a counterproductive choice leading to four more.

FURTHER: While it might look as if I am talking against myself, it has been noted that Warren represents Massachusetts with a Republican Governor who'd replace her with some GOP troll, in the Senate, until a special election is held. Warren remaining in the Senate would, in turn, aid that body from ossifying more than has already happened (e.g., Mitch, Schumer, Feinstein, Lindsey Olin Graham).

FURTHER: Strib, here, just say NO! Excerpting:

At his debate on March 15 with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Biden pledged to pick a woman as his vice presidential candidate.

The next day, the Washington Post put Klobuchar second on a list of likely prospects behind California Sen. Kamala Harris. That echoes speculation by pundits and insiders who cite Klobuchar’s swift endorsement of Biden after she dropped out of the race ahead of Super Tuesday.

She did so, according to the latest campaign finance reports, with about $5.2 million left in her campaign coffers. In all, she raised and spent close to $50 million to run for president.

What would she bring? Her message of Midwestern electability (Minnesota is now considered a battleground state) and centrist views that echo Biden’s.

Her biggest obstacle? Many Democrats want Biden to nominate a woman of color.

Her biggest obstacle? She'd sink the ticket, even if Biden alone fails to. With a Biden-Warren or Biden-Abrams ticket the biggest obstacle to winning? Biden! Sinking an Abrams or Warren chance. Hunter helping.

And that "... Many Democrats want Biden to nominate a woman of color." NO. It is wanting a progressive, any color, any gender, any age, any demographics, which puts Amy strongly and clearly on the sidelines. Talk about provincial thinking; talk about Strib. It will not be. Amy stays in the Senate, with more name recognition, getting along with staff.

More frightening in the Strib item - as quoted:

The next day, the Washington Post put Klobuchar second on a list of likely prospects behind California Sen. Kamala Harris.

Whatever faults you can find with Amy, she is a wholly honest person not artificial in any aspect; what you see is what you get. Abrams seems genuine too. Nothing artificial about Amy or Abrams. Or Warren, once looking past "Native American." Which matters not a whit, no matter how Bozo in Chief bleats and tweets. Harris would fit on a Trump ticket if Pence gets dumped; yes, she'd have to change policy positions. For her that's proven easy. Very easy.

Talk about revising and extending remarks.

YouTube. It's a short hour long. (Consider at min 40 through 51 if in a hurry.) Trust matters.

____________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
Reasonable concessions to progressives, if wanting their votes in November, begin with Vice President, but do not end there. Within a Biden adminstration there will be positions open which can be status quo cast, or upgraded to being held an managed by progressives implementing, of all things, progress.

Absent personnel and powers, a token platform plank and a handful of lower level jobs would be an insult progressives SHOULD VOTE AGAINST, IF THAT IS ALL THE OLIVE BRANCH THE WEALTH MONGERS CARE TO OFFER.

IT HAS TO BE REAL, PROMISED, AND SUBSTANTIAL. FOR PROGRESS AND NOT FOR STATUS QUO INNER PARTY "IDENTITY POLITICS" EVANGELISTS AND HANGERS-ON. 

OR, LOSE.



____________FURTHER UPDATE____________
A commitment for progressives being on the transition team is also needed. Clearly such deals would be behind closed doors, but messages have a way of presenting, via leaks or otherwise.

If there are signals such as early endorsement of Biden, pre-convention, by a suitable spectrum of progressives that might be a sign. The VP naming clearly would be a message. It is just that Joe Biden is such a sorry excuse for "presidential" that he's got to neutralize tons of baggage, or be ignored by progressives willing to see a four more ensue, as a matter of principle - or getting a message to the thugs who engineered the Sanders political assassination. And then the conduct of mainstream media in playing patsy with Bloomberg and Schumer and the regular suspects; Pelosi/Hoyer/Clyburn, needs further commentary and close attention going forward. What was done by media and inner party "leadership" was gross. And done coarsely. Inexcusably so, meaning damned well affirmatively earn progressive votes by tangible actions apart from fine words; or twist in the wind.

Win with fairness and inclusive good manners - - -

OR, LOSE.



______________FURTHER UPDATE______________
Dan Burns has posted an interesting item here.

This Vice news item is from elsewhere and a month earlier saying things arguably different from Dan's post, while arguably there is a ring of parallelism, at least in the minds of ones more keyed into visual cues and overlaps than words alone, or primarily. On the Vice image, students of body language please answer, which is alpha dog?

Why do I see Hunter Biden when I look at a photo of Jarad Kushner? An artifact of aging perhaps. I see Hunter also, when looking at a photo of Mayor Pete, so it might be Hunter as generic meme and not as an individual.

____________FURTHER UPDATE____________
The only option seems a third party, and in naming it, staying away from worn labels but trying to explain its purpose, it should be called The Honest Grassroots Party, or for short, the "Honests." It would be such a departure from what we've got, that it might work. Right now it is clear that Bloomberg and Clyburn run the Democrats, for the benefit of the oligarchs. Bloomberg's oligarcxhy being different. He actually had to give a speech or two, not just buy speech ones, such as young Mayor Pete whose job was to divert LGBT bloc sentiment away from Bernie; as Ms. Harris was tasked to do with black women, in swamping Bernie before Blomberg bought the show to a close. Pelosi? Where would she have any place, in among the "Honests?" None. Zippo.

And, Andrew Cuomo? Because Biden is such a stiff, some are saying, "Run Cuomo." Jesus Christ, the garbage bin needs emptying. It's running over.

In all of humanity, worldwide, is there an emptier suit than Jarad Kushner? Name one. An expensive well tailored and fitted suit, where it took two and a half million to get the suit into and through Harvard. From a steller New York family, like the Trumps. The Cuomos. The Clintons. The Bloombergs. Caronavirus picked the right state to thin, but the wrong folks are getting thinned out. Wall Street, yoiu dumb virus. Get sound priorities already. Go where the human rehab need sits greatest. Bottom LIne? Not the elderly, the homeless, the suffering mass. No.

The caronavirus should --- Occupy Wall Street.

_____________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
A nutshell critique of Trump's handling of the Covid-19 situation, memorialized in a short video segment , Ir is prescient, as it was filmed before Wuhan hit the fan.
.
FURTHER: Sanders officially dropped out, as of midday yesterday, per this update's date. Rumor is Biden can fog a mirror, with that alone in his behalf as to being any better than the present White House occupant or the mediocre conservative black guy's administration that had two terms before the present WH occupant. Indications are that Biden at his best would aim to restore that inadequate mediocrity. While not yet willing to vote Trump as an object lesson, (nor believing those that fobbed Biden off on the nation care much whether their horse pulling their cart is named President Biden or President Trump; so voting out of spite is going their way as much as voting for Biden). But the leeches, the consultants, if they again see a Ms. Clinton result for this mediocre old man, they will check how much pocket change they're carrying because their "loser" times will be hard.

Unliss Biden and entourage of creeps offers something, screw 'em.

It's how you reform a party, by not caving in. If they put phony Kamala in the second spot, it's a done deal. Vote Trump. Warren or Abrams in the second spot would mean a grudgingly reluctant vote for that individual being allowed a role. We'll see. But nobody besides Jill Biden can be enthusiastic over that creep getting the nomination, and how it was staged. Bernie was torpedoed, so why vote for those who did it?

_____________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
Down With Tyrannym today, here and here. A third party is what we need. The two Republicans the DWT items draw to focus have had a large role in generating that necessity. They've been paid to do it. Judas goat pays well. With leadership as we've had since Truman, learn Chinese. Or work on that third party.
______________________________

THIRD PARTY TIME?

_______________________________

FURTHER: For a counterargument of, "yet again, lesser evil," though not worded that way; start here, but with that a Breitbart link, it can start a search for reliable sources, on topic. As long as lesser evil works; CHANGE is a joke. Opinions can differ.

As today is a moment in history, Clyburn and Biden and Bloomberg and such defining a passion against change to our milatrized corporatist unjust status quo - ponder what America is and how it differs if at all from what it was during last years of Dr. King's lifetime?

We are still what we were, and that's bad news. King's effort at disarming racial injustice was then timely, but he went beyond that a year before a sniper shot him in the mouth from hiding when King stepped out onto a motel balcony. Liking sensible cause and effect history, King was murdered April 4, 1968. A lone gunman they said, independent of complicating ties? Of note, precisely one year to the day earlier King had delivered in a New York City church his "Beyond Vietnam" speech, posted online here. Any excerpting will be unjust to the entirety of King's insights, readers have the link, but for purposes here and for those not wanting to follow the link, King was shot precisely a year after a key speech expressing thoughts that went beyond the basic range of racial civil rights concerns, to a broader look at "struggle for the Soul of America." This excerpt:

Since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything on a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettos of the North over the last three years, especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked, and rightly so, “What about Vietnam?” They asked if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.

For those who ask the question, “Aren’t you a civil rights leader?” and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957, when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: “To save the soul of America.” We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself until the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard of Harlem, who had written earlier:

O, yes, I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath—
America will be!

Now it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. [...]

[...] It is with such activity that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” [applause] Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on to the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin [applause], we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. [applause]

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, “This is not just.” It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, “This is not just.” The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A year to the day later, fatally shot in the mouth. "Lone gunman," our government said.

I post this in large part because Rep. Clyburn could be a better man than he is, going forward, but at this point in his career and with an awareness of King's life cut short, dare he? Biden could adapt to a more humane policy toward our poor, per Bernie's insights, to be a better man, but dare he? Kennedy as President also questioned a status quo. Not as far as King did, but enough to suffer the so-called "single gunman acting alone" end that King met.

Bloomberg, a lost soul, money being his power-weapon which he wielded crudely and cruelly for establishment status quo perpetuation. Voters at least have rejected so coarse an approach as Bloomberg tried. (Something the Roberts court enabled, the coarseness of their outcome not being weighed sufficiently during Citizens United deliberation; for reasons the five member majority held utmost in their hearts.) That is really scary.

NEXT QUESTION: Who has been funding Clyburn's career which has taken the directions it has? And what is the lesson?

Two Wikipedia links - here and here - which may/may not in readers' minds be relevant to the remainder of the post, or to our present status quo, Hunter Biden and all. Goldman Sachs speeches, 2016. And what is the lesson?


UPDATE: Current thought is for caution and patience to see the end of the party convention and happenings between now and then to decide to either vote top ticket or leave a blank and vote down ticket only. Some might stay home, or insist they will unless ...

Even with Medicare for All being sabotaged by established greed (or other cause or excuse), restraint and attention should be shown now; i.e., at least see the planks in a platform upon which Biden will be running. To see what Bernie and Warren achieve at Convention. To see if Gabbard's Iraq veteran's viewpoint is stymied [dangerously unofficial, and worse a leading wave of a tide toward goring "wrong" Pentagon spending oxen - love mixed metaphors].

Presumptuous early decision making thus acknowledged as unneeded and counterproductive; something beyond disdain from now on toward out-numbered Progressives has to be strongly shown. Long term in perspective, time permitting. Both real and substantial in roles, mutual ambition, and gains. Inner party and progressives have time toward convention to do ironing.

While current thought is as outlined, expectations are low here at present. Nothing's been shown, so far. Pure redo of Obama years is not a WOW! suggestion. It sucks. A link - deets almost always help understandings, especially with four years passing, no improvement, the saga remaining unCHANGED. But barely there voting margins in each house was something even Atlas could not shrug.

FURTHER UPDATE: The Bern is still felt. Keeping a public dialog with Biden cannot fail to aid understandings. A link.

Running on EMPTY

From Obama days, per the Seal. Suits devoid of real content. 

UPDATE

websearch screen capture - a party with a long term Death Wish
has killed and buried Medicare for All
Evidence: Here, here and history.

FURTHER: Another indicator of Medicare for All being in ill-health. Cumulative, but supporting.

The Democratic Party's actual big fear is not Biden losing. That never was as big as the fear of Bernie winning. Mediocrity prevailed yet again because true reform rocks rich boats. Good luck to down-ticket progressives, who have a lot to push against.

For now, after this post a vacation from posting for Bernie and all his fine policy.

We will get to see how four more Trump years will work out.

However, the young will outlive Clyburn and those who went Biden after Clyburn's endorsement.

Bloomberg bought his wish. Biden? Of course big money calls his tune. Hunter? Awful. Senility? There there are troubling signs.

The Republican Bloomberg, what did he buy with over half a billion dollars of spent wealth? It is the status quo he purchased - whether it be Biden or Bloomberg's party's Trump in November. Bloomberg bought status quo in place of reform.

Both Clintons must be happy. Feeling no Bern.

But time favors the young if they follow AOC and do not let the likes of a college town mayor younger than Bernie or Biden mislead. The last thing that little guy wants is reform. What he wants is his share. As big as he can make it. Which will be large because he follows orders. If he can bootstrap himself into more than he is, he'll grab success in an eyeblink. At any cost. His only problem will be elbowing against Kamala Harris for it.

Lean and hungry look was Shakespeare's wording.

Clyburn may end up liking the Indiana small town mayor. Who knows.

That awaits the end of Trump's second term.

UPDATE: Serendipitously coming to mind, readers off the tops of your heads, can you distinguish between a kleptocracy, a plutocracy, and an oligarchy? Considering the last two as largely congruent, a guess is that however you define things the first of the three shares a large Venn diagram overlap with the other two. What does welfare spending look like in a plutocracy? Itmes of intrerest, here, here, here and here. Enjoy the remaining primaries. Try web research - is Bloomberg still spending millions at a time on advertising, and if so, what is he selling or slinging mud at?

FURTHER: Link.

"Party insiders are desperate for an alternative to Bernie Sanders. They would rather go to a meet-and-greet in Wuhan than see an avowed socialist at the top of the ticket. Those pros have solid reasons for their fear. First, they think Sanders would devastate their down-ballot candidates, jeopardizing their chances to keep the House and retake the Senate. They could be wrong, just as Republican insiders were in 2016, but they are convinced Bernie would pose impossible obstacles for centrist Democrats across the country. Second, Bernie would assault the insiders hold on lucrative lobbying contracts and policy influence, just as Trump’s victory smacked down the K Street Republicans, the US Chamber of Commerce, and traditional Republican think tanks."

The headline is the ending paragraph of, "Joe Biden, restoration man - Biden wants to turn Trump into a bizarre interregnum between the prelapsarian Obama years and the senile shelter of the Uncle Joe years," byWill Lloyd; this Spectator link.

Basically the item characterized Biden as running to restore the sanity of the Obama years. When you read the linked item please read it from the perspective that the Obama years [CHANGE promised, promise reneged on] being years causing such unrest with the Status Quo then that Trump ended in the White House for the first [only?] Trump term. If dissatisfaction led to Trump, perhaps the idea of restoring it entails flaws.

The site is worthwhile: Spectator about page. Spectator US version, i.e., written by Brits, about our nation, not theirs.

The Trump economy's one-way how to dissemble game.

When things go boom, it's because of Trump. When things go bust, look elsewhere.

When trash-jobs growth occurs, below $15/hr and "part-time" without benefits to where food stamps are needed for survival, call it "job growth" and tout it numberwise, not as quality jobs vs trash-jobs. Trump's clientele favors that kind of serfdom anyway.

When overall wage stagnation is accompanied by consumer price inflation, don't mention that to the serfs, because the Trump clientele, the monied aristocracy, loves it that way.

Investment growth boosting portfolio values are good and happen because of Trump; tanking is external factors at play. Talk as if stock and bond market growth or shrinkage is all that matters as a sufficient measure of the economy's performance, because Trump's clientele only care about their portfolio fluctuation; all else beings "market noise" of little consequence.

With a few simple rules you can understand Trump Administration economic dissembling facially, and at the honest core.

One last rule - tout the private sector's entrepreneurship over government interference, while taking credit as responsible for portfolio-grade asset growth doing well. Never mind inconsistency and wanting it both ways - the invisible hand and Trump's hand being cognates, because details serve only to confuses common minds.

Being dishonest about the economy is easy. So why don't more people try it? Being unable to afford bread and pharma at the same time due to inadequate income does happen but that is because of personal character deficiencies of those in such a straddle. If only they had more gumption they'd bootstrap out of poverty. Sooner rather than later. Once showing adequate character these troubled people might even prosper to where they'd become Republicans. It happens.

Contradicting Trump economy touting is like arm wrestling with a ratchet. Things only click one way, in Trump-world.

Much of all you need to know about how Elizabeth Warren and Ukraine Joe view Chapter 7 personal bankruptcy, one championing rights of people while the other champions power of banks and credit card firms.

Links: here and here. Elizabeth Warren, in the comparison, surely does not come across as a heartless thug.

Why I am glad I never liked Kamala Harris, never really trusting anything she said.

Strib carrying an AP feed reporting Harris endorsing Biden, Jesse Jacdkson endorsing Bernie; mid-item:

In a statement on Biden, meanwhile, Harris said, "There is no one better prepared than Joe to steer our nation through these turbulent times, and restore truth, honor, and decency to the Oval Office."

"He is kind and endlessly caring, and he truly listens to the American people," her statement added.

Harris said the United States "is at an inflection point. And the decision voters make this November will shape the country and the world our children and grandchildren will grow up in. I believe in Joe Biden."

Right. "No one better prepared than Joe" precisely explains why she ran against him and only folded when it became crystal clear beyond any doubt that she had no chance. Even thinking, as clear from her statement, that she was running while less prepared than the old white conservative blowhard career politician she now proclaims as better prepared to govern than her.

She's a bullshitter, even in endorsing one.

The AP item further reports:

Jackson was appearing with Sanders during a campaign stop in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and planned to say that Biden had not reached out to him for endorsement and Sanders had. He says he chose Sanders after the senator's campaign offered responses on 13 issues Jackson raised, including protecting voting rights, increasing funding for historically black colleges and universities and committing to putting African Americans on the Supreme Court, according to prepared remarks released by the campaign.

Right. Sanders on the issues. And, Ukraine Joe cared not who Jesse Jackson is, or how he feels, ON ISSUES.

Then, compare hyperbolic dissembling: Harris, re Ukraine Joe, " ... kind and endlessly caring, and he truly listens to the American people." This is about the career politician who listens to Wall Street and to credit card companies and sought and will further seek money from plutocrats, not from the people since they give to Bernie.

This Harris patter is about the SOB who Warren called out decades ago over screwing students and below-poverty-level single parent families via Biden's championing so-called "bankruptcy reform" tooled by the politicians to work in that direction. That "reform" term was the hack politicians' wording used then for making it more as the credit card companies want; against the people.

Any but total fools could see the dissembling of it. Going full circle, Harris is not dumb. She knows exactly who Ukraine Joe is and has been. But she is a party hack at heart, serving a sick corporatist-loving status quo. Ugly in the extreme.

Harris becoming a Biden bro: What else is a hack politician to do, but bond with her own kind? It makes me glad Harris could not generate any traction. People saw through her.

If they could only see through Ukraine Joe.

California really needs two better Senators. Progressives instead of the plutocrat and the junior Senator plutocrat wannabe.

NOTE; The understanding here is Cory Booker has not endorsed anyone. Yet. That one would be interesting. Perhaps he is not intending an endorsement. Perhaps he endorsed somebody already, with it under my radar and it not showing up in websearch. That is unlikely.

_____________UPDATE____________
People should not forget Kamala Harris' debate ambush, "That Little Girl Was Me." Politico's story remains online. However, you can no longer get the tee shirt from Kamala. You get a 403 error instead.

https://store.kamalaharris.org/that-little-girl-was-me/

The tee shirt was priced at thrity bucks and ugly. That little girl's a sick joke.

Amazon still lists it:

Product description

Kamala Harris' 2020 campaign "That Little Girl Was Me" T-shirts following viral exchange with Joe Biden.

That was the point in time where it was first realized and posted here, about the woman being more gimmick than real.

Don't whine. Persevere.

No prominent women left in the Dem Party 2020 contest at this point, that's a fact, with two septuagenarian men still standing (and Tulsi who's been unfairly marginalized and not competitive at present).

Let's be honest about things. If you blame anyone, blame Tom Perez and his DNC henchpersons. They made the 15% rule. It was the pinch that had party regulars at Klobuchar's throat to drop out for Biden, before Super Tuesday. Klobuchar did not persevere. She caved in. She bailed out. However you phrase it, she took the low road; for the likes of Ukraine Joe.

I blame that on her. I exerted no pressure, indeed, as I saw it I called it. Klobuchar was the better candidate than Ukraine Joe. She's honest. Nobody has ever challenged her on that. Her caving in was similar to Warren; again the 15% rule at play, and Bernie aptly being the leading progressive for multiple gender independent reasons: His policies were more progressive and favorable to regular people. In 2016 when people were begging Warren to oppose the Goldman-Sachs candidate - taking three legal bribes a/k/a speech fees for a quarter million each from that financial behemoth. Taking that path was a gender neutral, money incentivized thing Ms. Clinton did, and Warren's policy positions were progressive.

However, Warren declined when begged in 2016 to provide an alternative to Wall Street rule and grotesque income and wealth inequality, and Bernie stepped to the plate. You don't hit any home runs if you decline going to bat.

Then after Bernie raised the bar in 2016, 2020 comes, and Bernie and Warren both ran, again with Bernie's policy positions being the more progressive. People saw those differences, it mattered. And as to gender, in 2016 a progressive alternative existed to the Republican ticket and the Goldman-Sachs ticket. Jill Stein. Gender aside she got my vote because of the dreck the two party stranglehold ended up offering, 2016.

And in 2016 Goldman-Sachs was positioned by the two parties to a win-win situation. Bernie got DWS'd at DNC [leaving DWS gender aside she's as bad or worse than Perez on character]. If there was gender bias, it cut Madeline Albright's special-place-in-hell way where Ms. Clinton played her gender card and then criticized opposition as misogynistic. It wasn't. She was a greatly flawed money-grubber, per the "speech" payments.

Now, Tulsi is still in, and nobody on the crying towels wants to note that. It is not my fault Biden got more party support than Tulsi. And more than Amy. I'd rather either of those two leading the tocket over Ukraine Joe. I could have voted for either in the general election, unlike for Ukraine Joe. But I only have one vote. If Warren had stayed in and been a contested convention winner; I'd have been thrilled; it was her party colleagues who pushed Ukraine Joe. Not me.

With that as a prelude, a Strib item inspired this posting. Strib, this morning had local content, "'It's just so bleak': Minnesota women reel after female candidates leave 2020 race - Some hope that a woman will be vice president.
By Briana Bierschbach and Torey Van Oot - Star Tribune, March 6, 2020 — 9:10pm."

Mid-item excerpt:

The laments have not only come from Democrats. Carly Fiorina, a 2016 GOP presidential candidate, suggested that sexism was at play when critics questioned the qualifications of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republicans’ 2008 vice presidential candidate. In the 2012 presidential election, then Minnesota U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann became the first woman to win the Iowa GOP straw poll, but then finished a distant sixth in the state’s caucuses.

Amid this year’s disappointments, many Democratic women were looking to where women in the race might land. Some hoped one of the former female candidates would at least end up on the ticket this November.

Stephanie Schriock, the president of EMILY’s List, a political group that works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights, was disappointed when Warren, only the second woman in history to get the group’s presidential endorsement, dropped out. But she said she was encouraged by the fact that even four years ago, the idea that there would be six women running for president in 2020 didn’t even cross her mind.

Let's parse that. Fiorina was a blah candidate whose claim to fame was that she'd been CEO of Hewitt-Packerd. In fact, she mis-managed the firm, and was fired; the firm later recovering under alternate management. Schriock - she was a crackerjack campaign manager for Tester in Montana and Franken in Minnesota; then took her regular-paycheck retirement, via Emily's List; which was so into pushing Ms. Clinton's 2016 candidacy that it shorted down ticket possible help, and somehow Jill Stein, not a Dem inner party regular, was fully and totally ignored. Emily's List is a party organ. As DNC, each in 2016 headed by a woman. If gender matters, what about the Warren campaign management - why not a woman? Presumably Warren picked the most promising manager, independent of gender - as Bernie supporters in 2020 are picking who they (based not on gender but on his more progressive policy and his courage in 2016 to oppose the cramdown of the Wall Street candidate) thought best.

Of the women running in 2020 - Warren was second choice here based on policy and record, Gillibrand had deep-sixed Franken. Harris is/was an opportunist, a Willie Brown protege, (some have alleged bedfellow), and she had a prosecutorial record that was challenged as unnecessarily harsh. Gabbard had much worthwhile to say from having served in the military, against regime change war [recall Clinton's Libya fiasco] and was sidetracked by MSM, which is their fault, not Tulsi's and not mine. (Of those still candidates for the Dem nomination, Tulsi to me is second best to Bernie, now, with Warren out; and voting for her over Trump would have been a joy, were she to be the Dem nominee. Unlike Ukraine Joe. Where if Jill Stein runs again I again would pick her over two-party dreck. Or the legalized mj candidate this cycle if there is one, rather than flawed Ukraine Joe.

In 2016 I would have been overjoyed to vote for Warren, had she run, and now for 2020 I'd have been overjoyed to see her the nominee and voting for her in the general election would have been joyous too, had she generated more 2020 traction than Bernie.

So, based on policy and history, Bernie favored as more progressive. And if the nominee was to be from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party - Klobuchar was better than the inexperienced town mayor, and not critically flawed as is Ukraine Joe. But the inner party, not voters, did the Joe cramdown. Amy took it, and quit. She could have stayed at least through Super Tuesday as Warren did; but choose to bow to party pressure - improper party pressure but, again, based on Perez hacks setting DNC rules.

So, Warren picks a male campaign manager, and complains now of gender bias. DWS held DNC leadership and abused the power. Fiorina was in fact a failed CEO. Harris' unappealing and overaggresive ambition galled, as did the overambitiousness of the South Bend mayor.

BOTTOM LINE: Klobuchar was the best of the Repbulican-lite candidates. The worse, Ukraine Joe, was the inner party darling as was Ms. Clinton in 2016, and their choosing mediocrity is their problem, not mine.

They hate progressives, love Wall Street donor money, and choose accordingly, but then Klobuchar was the better person in that Republican-lite camp.

Warren just suffered having a better progressive option running, one who also had the courage to push a progressive dimension into the 2016 contest when Warren deferred. Warren was wanted then by progressives, better known then, than Bernie.

But Bernie had the guts.

So. The belief here was Warren and Klobuchar should have remained. They quit.

Next, as to gender bias, it is not an easy topic. For example - Basketball coach Reeve has committed to only hiring future female assistant coaches, as a palliative step given how the WNBA has a majority male head coaching situation, league-wide, in a womens' league. It is a gender biased decision, clearly, merit not being the key determinant (as with Warren's campaign manager choice), but gender first and determinant, second criterion being to choose the best woman available.

I like that Reeve decision, but I can see it criticized by others as gender biased. Which it is.

Bottom line - Warren should have listened and run in 2016 when she was known and respected as a leading progressive and Bernie was an unknown but with guts to put himself into things so there'd be a progressive option. Bless that step, especially against Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street, the Clinton power base. Now Ukraine Joe is their darling of the day, not Amy, and the reason is likely relative pliability, Joe being the most understanding of serving the donors any way they want.

More could be argued, but the post is lengthy already. Blame the DNC and Wall Street for 2016's Clinton defeat, and for what might shape up as a DNC - Wall Streat 2020 brain fart by DNC, with Wall Street happy with Orange Man or Ukraine Joe.

If you get a sense that DNC is disrespected here. Good. It is. The entire batch of wealth-over-fairness DNC inner workers and donors are the villains.

Don't blame me. I supported Ellison for DNC head. Because he is a progressive. He was an early 2016 Bernie endorsee, as was Tulsi Gabbard; and now the inner party morons are extracting exacting vengeance against both. They are responsible for Klobuchar and Warren being pressured to clear the field, they set the rules, so don't moan over the electorate making the best choices each individual voter made, collectively favoring Biden and Bernie.

I'd have wanted a Bernie and Warren contest, with the one getting more primary votes having first ticket spot and the other being VP candidate [not most convention delegates being the measure but popular voting numbers to be what matters, as might be done about electoral college reform to make popular voting majority definitive]. Then for a second term the two, Bernie and Liz, could have reversed ticket spots. That would have been the ideal ending for me.

UPDATE: It is guessing after a fact not in evidence - but if 2016 had been a general election, Fiorina vs. Ms. Clinton, I probably would have voted Fiorina, holding my nose and going lesser evil (unless something like a Fiorina-Pence ticket was offered). The one presidential candidate in my lifetime I would never vote for even if under torture, is female, I admit that. Because of where I live Michele Bachmann ended up my Rep., and that she thought herself presidential was the nastiest of jokes. I would vote Ukraine Joe or Ms. Clinton over that monster, but it's not faint priase, it is no praise at all to say that. And, I would if so confronted vote Ukraine Joe, in a heartbeat, over Mike Pence. Aside from those qualifications, I regard Ukraine Joe as toxic waste, based on his entire career, and I'd expect Anita Hill to agree with me.

The Democratic Party has to reform. They've at least respected the electorate enough to lie to us, where the Republicans say who they are and that they'd screw us. Aside from Trump that is. He lied. He won. We need caps, "Make American Politics Marginally Decent Again," or some such slogan. At least Reagan's passed and can no longer haunt the nation. There is sunshine in that realization. It relates to how I cannot hate Trump the way some do. Reagan was worse. And I remember. That we survived the Gipper means we can survive Trump, and the Chicken Little fluff from some Dems that Fascism is inevitable if Trump gets four more - that is galling - because we're fascist already, (Bloomberg did run), and our goal has to become less so. Medicare for All is a first step toward that goal. It should be a litmus test for any Dem Party nominee; but Ukraine Joe, along with his other baggage, opposes it. Perhaps progressives should decline en masse to vote for any nominee not on board to healthcare being a right of every person living in the nation. Make it the pivotal issue, as Bernie is trying to do.

This morning's online Strib, between two iterations of its homepage corrected an error which is all too easy to make.

Two bottom-of-page screenshot differences. You may need to click the images to enlarge them in order to discern things.

Earliest:

Corrected:

The error was an easy one with no one real difference actually existing to make it anything but a very, very easy mistake, (politically, appeaarance-wise, and as to policies). A hack career politician is truly no different from -- a hack career politician. Really. Strib proves it via the "too easy mistake." Put another way, interchangeability rules - one suit or another.

Strib has a well-meaning editorial about "elelctability." It minces words. Or it fails to understand KISS.

Link. Title: Democratic Party divide: Moderates wield 'electability' as a weapon - I'm a progressive, a Bernie Sanders supporter, and this is why I can't cross over.

Here's how the "electabilituy" issue should be analyzed: Trump is a snake, we all can agree to that. Biden is a weasel. Bernie is a mongoose. Don't try sending a weasel to do a mongoose job. It's even a difficult thing, for a mongoose. But a weasel? For that job? Forget it. It won't work.

Look at how it failed in 2016.

Now, do you understand? Don't nominate the weasel.

BIDEN is a loser. Run the SOB and lose down ticket too.

The bastard opposes Medicare for All. Klobuchar too, and she pulled that 11th hour withdrawal stunt.

Run Biden and I stay home. Every progressive should do the same. Either get a true voice, or let THEM lose with another loser.

Run a bribe taker [Goldman Sachs speeches] as done, lose. Run another [Burisma] and lose. Lack of even minimal ethical conduct is a deal killer. And it is not gender bias, first because Clinton and Biden are of different gender, second, each was a bribe taker; but Elizabeth Warren as the party's 2020 candidate, she'd win and clean up down ticket too. I would love the opportunity to elect Warren the first woman president. Break the gender line with an honorable quality person, please, not a bribe taker as was run in 2016. (Technically the speech for super bucks ploy avoids liability for the narrowly defined crime of bribery, but it is what it is. Technically, routing stuff through the offspring dodges criminal liability too - but it also is what it is.)

It is not gender. It is bribe taking, or the appearance of the same with son Hunter as way too close of a credible cutout person.

I want a candidate I can respect. Biden is a bankers' tool. What he did about student debt and closing off bankruptcy relief was unconscionable. There is no other, better word to describe that and his smug attitude doing it. Unconscionable in all aspects (and that smug crap is anything but an endearing charm). I don't need that kind of ticket leader since Biden's record an attitude is as bad or worse than Trump's. And he is a career politician, unlike Trump. If I want a career politician, I have one I appreciate as honest, AND sound on policy;

BERNIE.

Handling a career in politics the way Bernie has is honorable, with no Burisma nor Goldman Sachs dishonorable BS to the man. Not one iota. And Bernie is direct with no smug, cute BS toward a committee witness.

I urge every progressive to weigh the chouce of just saying NO. Force the down ticket candidates into wanting to force inner party leadership to do the right thing or again see Trump, family, and cronies get the spoils the Biden hangers on want. Hit them where it hurts if that is what it takes to get their attention. The smug and mean-spirited SOBs.

If Biden is the nominee, progressives should just stay home. Four more of Trump would be half as bad as eight of Biden. They are mirror images ethically, and on policy it is hard to say which is worse. Or whether they differ in any major way.

_________UPDATE_________
Moments after the trigger was pulled to publish the above thinking I was told Warren decided to suspend her campaign. That makes the remaining contest Bernie and Biden, up to convention time. A brokered convention can pick anyone, even Steny Hoyer, to run. Or Tulsi. Warren still could be a compromise choice - the only choice besides Bernie that I'd vote for, at this point, given recent developments. At least Pete and Bloomberg have withdrawn, but the convention could nominate either, once the superdelegates are involved to muck things up as badly as they did in 2016. Superdelegates are offensive to democracy, but there's no law that a political party needs be democratic. It is only that if not democratic, don't vote in a way that encourages rather than discourages undemocratic attitudes and conduct in the future. Think, always, reform. It's only good sense to not give positive reinforcement to crap. Not liking Comcast and MSNBC, why would I be expected to vote for their financed choice? Big donors' choice.

I am so tired of "lesser evil" choices, the worse being 2016 when the two most unpopular candidates ever were run against each other by the two parties having a stranglehold on our nation's politics, each running financed by wealth which afterward always wants some kind of return on investment.

We have to break the mold. Starting 2020, as best we can.

__________FURTHER UPDATE__________
We need net neutrality to not be jerked around by web ISPs. Biden, indebted to Comcast, is in no position to deliver it. Bernie is.

A facepalm incident, ya betcha.

Link.

So, it is true he did not touch his face with his palm, details differed, but still, a facepalm moment.

Bernie is free of this kind of taint. That SHOULD matter.

ZeroHedge carrying an item authored by John Solomon, about the Biden - Ukraine shit the party establishment does not mind. It staggers the imagination that this would not be a major concern. Mainstream media seem to downplay the scandalous dimensions suggested by all publicly known circumstances. It will be hard in a ramp up to November to be explaining a blind eye to a red flag, in order to torpedo progressive reform. These party regulars are --- concerned. Not about Biden's shady dimensions, but by Bernie's success without them. Making them vestigial would touch their self esteem. Their cash flows too. Business as usual has survived the Bloomberg buy-the-race ploy and expresses more comfortable statements about Bernie's progressivism having been dented too.

It is early in the election process.

Politico, here, a March 2, 2020, item which should be of interest to all the establishment Biden boosters, starting:

A key senator is threatening to issue a subpoena for records related to former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter and his work for a Ukrainian energy firm — the most significant escalation yet in an investigation that has divided Senate Republicans.

In a letter obtained by POLITICO, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) told members of the panel that he will soon schedule a business meeting to vote on a subpoena for the documents, which are purportedly related to Hunter Biden’s role on the board of the Ukrainian firm, Burisma.

The subpoena seeks records from Blue Star, a Democratic public affairs firm. In his letter to committee members, Johnson cited government documents indicating that the firm “sought to leverage Hunter Biden’s role as a board member of Burisma to gain access to, and potentially influence matters at, the State Department.”

If issued, the subpoena would be the first as part of the panel’s joint conflict-of-interest investigation with the Senate Finance Committee. It also comes on the heels of Biden’s landslide victory in the South Carolina primary on Saturday, and ahead of several Super Tuesday contests that could shape the trajectory of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

This seems an interesting and particularized level of inquiry; Senate Committee chairs, coordinating. Not good news for Biden and his booster billionaires. Are there bodies buried and do these Senate Republicans have a good idea of where to look?

You don't need a weatherman to know which ways the story blows? No. Dylan's lyrics differed. But wait and see. This version might be more akin to timely questions and uncertainty getting answered in ways we can now only guess at.

NY Times reports Steve Bullock likely running for Senate seat now held by Trump favorite, Steve Daines.

Link

Bernie does stay on message nicely.

Video Link. Perhaps Biden peaked too early with the dropouts' supporters having had short notice to reevaluate. If intelligent reevaluation happens subsequent to Super Tuesday in states yet to vote a primary, the message may reach through to gray matter; while expecting Biden to be Biden, no different than in his prior runs for President, where each time, it was not there for him.

Tuesday's vote was a bad vote, but move on because the bulk of convention delegate votes are still on the table. The Bern is needed. Same old status quo would be Trump winning - if you run the corporate Dem message against Trump, as it was tried in 2016, and failed, so shall it fail again if tried again. Biden is as close to being a Clinton as Chelsea is. Why expect he'd finish differently?

Put into personal terms, I have no reason in the world to vote for Joe Biden this November. None. He's Trump with more bumbling speech habits. Identical ethics questions fit Biden and Trump. Running some unimaginative BS corporate toady candidate with baggage this time seems unjustified, given how that idea worked with an actual Clinton last try.

BOTTOM LINE: Give US a decent choice or we get four more.

Mediate reports, Bloomberg drops out. But he won American Somoa.

Link.

Image.

What Bloomberg did was to screw Elizabeth Warren out of delegates, wedging her to a number of fourth place finishes (under fifteen percent). She was his big target, or that's how it turned out. She has said she'll persist. She remains the alternate to either Bernie or Biden, and persisting is a good thing if there ends up being a brokered convention. If the superdelegate crap is what will undo Bernie at least put them on the record for doing it. Each and every one of them, pushing Biden, losing again; NO LEARNING CURVE. But forcing them affirmatively at the convention to do their dirty work in daylight would have a purpose.

Having cast my last vote for Amy Klobuchar the last time she ran for the Senate, there will be no more. Never.

Voting to finish the fleecing!! Who are these voters?

Super Tuesday was an eye opener. The electorate is far dumber than I'd thought. That Bloomberg got a single vote, and that Biden so smoothly took advantage of the dropout movement; each of those outcomes is amazing. Voters vote. Everybody has to live with the mistakes of a majority.

Yet it is nothing new. How anyone would have voted for Reagan or either of the Bushes was information portending idiots for Joe.

There will be no substantial difference between Trump and Biden, except there'd be only four more Trump years vs a possible eight for Biden.

Four more Trump years is coming. Joe Biden is a loser, Hunter Biden is worse. Bloomberg running as a Democrat is a fraud.

Bernie or four more seems to be the news of the day, and voters are opting for four more.

At least we dodged a second Clinton last cycle. There is that brightness to things.

This could be the last Crabgrass post. The ignorance of the American electorate is stupendous. Sheep. Unfortunately, I and other Bernie backers get what they deserve. I just today am not sure whether I have another "lesser evil" vote in me. There was not one in 2016, when the two party stranglehold offered Clinton or Trump.

Also an eye opener; Warren being consistently behind Biden AND the Republican turncoat. She, unlike Biden or the Republican, is a quality person.

Is Jill Stein running in 2020?

Affluent presidential candidate quits the contest after failing to inspire primary voters.

Just as the Bloomberg camp wanted. Per their "Clear the field" message. Strib editorializes about it:

Despite defeat, Klobuchar should hold her head high -- Minnesota senator conducted a presidential campaign with integrity.
By Editorial Board Star Tribune - March 2, 2020 — 4:03pm

[... final paragraph] Klobuchar, true to form, is packing away her own disappointments and within hours was planning to join her presidential-race rival Pete Buttigieg in endorsing former Vice President Joe Biden at a rally in Dallas. It’s not easy to shutter one’s own campaign on a day’s notice and immediately begin stumping for someone else. Minnesota can be proud of Klobuchar for taking a hard blow but barely pausing in the fight for a larger goal.

Politician to the end. Fact is, it was easy for her to bow to Bloomberg and Biden future gratitude and IOUs. No problem at all blessing a lesser candidate than herself. Once in politics, always in politics. She can now go back to pandering in the Senate to copper mining barons along with Tina. Instead of joining the McCollum effort to protect our part of the earth against long-term depredation by foreign corporations chasing short-term maximized profit.

Bless them both, Amy and Tina, for their environmental chops. Such as they are. Valued in their absence.

__________UPDATE___________
More of the same Biden bonding. Sens Booker and Harris, where are you? Cautious? Sensible? Perhaps considering Breitbart's coverage of WaPo reporting:



The inner party established CFR member and career politician favorite, (with the hunter-gatherer son); a career politician, affluent enough from a life on the public's payroll. Hunter instead went Ukrainian private sector in a big way to seek his fortune. Dad's involvement being allegedly coincidental to Hunter's abiding gas expertise and insights into things Ukranian.

Nothing else to see there, for Amy, Beto, Mayor Pete; all the Biden bandwagon bros having enduring faith that Nothing Will Fundamentally Change.

Many thinking people favor the Bernie bros over Biden bros, in wanting the fundamental change Bernie wants and represents. If after all the game playing Biden is not first in Texas by a substantial margin, stick a fork. Become Bloomberg bros? Never mind his Republicanism, just call him a bro, and go?

All that hate, and Bernie is such a nice, principled man . . .

It must be economic. Not personal. Policy disagreement; what the people want vs. what the inner party stakeholders want. Turf protection continuity trumping good government ideals. So, just hand Orange Man four more rather than reform? Sure. Why not?

Chris Matthews can keep dissing Bernie, but now it's, "Tell it to the family dog."

Link. MSNBC might miss the guy. Depending on his show's ratings.

Biden might miss him. Trump might not.

Joe Stalin could not have pulled a better coup than Status Quo Joe.

Strib:

The urgency of the moment reflected deep concerns from the Democratic establishment that Bernie Sanders, a polarizing progressive, was positioned to seize a significant delegate lead when 14 states, one U.S. territory and Democrats abroad vote on Tuesday.

Klobuchar suspended her campaign and endorsed Biden just a day after Buttigieg announced his exit. Both Klobuchar and Buttigieg, who had been Biden's chief competition for their party's pool of more moderate voters over the last year, were set to declare their public support for Biden on Monday evening at a rally in Dallas.

As Bloomberg ordered, so did it happen. It is worth deliberate thought.

Joe and Hunter are a package. Tulsi, Elizabeth, Bernie, the remaining billionaire, and Joe/Hunter. There is a spectrum, nothing radical, but a spectrum. There is grass roots vs corporate capitalism, will of the people vs will of the bankers. Fun.

UPDATE: Same Strib item, buried into late paragraphs:

Sanders' team shrugged off Biden's success.

"It's becoming increasingly clear that the candidates funded by big money and super PACs are coalescing behind Joe Biden, and that's not a surprise," said Jeff Weaver, Sanders' senior strategist. "I think it'll add a lot of clarity to this race."

And while Biden's momentum is undeniable, not everyone in his party's moneyed establishment is convinced.

Some major donors preferred to wait until after Super Tuesday to decide whether to join the Biden movement. And even some of his more loyal fundraisers remain frustrated by disorganization within the campaign.

It as if the bunch of deferrals is by candidates with puppet strings attached. A coordinated Punch and Judy show.

The crowds do not look like this at Biden events; (the few that are not closed-door fundraisers among the wealthy).

Link. Biden gets far fewer individuals, but an identical aggregate age total, having that years per individual advantage. As junior to Trump, Sanders and Biden, but not Warren, I am one who saw truth early and kept the faith. Too many Vietnam era young turned out Koolaid consumers of the Biden persuasion. Why? It is a mystery. LBJ, war baggage and all, generated Voting Rights law, Medicare and the Great Society. Since him, the parade has been a disgrace, in comparison and in absolute terms. Clinton and Obama governed as if they'd grown up in the Bush family. Carter and Reagan got us into Afghanistan, great job guys, and Trump does deserve credit for a withdrawal, whatever the terms. Endless imperial war is not what the people of the nation are about. It is others pulling those levers. Specialized Koolaid and toxic.

Flag desecration.

The jackass looks as if he's trying to eat one of the stars.

Real Clear Politics poll reporting suggests Bernie will have happy thoughts tomorrow evening.

Link. How reliable the numbers are is a question, but there's no question of what the published numbers are saying. Bloomberg may wonder if his spending was that good of an idea. If he gets the hammer for a brokered convention he will be happy, and Bernie will have to play defense all the way to the convention. Bernie stays on message as well as anyone, and Bloomberg is such a condescending SOB that how he got to be a three-term mayor is a mystery. That pompous style must ring some folks' bell, but nationwide, tomorrow, expect the SOB to get enough votes that, with superdelegates participating after a first vote at the Dem convention, Bloomberg and the other establishment problems can coalesce into a putsch for status quo defeat of Bernie. So Trump gets four more, the aim will be to stop reform at all costs, and Bloomberg's spending might enable that.

However, expect Bernie to remain in first place in pledged delegate counts, tomorrow evening. That means Bloomberg will have to continue spending in the states that have primaries after Super Tuesday. One really has to hope he spends a ton, unsuccessfully, with President Sanders than having eight years to push against the likes of Mitch McConnell, (Paul Ryan having already moved on to life after the House, onto the money-making gravy train awaiting all the politicians who play ball with the rich). One leaves, but there will always be others willing to play ball and deliver, in order to prosper. Like the Obamas waterfront Marthas Vinyard prime housing, after having delivered. Ditto the Clinton Foundation, etc.

I.e., Mayor Pete has something to aim for, not being all that affluent at present.

Cliche machine. Had he chosen being an old soldier just fading away he would have shown more class.

Pete's speech opportunity - his cave-in to Bloomberg's "boogie out of the way" mandate is on YouTube. This climber is not about to fade away; he's chosen career politician as his cash flow, and is dead set on making a good living at it, and all the rest he says or does is bullshit; a thing which is the guy's specialty

The Intercept - Cronyism and Conflicts of Interest in Trump’s Coronavirus Task Force

Link. Money's to be made!

Blind ambition? Got the ticket punched, then stepping aside. Ambition surely, but with an eye out for his future - no blindness about that.

Link. It would cost his campaign nothing to test Super Tuesday. Stay and see, without buying any new ads. So why that smug and ambitious of an individual did not test it is the story you need to take away from him and who he's aiming to be -- becoming wealthy as a career politician. and later hopping the lobbyist gravy train or going to some Think Tank (a/k/a a retirement post). Harvard ticket punched. Rhodes Scholar ticket punched. Service ticket, McKinsey ticket, statewide name recognition run, DNC chair name recognition ticket, now the "good take one for the party stooge" ticket, so what more is needed? There is a career there, and the studied side-step is offered as proof of team player wannabe. Can't stand the guy. In my mind in a class with Biden and Bloomberg. Toxic.

Amy K at least has less to dislike, even if more the conservative on policy; with the "hard on staff" thing being uncertain while troubling. Amy is trustworthy. She has no child taking questionable directorships in foreign lands for big money. Warren would be the best brokered convention settlement option; Klobuchar second if it has to be that party wing keeping the crown jewels.

Beyond those two, Bernie or bust. Compromise beyond that, hell, give Orange Man four more if we are that disrespected by the inner party grubbers. Biden is a sad, sad, very sad joke, and a walking, talking four more certainty.

LAST - It is not Biden's "turn" anymore than last cycle was Hillary's. Inner party idiots insulated from reality would be the only ones thinking Biden would be tolerable, with a prayer of a chance to oust Orange Man. The people want Bernie. What he advocates. Being one of US. Being loyal to US. Over time.

Do you know about Anita Dunn?

You should. She sells garbage.

A sociopath comfortable among peers.

Breitbart.

Breitbart reports of aggressive and offensive foreigner effort to undermine our election process.

Link. We should all resent this level and kind of meddling as improper.

Comcast, via CNBC delivers a surprise. An op-ed authored by Nina Turner.

Opening up to reality? Link. Excerpt:

Today, billionaires pay the same amount of money into Social Security as someone who makes $132,900 a year. Sanders' legislation lifts that cap, and applies the payroll tax to all income over $250,000. The new revenue generated by that change would not only make Social Security solvent for the next 50 years, it also would allow us to expand benefits across the board, and increase cost-of-living adjustments to keep pace with inflation.

When President Franklin Roosevelt signed the original bill creating Social Security in 1935, he called it "a law that will take care of human needs and at the same time provide the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness."

Eighty-five years later, we must now fortify that economic structure: we must defeat Trump and elect Bernie Sanders -- whose record makes clear he will build on Roosevelt's historic achievement.

As a byproduct of the Sanders plan, clearly, Michael Bloomberg would, for a change, pay a fair share into the Social Security program. Michael Bloomberg does not want that, and such a plan is NOT in any pre-packaged Bloomberg advertisement talking points or media releases. CNBC reports:

To pay for benefit increases, most proposals generally call for raising the payroll tax or the wage base. The Social Security tax is currently 6.2%, or 7.65% with Medicare, which is paid by both employees and their employers. Currently, only earnings up to $137,700 are subject to those Social Security levies.

Bloomberg's plan does not stipulate whether he would increase those thresholds.

So - Bloomberg is ducking that "raise the cap" issue to where his position on the question has no answer expressly given into the public domain? What reason do you suppose there is for that?

Three images - which to you represents the Democratic Party having a future?

Here, here, and here. And - . . .

Will it still be a party of expensive tailored suits; or something else; or moribund going to extinction?

Three minutes of a human ennui generator.

Video. Fear the future unless a super corporatist's putsch resonates on Super Tuesday. Is that video advertisement convincing to you? A short old white guy telling you zippo about how or whether he'd care to fix income inequality, an unfit minimum wage, debt burtden on the people, unfair taxation, or anything else already rigged by the super-wealthy to their benefit. The son-of-a-bitch talks about a coronavirus threat, without mentioning the problems ordinary people have with the medical-industrial complex - affording it. That is flat-out dishonest, ignoring the single most important issue - family health - facing every voter's family. "An epidemic may happen and I am an administrator and gave some money to Johns Hopkins University, so vote for me" was put together by the best and brightest of the Bloomberg team. Does that generate a will to rely on Bloomberg, or is it a rock-solid turnoff? The plain fact, the man has NO Bern. No soul. No Bern. No will to even mention actual problems the people face because his priorities are as Status Quo, as Joe's. Half a billion spent, advvertising, so that you can view three minutes of a rich white short old guy dissembling. Money in America is clearly a phenomenon worth study, and more importantly, worth reform. If you see Bloomberg as a reformer, bless you for the thinking.