Skip to main content

The corporate media would like you to think Bernie Sanders can't win the Democratic primary against Hillary Clinton. And they're doing their damnedest to make their own preference into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The Columbia Journalism Review looks at how the media is covering Bernie Sanders' entry into the 2016 presidential race, and it isn't pretty. They start with comparisons to the out-of-touch press coverage of the Truman-Dewey race (culminating in the humiliatingly wrong headline in the Chicago Tribune: “Dewey defeats Truman” ), and go from there:

[You] could not have been surprised by the reception Bernie Sanders got last month when he entered the race for the Democratic nomination for the presidency. Sanders...quaintly maintains that people and the planet are more important than profit. Not long ago such beliefs fell well within the waters of the main stream where politicians swam, but the current has since been rerouted, and Sanders now paddles hard against the left bank. For not going with the flow, and for challenging Hillary Clinton, the big fish many elites have tagged as their own, Sanders’s entry into the race was greeted with story after story whose message—stated or understated, depending on the decorum of the messenger—was “This crank can’t win.”

The trouble with this consensus is the paucity of evidence to support it. “This crank actually could win” is nearer the mark. But having settled on a prophecy, the media went about covering Sanders so as to fulfill it. The Times, for example, buried his announcement on page A21, even though every other candidate who had declared before then had been put on the front page above the fold. Sanders’s straight-news story didn’t even crack 700 words, compared to the 1,100 to 1,500 that Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Hillary Clinton got. As for the content, the Times’ reporters declared high in Sanders’s piece that he was a long shot for the Democratic nomination and that Clinton was all but a lock. None of the Republican entrants got the long-shot treatment, even though Paul, Rubio, and Cruz were generally polling fifth, seventh, and eighth among Republicans before they announced.

Other coverage of Sanders ran to caricature, as in Paul Kane and Philip Rucker’s personality piece in the Washington Post, which opened, “He seems an unlikely presidential candidate—an ex-hippie, septuagenarian socialist from the liberal reaches of Vermont who rails, in his thick Brooklyn accent, rumpled suit and frizzy pile of white hair, against the ‘billionaire class’ taking over the country.” The Post’s pieces didn’t lead with Clinton’s hippie past or her age (she will be a septuagenarian in 2017) and didn’t say she rails when she discusses her more ardently held positions....

Other major news organizations ignored Sanders as nearly as they could a sitting U.S. senator who entered the presidential race. ABC’s World News Tonight gave his announcement all of 18 seconds, five of which were allotted to Clinton’s tweet welcoming him to the race. CBS Evening News fitted the announcement into a single sentence at the end of a two-minute report about Clinton.

The usual excuse for this sort of coverage is that Sanders is a long-shot. But that hasn't stopped the media from covering other long-shot candidates in an even-handed way:
Ted Cruz, for example, received his serious, in-depth treatment in the Times’ news columns even as its analysts were writing pieces like “Why Ted Cruz Is Such A Long Shot.”
Why the difference in type of coverage for Sanders versus all the others, even the fringiest fringe candidates crowded onto the running boards of the Republican clown car?
The difference is that Cruz has not erected a platform whose planks present a boardwalk of horror to the corporate class atop the media.
As CJR points out, this narrative of he can't win, while it might be convenient to the corporate owners of the media and of much of the political process, has no actual historical validity at all.
I’ll skip lightly over the conspicuous fact that any frontrunner can have a Chappaquiddick, a deceptively amplified “scream,” or a plane crash. Instead, let me dwell on the simple fact that over the last 40 years, out of seven races in which the Democratic nomination was up for grabs—races, that is, when a sitting Democrat president wasn’t seeking reelection—underdogs have won the nomination either three or four times (depending on your definition of an underdog) and have gone on to win the presidency more often than favored candidates.
Jimmy Carter wasn't even on anyone's radar at this point in the campaign and polled at 1 percent among Democratic voters. But he won, because the other candidates were insiders, and voters had had it up to here with insiders.
If you don’t see a parallel to the present moment—a discontented time of Occupy, Black Lives Matter, Moral Monday, Fight for $15, the People’s Climate March, Move to Amend, and other anti-establishmentarian agitation—you’re either asleep or a publisher.
Likewise Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama were dark horses who came out of nowhere, polling-wise, this early in the game, to win their respective races.

So, don't be so quick to swallow what your corporate media overlords are trying to feed you. Don't brush off a Sanders run as some sort of ridiculous impossibility.

As Sanders says, “Don’t underestimate me.” He's in it to win, and the history might be more on his side than the corporate media would like you to know.


Ah, CNN, what a titan of media objectivity you are! All you want to do is bring us the news as it happens!

As the only other candidate running for president as a Democrat in 2016, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) cannot make it through an interview without being grilled about Hillary Clinton. On Tuesday, Sanders visited CNN to discuss his plan to make public universities tuition-free, but Wolf Blitzer mostly seemed interested in getting his reaction to Clinton’s first Q&A session with the press in more than four weeks.

Asked by Blitzer to react to Clinton’s comments on her own wealth, the candidate said that income inequality is “an issue I’ve been talking about many years and what we need to do is be specific about what we’re going to do.” When he said that the vast majority of new income is going to the top one-tenth of the 1%, Blitzer wanted to know if that was a jab at the Clintons.

Sanders is very good at steering his answers to what he wants to talk about and not feeding the media the "gotcha" moments it craves. But he had a heckuva time with blockhead Wolf Blitzer, who seemed interested only in smearing Hillary Clinton and getting Sanders to help him at it.

Blitzer seemed totally uninterested in Sanders talking about his newly introduced legislation to make public colleges and universities tuition-free for students and paying for it by taxing Wall Street speculation:

Blitzer: “Where’s the money going to come from?” Blitzer wondered.

Sanders: “A tax on Wall Street speculation.”

Blitzer: “What does that mean, a tax on Wall Street speculation?”

Sanders: “What we’re going to impose is what exists in dozens of countries around the world, a very modest tax on the transference of large amounts of stock.”

Blitzer: “Is that going to pay for tuition?”

Sanders: “More than that… The estimate is it could bring in as much as $300 billion a year.”

Blitzer: “Do you think Republicans are going to go along with this?”

Sanders: “Of course they’re not.”

Blitzer: “If they’re not going to go along with it, then it’s not going to become the law.”

Sanders: “I don’t think it’s going to be passed tomorrow… The American people will go along with it.”

Blitzer: “Is Hillary Clinton committed to this cause as are you?”

Sanders: “Wolf, you have to ask Hillary. I don’t work for her. I don’t know.”

Blitzer: “So you want to raise taxes?”

Sanders: “On the very wealthiest in this country? Absolutely.”

Just to add to the journalistic disgrace of this interview, Mediate notes:
It is notable that the entire time Sanders discussed his college plan, the chyron “Clinton Questioned About Income Inequality” remained on the screen.

I guess this is the kind of heart-warming bipartisanship President Obama has been hoping for after all these years of tooth-and-nail opposition from Republicans:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top Republicans predicted on Sunday that both chambers of Congress would muster the votes to pass the "fast-track" authority sought by President Barack Obama to negotiate major trade deals, despite opposition from Obama's fellow Democrats.

"Yes, we’ll pass it. We'll pass it later this week," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said in an interview with ABC.

Republican U.S. Representative Paul Ryan said on CNN's "State of the Union" that he was confident the measure would also pass the House of Representatives.

"We will have the votes," said Ryan, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. "We're doing very well. We're gaining a lot of steam and momentum."

The trade issue has made unlikely allies of Republicans in Congress and the Democratic president. McConnell, who has frequently clashed with Obama on a number of issues, offered him rare praise on Sunday.

"The president has done an excellent job on this," McConnell said on ABC's "This Week." He pointed out that the six-year Trade Promotion Authority was "not just for President Obama, but for the next president as well."

Well hopefully that will be a President Bernie Sanders or a President Hillary Clinton. Somehow, I don't think that's quite what McConnell had in mind though when commending his new BFF President Obama for throwing the progressive wing of his own Democratic Party under the bus on this issue in order to pass a Republican-initiated, Republican-favored trade deal.



Sat May 16, 2015 at 11:24 AM PDT

Feingold Opposes TPP

by Th0rn

Add another progressive voice to the chorus opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal:

Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), who just announced his candidacy for his old Senate seat, is joining Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in opposing the trade agreement President Barack Obama has been pushing Congress to approve.

"The economy has definitely been improving, and things like the stock market are doing better," Feingold said in an interview with Wisconsin's WISC-TV . "But the economy has to be good for working-class and middle-class families who work every day, send their kids to a school like is in front of my house, and they have to be able to enjoy their lives. That's why you don't pass a trade agreement that ships even more jobs overseas."

It's good to have him stepping back into the political fray. His voice has been missed. Like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and too few others, he's always ready to stand up and do the right thing, even if it means bucking the neoliberal leanings of his own party leadership.

The Donald has apparently donated big bucks to the Clinton Foundation:

New York real estate mogul Donald Trump and his daughter Ivanka have donated a combined total of at least $105,000 to the Clinton Foundation, records show.

“Donald J. Trump” is listed on the foundation’s website as giving between $100,000 and $250,000 to the charitable organization.

“Ivanka Trump,” meanwhile, is listed as a donor who gifted between $5,001 and $10,000 to the nonprofit.

This is interesting on so many fronts.

The Clinton Foundation is, according to Clinton defenders, a charitable organization; and according to Clinton opponents, the equivalent of a PAC, a political slush fund.

It does seem to fund a number of worthwhile charitable efforts around the world, and engage in high-level arm-twisting and consciousness-raising around issues of global public health, though in ways that make it difficult to assess its effectiveness as an actual charity as opposed to a means for its principals to gain power, money, and prestige.

Certainly, one of those who could be counted among Clinton opponents, and critics of the Clinton Foundation, would be one Donald J. Trump:

Donald Trump, a possible 2016 GOP presidential candidate, has repeatedly criticized Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton for her lack of transparency concerning the foundation.

“If this was a Republican sitting right there, this would absolutely be considered illegal,” Trump said last month of the foundation’s activities on Fox News’s “Fox and Friends.”

“This is about jail time; this isn’t about the voters,” he added.

So, what is this about? Does short-fingered vulgarian Donald Trump in fact know that the Clinton Foundation actually is a charity, and not a political fund-raiser, and that's why he donated to it? (At least for the tax deduction.)

Or is he secretly okay with fellow one-percenter Clinton becoming president, and he's donating in hopes of having some mojo in a Clinton Administration?

Or is he what many have suspected all along -- a supremely clever performance artist who's doing everything he can to undermine and discredit Republicans and the conservative tea party movement by siding with them as publicly, disreputably, and foolishly as possible?

So maybe if it was no big political deal for Donald Trump to donate to the Clinton Foundation because it's a charity, it was no big deal for George Stephanopoulos to do the same.

Not that Stephanopoulos should or shouldn't be kicked off moderating presidential debates because of it, one way or the other. He's a tool, and if it means there's less to see of him on my TV for any reason, that's fine with me.


Wed May 13, 2015 at 12:00 PM PDT

Who Can and Can't Scrutinize the TPP

by Th0rn

The battle over the TPP, and fast-track authority to force Congress to vote on it without amendments, is far from over.

For those arguing that nothing nefarious is going on, and that it isn't really a "secret deal" because members of Congress can read it, hear what Barbara Boxer has to say:

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., today blasted the secrecy shrouding the ongoing Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations.

“They said, well, it’s very transparent. Go down and look at it,” said Boxer on the floor of the Senate. “Let me tell you what you have to do to read this agreement. Follow this: you can only take a few of your staffers who happen to have a security clearance — because, God knows why, this is secure, this is classified. It has nothing to do with defense. It has nothing to do with going after ISIS.”

Boxer, who has served in the House and Senate for 33 years, then described the restrictions under which members of Congress can look at the current TPP text.

“The guard says, ‘you can’t take notes.’ I said, ‘I can’t take notes?’” Boxer recalled. “‘Well, you can take notes, but have to give them back to me, and I’ll put them in a file.’ So I said: ‘Wait a minute. I’m going to take notes and then you’re going to take my notes away from me and then you’re going to have them in a file, and you can read my notes? Not on your life.’”

Reading the deal, with only a limited selection of staffers on hand to help provide analysis as the deal is handed to you section by section, is not transparency. Having no ability to take any part of the language away with you in order to study it, analyze it, and consult on it with affected parties (i.e., workers, public interest groups, and other members of the public) is not transparency. It's a public relations fig leaf for non-transparency.

What do they so desperately want to hide from average people and their representatives?

Perhaps the answer can be found in the fact of who, on the other hand, DOES have unfettered access to this "classified" deal and the ability to scrutinize and sculpt it for their own benefit: corporations, lots and lots of corporations, and their organizations of high-powered lobbyists:

But there’s an exception: if you’re part of one of 28 U.S. government-appointed trade advisory committees providing advice to the U.S. negotiators. The committees with the most access to what’s going on in the negotiations are 16 “Industry Trade Advisory Committees,” whose members include AT&T, General Electric, Apple, Dow Chemical, Nike, Walmart and the American Petroleum Institute.

Industry Trade Advisory Committees, or ITACs, ... are functionally exempt from many of the transparency rules that generally govern Federal Advisory Committees, and their communications are largely shielded from FOIA in order to protect “third party commercial and/or financial information from disclosure.” ...

[T]hey also escape requirements to balance their industry members with representatives from public interest groups.

The result is that the Energy and Energy Services committee includes the National Mining Association and America’s Natural Gas Alliance but only one representative from a company dedicated to less-polluting wind and solar energy.

The Information and Communications Technologies, Services, and Electronic Commerce committee includes representatives from Verizon and AT&T Services Inc. (a subsidiary of AT&T), which domestically are still pushing hard against new net neutrality rules that stop internet providers from creating more expensive online fast-lanes.

And the Intellectual Property Rights committee includes the Recording Industry Association of America, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Apple, Johnson and Johnson and Yahoo, rather than groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which shares the industry’s expertise in intellectual property policy but has an agenda less aligned with business...

There does exist a Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee and a Labor Advisory Committee, but their members are far outnumbered by those from industry. A Washington Post analysis from February 2014 noted, “Of the 566 committee members [in the 28 committees], 306 come from private industry and an additional 174 hail from trade associations. All told they represent 85% of the voices on the trade committees.”

As Senator Boxer says:
“Instead of standing in a corner, trying to figure out a way to bring a trade bill to the floor that doesn’t do anything for the middle class — that is held so secretively that you need to go down there and hand over your electronics and give up your right to take notes and bring them back to your office — they ought to come over here and figure out how to help the middle class,” Boxer said.
Great advice, but not the kind that a committee structure so heavily stacked in the interests of huge corporations and industry lobby groups is likely to listen to.

In his interview with President Obama, Matt Bai hits on what he thinks might be motivating the president's inexplicable enthusiasm for the TPP trade deal, against the wishes of his own party and voters:

[Obama said] "I think what’s also attracting attention is the fact that we might actually get this done."

That last part struck me as most significant in understanding why Obama is willing to risk long-standing alliances for a trade deal that probably seems tangential to most Americans. Although he would never put it this way, his second term has mostly been an exercise in futility. He announced 16 months ago that he had essentially given up on trying to legislate and would try to govern around the margins instead, using executive actions that stretch the boundaries of presidential power and probably won’t stand up over time.

His prospects for passing any kind of larger agenda went from slim to nearly nonexistent last November, when he got a brand-new Republican Senate to go along with an obstreperous Republican House. And with a chaotic presidential campaign about to start in earnest, any real governing from here on out will be purely accidental.

The trade deal, though, represents a rare and probably final opportunity for Obama to accomplish something big, and something in which he’s deeply invested. A lot of Republican free traders will actually support it, no matter how distasteful they find the idea of standing on the same side as the president. Some Democrats will, too — the question is how many.

If Obama can’t get fast-track authority through Congress, he won’t have much chance at negotiating a final deal. But if he can, then he might well be able to claim one last, major legislative victory — and the only one in his presidency with broad, bipartisan support. And not only that, but a victory that gets back to the promise inherent in his first presidential campaign — the promise to adapt American liberalism to the economic realities of the 21st century, without simply bowing before capital or raging against it.

To a president eyeing his legacy, that kind of victory is worth a lot, even if it costs him some friends.

Adapt American liberalism to the economic realities of the 21st century, without simply bowing before capital or raging against it?

What does that even mean?

Does it mean adapting liberalism to accept pitting workers in developed countries against those in countries like Vietnam who make 56 cents an hour?

Does it mean adapting liberalism to accept foreign corporations being allowed to challenge laws that protect the public's health, food safety, environment, and so on, in front of private tribunals run by corporate lawyers?

Does it mean adapting liberalism to accept monopolies being granted to pharmaceutical, entertainment, and other well-connected corporations in the form of extended patents, reducing public access to cheaper generic drugs and cultural works in the public domain?

Sounds to me more like getting liberalism to, as he says, bow to capital.

And that's the kind of legacy a Democratic president really wants to leave to history?

Shameful if true.

When we voted for change, we meant change for the better, change toward better living and working conditions for average people, not just change for change's sake, so that politicians could say they left their mark.


So government spying on Americans and collecting their phone data to be searched later as needed is so vital to America's security that when Edward Snowden revealed the program it was claimed he put the country in danger.

But apparently the spying program wasn't actually important enough for Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to even remember it when he was asked about it by the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2013. Oh no, he wasn't lying when he denied that the NSA was illegally collecting all that communications data. He'd simply forgotten about it:

Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper wasn’t lying when he wrongly told Congress in 2013 that the government does not “wittingly” collect information about millions of Americans, according to his top lawyer.

He just forgot.

"This was not an untruth or a falsehood. This was just a mistake on his part," Robert Litt, the general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, said during a panel discussion hosted by the Advisory Committee on Transparency on Friday.

“We all make mistakes.”

If you recall, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked Clapper directly if the NSA collected "any type of data at all on millions of Americans."
"No sir," Clapper responded. "There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly."
Of course a few months later, Snowden's revelations showed this to be a complete lie, er, what?, a senior moment?

What makes this claim of Clapper having just forgotten the surveillance program so ridiculous is that they were warned the day before that Wyden was going to ask this question and had a chance to prepare a truthful and complete answer, instead of an answer that was complete and deliberate hooey:

Litt on Friday said that Clapper merely did not have a chance to prepare an answer for Wyden and forgot about the phone records program when asked about it on the spot.

"We were notified the day before that Sen. Wyden was going to ask this question and the director of national intelligence did not get a chance to review it," Litt said.

"He was hit unaware by the question," Litt added. "After this hearing I went to him and I said, 'Gee, you were wrong on this.' And it was perfectly clear that he had absolutely forgotten the existence of the 215 program."

Instead, Litt said, Clapper had been thinking about separate programs authorized under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which the NSA has used to collect massive amounts of foreigners’ Internet data. The law explicitly prohibits the government from gathering the same kind of data about Americans, unless t is "incidental."

"If you read his answer it is perfectly clear that he was thinking about the 702 program," Litt said. "When he is talking about not wittingly collecting, he is talking about incidental collection."

Litt, he said, also erred after the hearing by not sending a letter to the panel to correct the mistake.

"I wish we’d done that at the time," he said on Friday.

So ridiculous, so contemptuous of the millions of people who are having their privacy invaded so casually, illegally and without any accountability.



I hate the thought of letting the Republicans win on, well, just about anything.

But some of this shit is just so wearying it makes me want to say, OK, you win, I really just don't want to hear this crap anymore, much less for the next six to ten years :

A Republican congressman from Texas gave a preview of  what can be expected in the months leading up  to the 2016 election — and possibly beyond —  promising that the GOP plans on launching multiple investigations into the lives of presumptive 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Speaking on the Sam Malone Show, Rep. Ted Poe (R) said there would be so many investigations, “We need to hire a whole department just to investigate the Clintons,” in audio captured by Right Wing Watch....

According to Poe, the largely discredited exposé on the Clinton Foundation, Peter Schweizer’s “Clinton Cash,” would form the foundation of yet another investigation into the Clintons.

“That’s not going away. I believe Congress will investigate one more scandal, ” Poe explained. “Yes, there’s going to be some investigations about it.”

I really don't have anything against Hillary. She is what she is, a corporatist Dem, no better or worse than much of the leadership of the party. She'd be more willing to put up a fight than Obama, better on women's issues, worse on foreign policy and surveillance issues, a worse manager, more prepared to deal with the realities of the job from day one than someone who'd never been there before. In short, pretty much a third Obama term, a little better here, a little worse there, but really just more of the same, the status quo.

Totally aside from the fact that what the country needs is change, not more of the same, does it make me a bad person to not want to re-experience the right wing losing its mind in the fever swamps over the Clintons the way it did in the 1990s? 'Cause it makes my head hurt to think that we're headed right back there, to do it all over again, Groundhog Day with the Clintons and the right wing's endless insane investigations.


This looks like good news:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is hiring veterans of President Barack Obama's highly regarded digital operation for his 2016 White House campaign.

The goal is to help Sanders reach small donors online and harness the energy of liberals who want an alternative to Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic race.

Sanders' campaign said Wednesday that it was hiring the Revolution Messaging firm to run online fundraising, social media and digital advertising. The firm's leader is Scott Goodstein, who developed social networking and mobile platforms for Obama's 2008 campaign.

So Sanders wasn't kidding when he said he was in the race to win.
Sanders' team says he is focused on online fundraising through small donors and brought in $3 million in his first four days as a candidate. The campaign says it has received 75,000 contributions, with an average donation of $43.
It looks like he's planning to give Hillary Clinton a run not just on message, but on money too.



Tue May 05, 2015 at 07:52 PM PDT

Conservative Rule Upended

by Th0rn

It looks like Canada's most conservative province has just thrown out its dominant conservative party (the PCs) and elected a social democratic one (the NDP). Not just elected them, for the first time, after 44 years of conservative rule, but given them a crushing majority over the conservatives.

You can follow the returns here if you're interested.

If it can happen in Alberta, it can happen anywhere...


Sun May 03, 2015 at 12:53 PM PDT

The Republican Food Police Strike Again

by Th0rn

I thought Republicans hated "big government" that sticks its nose into your private affairs?

Ah, when it comes to the poors they're perfectly willing to throw all that out the window, because they hate the poor more than they love any sort of "principles":

Low-income Wisconsin families won’t be able to buy shellfish with food stamps, and will have a much harder time getting basics like dried beans, pasta sauce, and cooking spices into their kitchens, under the latest state-level Republican proposal to tighten the government’s grip on the poor.

A bill proposed by state Rep. Robert Brooks (R) would ban stores from accepting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cards for lobster, shrimp, and any other form of shellfish, and set a long list of additional rules for the first two-thirds of a recipient’s monthly spending....

[The bill] mandates that at least two-thirds of a recipients food stamps be spent on designated categories of food, and leaves the last third unrestricted....

The law would restrict access to a whole range of commonplace ingredients. Some of the things that would be harder to buy for poor families who cook include “herbs, spices, or seasonings,” all nuts, red and yellow potatoes, smoothies, spaghetti sauce, “soups, salsas, ketchup,” sauerkraut, pickles, dried beans sold in bulk, and white or albacore tuna. (Cans of “light tuna” are allowed under the rules.)...

To demonstrate the perils of food policing at Thursday’s hearing, a Democrat on the committee held up a plate of four different kinds of cheese. Although they are nutritionally indistinguishable, three of the four cheeses would be prohibited. “When you look at something like this cheese plate, there’s no evidence of sharp cheddar fraud."

No potatoes, no spices, no fish, no dried beans? It's not as if they'll be able to afford much in the way of fresh fruits and vegetables on $200 a month. So what are people supposed to eat? Dry bread and water? Gruel?

It's really amazing how the right wingers have managed to spin an entire nationwide initiative to police the eating habits of the poor off this one goof, the lobster-eating surfer dude:

I guess the black welfare queen driving her Cadillac has outlived its usefulness, particularly now that people are willing to call out Republicans for their race baiting, and it was  time to move on to a new stereotype.

He may be a goof, but he's right when he says, "Do I have to apologize for how the system is set up?.... I'm getting help when I need it."

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site