Just another Wall Street whore? Hello Biden. Hello Ms. Clinton. Hello, Pete. Astute company? Or, doing what comes naturally?

Link. Thousand bucks a plate X 150 paying their Klobuchar dues = dependencies and expectations? Worse, inclinations among those who identify with each other and the class war against the poor and marginal. [Edit]Against paycheck to paycheck thrall and credit card usurythralls and credit card usury victims. Power suppressing the powerless, from propaganda to street demonstration policing.
{End edit]
OM LINE: These Wall Street types do not give. They invest. Investment offered, and bought. End of story.

____________UPDATE____________
An unexpected AP flip-flop report (published after the above post) opens:

Klobuchar shifts on immigration before Nevada caucuses
By SARA BURNETT and MICHELLE L. PRICE Associated Press
February 14, 2020 — 11:50pm

LAS VEGAS — Democratic presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar says she no longer believes English should be the national language of the U.S., disavowing a vote she took more than a decade ago as she tries to build support in a state where Hispanics make up a critical constituency.

Campaigning in Las Vegas, the three-term Minnesota senator said Friday that she has changed her stance since voting for an English-language amendment in 2007 and has "taken a strong position against" it. She also blasted President Donald Trump for using immigrants as "wedges" and said as president she would work with Republicans to achieve comprehensive immigration reform.

Klobuchar's record on immigration is under scrutiny after her third-place finish in the New Hampshire primary this week revived her campaign and sent her on to Nevada's Feb. 22 caucuses with fresh momentum. After focusing much of her campaign on the first two voting states — Iowa and New Hampshire, both predominantly white — she's now navigating a much more diverse electorate, where some of her moderate positions and willingness to vote with her Republican colleagues could be a liability.

Klobuchar was one of 17 Democrats to support a 2007 amendment that would have reversed President Bill Clinton's executive order requiring federal agencies to provide materials in languages other than English. It passed 64-33, but the larger immigration bill died.

[italics added] Also, AP, a gotcha thing. I could not myself give the gentleman's name. Sure, I am not running for president, but it still rings "GOTCHA" to me.

Next, this is old news Klobuchar faced in the past which would arise again should she gain traction lasting beyond the landing of the Bloomberg purchasing exercise, Super Tuesday, where money's been talking quite a bit via the Bloomberg deep pocket, and independent of any actual merit the second "Mayor B." candidacy entails.

LAST: This report link sent to me is news to me, and not an old cliam. As a BDS supporter - something has to generate sensible movement among Israeli leadership. And it surely is not Jarad's insulting "solution." Something real is instead needed with BDS available as incentivization. Annexation of occupied territory seized by warfare is not a generally good thing to countenance; given the mischief others may see as, "If the Israelis get away with it ...". We have Ilhan Omar, but she has a minority voice drowned out by AIPAC and Mark Mellman. who have done our nation a great injustice with their fuck-Bernie business [do your own websearch if you do not like mine, and draw your own circumstantial conclusions if you don't like mine]. Sure, Mellman is a U.S. citizen with First Amendment rights. Has he registered as a foreign agent, or would he be contending that his latest mischief is not on behalf of Israel in a way requiring such registration?

Still, in a worse light upon Klobuchar, in the opinion here at Crabgrass she is a superior choice to either Mayor B, or Biden.

Judgment in light of all circumstances media publish, is a very subjective thing, and we can only rely on so much beyond our own experiences. Which outlet do you turst? For me, not Comcast/MSNBC nor CNN - each being viewed as continuing unfairness toward Bernie and Warren, serving status quo forces over progressive CHANGE.
-

Which Mayor B? Pick a Mayor B.

Link.

I don't want spin. I want data. [UPDATED]

Compare and contrast; leading vs informing, and such; here and here, and from that second item, did I say spin? Yes, I did say spin. Three spins, AP fluff being carried in a midwest locality. Wikipedia - really, to the rescue. A data first plus.

Data is its own reward.

UPDATE: Now this - I surely call it data, and major data. Your call?

To me, this is also major data. Your call, here too?

That last item tells me more about the Bloomberg candidacy than mainstream spin, hither and yon, without defining key fact while spinning press release BS.

New Hampshire's Dem Primary results demand that somebody be politically incorrect. So, here goes - why does nobody's polling in demographic bloc, gender, ethnicity, race, income, age, etc., ask gay or straight? What is "third rail" about the question, and why?

With the Mayor being the only gay candidate, how is that demographically helping or hurting him, in the lower turnout primaries?

It is as if the question of that demographic split is Verboten. Why?

The bias here against him is ambitious to a fault. Having interjected himself into national attention by challenging Ellison and Perez for DNC head honcho election, he next says he's the Presidential mayor in things, and what are his policies?

He's the most conservative of the bunch, i.e., most Republican of the "Democrats," youngest, and gay. He seems to generate trust among a substantial number of the Iowa and New Hampshire folks.

And will Amy see the "hard on staff" question arise again, now that she's gotten some traction?

Bernie has to face a mountain of deceit, including Clinton rage, and yet his support base is strongest in orientation and will. Is that enough?

Saddest result so far - Warren's not being top three. Most cheerful result, for progressives and those looking at a career politician's full record - the Biden slippage. He never was presidential, even while part of the conservative Obama presidency. And he was all too Republican in willingness over time to ax away at Social Security. Bless that stuff. And distance it from policy setting, please.

Klobuchar? Over Warren? People so far have made a big mistake. A few, actually.

But, the ambitious climber of a Rhodes Scholar, Ivy Leaguer showing up big so far? Why? The lalst Rhodes Scholar in the White House was a Gringrich facilating disaster; and some folks want to try another smooth-talking one? Why? Billionaires love him, but how should that translate to votes?

It seems from the progressive peerspective here to be no different than voting for Bloomberg to vote for the mayor. Age and accumulated wealth differ; but the ultimate candidacy depends upon the same stale constricting money perspective of wealth calling all the shots. Either way, wealth will be in the driver's seat if either of the former mayors captures a large segment of the primary vorte. Those new Dems, the Bernie backers liking AOC and Progressive Caucus policies such as Medicare for All need to show up in further primary voting. In short, gotta push aside the impediments or continue facing modern-day serfdom at the hands of Wall Street and corporate grinding.

pick your paradigm mayor - privatizing parks vs standing up to landlords

Soon, a third mayor - mayor pete will greet mayor Bloomberg, one having the wealth the other covets (but out of Wall Street servicing, not out of carving himself a political career). A Bernie - Bloomberg race would be interesting. With Pete left by a curbside.

___________________________
image credit: Down With Tyranny

_______________UPDATE_______________
You look at the bio, private school, Harvard, Rhodes Scholar, military ticket punched, McKinsey, run for Indiana statewide office and lose, run to inject the name into national party donor and leadership attention - to head the DNC and lose; and currently run for President after earning only a college town city hall short and questioned tenure. This is a man impatient to advance; and with a background more Republican than progressive. But, being gay, did he look at the Republican vs Democrat career paths one against another; and then meet Michele Bachmann in full gay-hate fury in picking his course? Deciding upon a Blue Dog career, slickly packaged and tightly disciplined? To cash in? He reminds me of Dick Gephart. That integrity and outlook troward the single payer worldview. But that is just reading and guessing early in a process where the Bloomberg name has not seen a ballot. Also, others admittedly see the man in a better light. To the extent of voting for him, which is interesting but not worrying. Others see potential in him worth worry, with a wealthy few investing money in him, his candidacy and resolve, while a clearly substantial number of voters felt a call to back Mayor Pete; twice so far.

“Over and over, Donald Trump promised Americans that he would not cut Social Security and Medicare. He lied,” Sanders tweeted. “When we win, we’re not going to just protect Social Security and Medicare, we’re going to expand them.”

The headline is a paragraph from HuffPo, here, which in context is quoting Bernie. Excerpting:

01/23/2020 03:01 pm ET Updated 6 days ago
Bernie Sanders Has Been Planning A Social Security Fight With Donald Trump For Years
This week, the president finally gave it to him.

Asked by “Squawk Box” host Joe Kernen whether “entitlements” ― a Washington term for universal social insurance programs ― would ever be “on his plate,” Trump responded that they would.

“At some point they will be,” Trump said in the interview from Davos, Switzerland. “At the right time, we will take a look at that.”

It’s unclear if Trump even knew of exactly what he was speaking.

[... including headline text] After HuffPost’s story went live Thursday afternoon, Trump defended his record further on Twitter. “Democrats are going to destroy your Social Security,” he wrote. “I have totally left it alone, as promised, and will save it!”

Sanders shot back in a quote-tweeted message with a screenshot of an article documenting how Trump’s budget resolutions have sought to cut the program. “More lies,” Sanders wrote.

The timing of Trump’s comments to CNBC could not have come at a more opportune moment for Sanders, who is litigating a pitched battle with former Vice President Joe Biden, with whom he is neck-and-neck in the presidential primary, over their respective records on Social Security.

[...] Sanders is correct to note that as a senator in the 1980s and ’90s, Biden endorsed and even cast votes for legislation that cut or would have cut Social Security benefits. He also served alongside former President Barack Obama, who sought a budget compromise deal ― or “grand bargain” ― with congressional Republicans that would have reduced Social Security’s cost-of-living adjustment.

Sanders, by contrast, was an early opponent of those would-be deals and a proponent of expanding Social Security.

The Trump remarks provide Sanders the chance to further distinguish himself from Biden. Perhaps more importantly, they also give him the opportunity to execute on a carefully crafted plan to hold Trump accountable for his populist rhetoric.

Virtually since the moment Trump was elected, Sanders had been reminding Trump of his campaign trail promises not to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Sanders’ Senate office captured video of Trump mocking his fellow Republicans at an event in New Hampshire in May 2015 for embracing Social Security and Medicare cuts, and promising that he would be different.

He headlined a rally with Democratic leaders in Congress in December 2016 calling on Trump not to cut Medicare.

The following month, as it became clear that repealing the Affordable Care Act would be a Republican priority in Trump’s first months in office, Sanders printed out one of Trump’s tweets promising to protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and used it as a prop on the Senate floor.

“If he was sincere, then I would hope that tomorrow or maybe today he could send out a tweet and tell his Republican colleagues to stop wasting their time and all of our time,” Sanders said, standing alongside a poster of the tweet.

Sanders subsequently condemned every one of Trump’s annual budget proposals for trying to restrict eligibility for Social Security’s Disability Insurance program. He consistently framed those budgets as betrayals of Trump’s campaign promises.

“Donald Trump promised the American people that he would be a different type of Republican, that he would be a champion of the working American and that he would not cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,” Sanders said in a statement about Trump’s fiscal 2020 budget in March. “But his budget does the exact opposite of what he promised the American people.”

It’s all part of Sanders’ argument ― however oversimplistic ― that Trump won by appealing to the struggles of millions of working-class people, who either abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of him or stayed home.

As a candidate, Trump indeed combined racist rhetoric and hard-line immigration policies with promises to bring back manufacturing jobs through more equitable trade agreements, protect social insurance programs, ensure universal health care, and “drain” Washington of its swamp-like corruption.

There is more to the HuffPo item, the link is already given, and readers are urged to read it all. What we know from this is that Bernie not only sets his own record against Biden's, but also against Trump's; with Biden characterized as not protective of entitlements in the past (but changing his tune now); whereas if winning the endorsement, Bernie iotends to confront Trtump as an outright liar of unmatched gall and proportions. Trump lied his way into the White House and Bernie intends the truth to force Trump out.

With Biden's own compromised background, could he make the case as convincingly as Bernie? Unlikely. We shall see this play out soon, given primary season being around the corner.

In all attention everywhere, Crooks and Liars looks at Elizabeth Warren and George Stephanopoulos. And -

I really love the way Elizabeth Warren shamed George Stephanopoulos for trying to shame HER into taking billionaire contributions from SuperPACs on ABC's This Week. No matter how hard he tried to shovel the conventional wisdom in her lap, she shoveled it right back on him.

After downplaying her impressive finish in Iowa because only the "top two matter," Warren pushed back, noting that she didn't take money from anyone other than grassroots donors.

Ah, but GSteph was ready for that. noting that other candidates -- Pete Buttigieg specifically -- aren't shy about taking the big bucks from whoever might be waving them around.

" And [Buttigieg] made no apologies for doing what he's doing," Stephanopoulis noted. "He says it's important to build the biggest coalition you can."

Oh, well then. Let's just round up the Koch Brothers in the name of coalition building. Sell your soul to the devil and it's his forever, after all. Okay, that's my retort. Warren's was better.

"You know, the coalition of billionaires isl not exactly what's going carry us over the top," she shot back, before going into her usual discussion of government working for billionaires.

SCORE. She landed that one. She went on to discuss how people who aren't billionaires pay their taxes "so that the roads are paved and the bridges still work, and we provide for the defense before making the case for the abject corruption in Washington, DC while also taking a slap at Michael Bloomberg.

"It's a Washington that makes -- it's a bunch of billionaires that make big campaign contributions or reach in their own pockets, like Michael Bloomberg does," she explained. "If it's going to take sucking up to billionaires or being a billionaire to get the Democratic nomination to run for president, then all I can say is, buckle up, America, because our government is going to work even better for billionaires and even worse for everyone else."

LINK - [italics added]

Looting the fisk, and lying about it. What manner of bold brigand are we looking at?

Who else?

SeattleTimes carrying a Feb. 7 WaPo feed:

$650 a night at Mar-a-Lago, $17,000 a month at Bedminster: What Trump’s company charges taxpayers for Secret Service lodging

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s company charges the Secret Service for the rooms agents use while protecting him at his luxury properties — billing U.S. taxpayers at rates as high as $650 per night, according to federal records and people who have seen receipts.

Those charges, compiled here for the first time, show that Trump has an unprecedented — and largely hidden — business relationship with his own government. When Trump visits his clubs in Palm Beach, Florida, and Bedminster, New Jersey, the service needs space to post guards and store equipment.

[...] Trump’s company billed the government even for days when Trump wasn’t there.

These payments appear to contradict the Trump Organization’s own statements about what it charges members of his government entourage. “If my father travels, they stay at our properties for free — meaning, like, cost for housekeeping,” Trump’s son Eric said last year in a Yahoo Finance interview.

The full extent of the Secret Service’s payments to Trump’s company is not known. The Secret Service has not listed them in public databases of federal spending, as is usually required for payments over $10,000.

Instead, documents have come out piecemeal, through public-records requests from news organizations and watchdog groups. The Washington Post compiled available records and found 103 payments from the Secret Service to Trump’s company dated between January 2017 and April 2018.

The records show more than $471,000 in payments from taxpayers to Trump’s companies. But — because these records cover only a fraction of Trump’s travel during a fraction of his term — the actual total is likely to be higher.

"If my father travels, . . .". Two generations of liars is enough. Shut that abuse down. It is theft from the nation; from every small taxpayer struggling to keep from drowning in debt. The man, and his children, seem conscienceless over money.

Even Bill Clinton was not that saucy with public money, and when he and Foundation struck, it was not a bit here and there up to half a million. Surely wife Hillary shook a different money tree for more; speeches at Goldman Sachs; but that stuff sunk because it stunk. Leading to "President Trump."