Israel Super PAC had run ads against Sanders but then stopped

( February 22) The Democratic Majority for Israel a pro-Israel super PAC (Political Action Committee) claims that it will not run any more negative ads against Senator Bernie Sanders in his race for the Democratic presidential candidate.

Mark Mellman president of the Democratic Majority for Israel said it would focus on congressional races and had no plans to endorse any candidate in the race to be presidential candidate or to pay for any more negative ads against any candidates after Saturday's Nevada caucus. Sanders is likely to win if polls are accurate.

During a panel discussion on Wednesday Mellman said: "We don't have plans to be further involved in the presidential race – against Sanders or anyone else for that matter."

Super Political Action Committees (Super PAC)

A recent Investopedia article briefly describes a super PAC: "Political action committees (PACs) are formed to privately raise money to donate to a political campaign in hopes of influencing the election. Super PACs can raise unlimited amounts of money to influence an election, but they are not permitted to donate directly to a campaign."

Super PACs are almost a fixture of US political campaign. American individuals, unions or corporations are legally allowed to donate as much money as they want to supposedly to super-PACs supposedly independent organizations that are linked to a particular candidate.

Super PACs have quickly grown into one of the biggest forces influencing US politics. Even back in the 2012 Republican primaries, Super PACs spent more money than the candidates' campaigns.

The anti-Sanders campaign.

The Super PAC of the Democratic Majority for Israel spent about $1.4 million on ads directed against Senator Sanders both in Iowa and Nevada. After the Iowa caucuses Sanders secured 12 delegates and former South Bend Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg got 13, the super PAC claimed that it had prevented Sanders from achieving a clear win.

Just ahead of the Iowa caucuses Mellman told the New York Times that the ads were aimed at showing that Sanders was in a uniquely bad position to defeat Trump in the November, The polls I have seen show exactly the opposite. Sanders is the only candidate in the running who would get a larger percentage of the vote than Trump.

Mellman's concerns about Sanders

Mellman complains that Sanders has the endorsement of those who hate Israel. This would include no doubt Representative Iilhan Omar, and Linda Sarsour a Palestinian-American activist. Sanders has urged the US to adopt a pro-Palestinian policy in addition to continued support for Israel.

No doubt Mellman does not welcome Sanders criticism of the present Israeli government. Sanders said at a town hall meeting in Nevada last Tuesday: "To be for the Israeli people and to be for peace in the Middle East does not mean that we have to support right-wing, racist governments that currently exist in Israel. What American foreign policy has got to be about in the Middle East is bringing the Israelis, bringing the Palestinians together under the banner of justice."

Sanders noted that youth unemployment in Gaza was 70 percent and yet people were not even able to leave the area. He said the US could not simply be pro-Israel but needed to pay attention to the needs of the Palestinian people.

Analysts and the mainstream press are constantly expressing concern about Russian attempts to influence US elections. Yet here we had an obvious attempt to influence the outcome of the choice of the Democratic candidate. Everything is out in the open and yet there no on seems to be warning us about Israeli attempts to influence US politics. The foreign lobby group is openly and with the support of many prominent US members of the Democratic Majority for Israel directly intervening in US politics. So where are all those blaming Israeli influence for the results of US political campaigns among other happenings?

Previously published  in the Digital Journal

Voting for third parties or choosing the lesser of evils in US voting

In discussing tactics for voting in presidential elections often votes cast for third party candidates are described as wasted ballots or alternatively as possibly helping to elect the greater of two evil candidates.

This article is designed to show that both criticisms are based upon misunderstanding the purpose of voting from the standpoint of the individual voter. Some discussions appear to assume that voting is something like betting. From this point of view voting for a third party candidate is irrational a wasted or losing bet. The statistics are clear: " Since 1988, third party candidates have averaged less than one tenth of a percent of the popular vote. With that in mind, it is fair to say this year’s leading third-party candidates are polling much better than average." Yet recent polling give Green Party candidate Jill Stein an average of just 3.1 per cent nationally, while Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson has an average of 8.6 percent. If voting were like betting one would demand huge odds before you would place your bet on a third party.

But voting is not like betting. Even if there are only two candidates running you do not vote for a candidate because they are more likely to win, but usually for the candidate you want to win. You hope that voting will itself help the candidate you vote for to win. You are at one and the same time expressing a preference and hoping that your vote along with others will result in your preferred candidate winning. Yet, your one vote is quite unlikely to determine the outcome. In almost all cases it will make no decisive difference but when a contest is likely to be close it makes sense to vote as a factor in determining the outcome. Even though you know your candidate will not win it still makes sense to express you preference and support. Even within a two party system it makes no sense not to vote for someone because they are quite likely to lose. As this article notes: In cases like California and Texas, where the results are often lopsided, the wasted vote logic could be applied to major party candidates. Should Californians planning to vote Republican or Texans planning to vote Democratic skip the election or vote differently simply because their vote “won’t count”? If a vote for a major party candidate destined to lose isn’t “wasted,” the same must be true of a vote for a minor party candidate also destined to lose.

If the wasted vote argument made any sense, all those votes for the losing candidates in states where one candidate is shown by polls to be almost certainly the winner are wasted. Yet no Democratic or Republican strategist ever suggests that voting for them in a situation where one or the other appears bound to lose is a wasted ballot. The argument that voting for a third party is a wasted ballot is not an argument at all. It is a myth widely accepted that is used by the two main parties to convince voters not to vote for third parties. A wasted ballot is more likely to occur when you vote for a person even though you do not prefer them. This brings us to another myth.

Often people vote for one of the candidates of the main parties even though they do not prefer either of them to a third party candidate or even disapprove of both of them. In this election, both Republican, Donald Trump, and Democrat, Hillary Clinton, have high disapproval ratings. Democrats are urged to vote for Clinton to stop Donald Trump and those who disapprove of Clinton are urged to vote for her as the lesser of evils. The result is that many will vote in a manner that does not express their preferences in terms of all the candidates but only in terms of those of the main parties. This is a device that functions as a means of bonding the voter to the two party system even though the candidates do not represent what voters prefer. It has little to do with any practical reality except for a few special situations. An extended critique of the lesser evil tactic can be found here.

Voting not only is an expression of support for a candidate but of the policies and platform of the party that the candidate represents. Voting for Clinton helps strengthen support for many policies that leftists disapprove. Electing her strengthens the power of an establishment that Clinton supports and to which she is beholden. The lesser evil doctrine is intended to do this, as was the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, and progressive chatter of Elizabeth Warren. It is all part of ensuring that the left stays within the Democratic party fold. If the aim were to just avoid the election of Trump, then the following policy makes more sense:To those left leaders who say they agree that the Democratic Party is hopelessly corrupted by corporate cash, but propose a “strategic” vote for Clinton “just this year,” we should ask: Why not at least urge a vote for Jill Stein in the majority of the country that are considered “safe states” like New York, where Clinton is up by 18%? Given the Electoral College system, the election will really be decided in a small number of swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.

Voting for a third party will not prevent Trump or Clinton from winning. The US electorate is too habituated or indoctrinated into accepting the two-party system for that result to happen, but a vote for a third party candidate can have some effects:Strong showings by the Libertarians, Greens or other third parties in the 2016 election are very unlikely to prevent a Trump or Clinton presidency. But they could affect the positions presidential candidates take in 2020 and beyond.

If the showings are strong enough this could also encourage the growth of third parties and mount a challenge to the existing system. Third parties also give voters the opportunity to vote for candidates that represent policies closer to those that they prefer than do candidates of the two major parties.

Sanders fails to have Democratic Platform directly oppose Trans-Pacific Partnership

Bernie Sanders supporters lost a fight to introduce language into the Democratic Platform that would directly oppose the giant Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal.

The TPP is strongly supported by the Obama administration and business groups but opposed by Sanders supporters and many prominent people including the Nobel Prize winner in Economics Joseph Stiglitz and Elizabeth Warren. Hillary Clinton was originally in favor of the deal but now opposes it. Yet her supporters were instrumental in ensuring that language specifically against the TPP did not make it into the platform.

The platform committee came up with a compromise motion that was critical of "trade agreements that do not support good American jobs." The compromise was reached by labor groups supporting Clinton. The compromise motion was passed by a vote of 116 to 64. Clinton campaign director Maya Harris said:"We are proud to stand with our friends in organized labor in passing a strong amendment to the Democratic platform on all trade deals, including the TPP." The labor leaders did not mention that an anti-TPP vote would embarrass Obama, a strong supporter of the TPP but said the compromise language would do plenty to damage Republican efforts to run on trade. Quite the opposite, the compromise language which does not explicitly condemn the TPP, allows Trump to correctly call.the Democrats complete hypocrites who are not even willing to condemn what they say they do not support. Trump can say that the move shows that Clinton and her supporters do not really oppose the TPP but want to appear to do so in order to get votes. For once, Trump appears to be correct.

In a classic example of goofy spin-doctoring American Federation of Teachers President, Randi Weingartien, said: "We take what Trump has used as a sound bite, and we turn it into a standard." In order that Weingarten not be alone in hypocritical spinning, Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County,. and Municipal employees, which sponsored the compromise language said: "The trade union movement does not take a back seat to anybody regarding its opposition to bad trade deals." Well surely anyone who is in the front seat must understand that if you oppose the TPP as you do you must be willing to assert that you are, otherwise you will be in the back seat compared to someone like Trump or Sanders, Warren, or Stiglitz who come out and directly oppose it. The trade union leaders responsible for this nonsense congratulated themselves on the motion evading any direct repudiation of the TPP in a joint statement: "Our bold statement in support of fair trade standards for working people passed overwhelmingly, by a count of 117 to 64.”

The Sanders' campaign had generated more than 800,000 anti-TPP signatures but it made no difference. The Sanders forces tried to amend the compromise resolution simply by adding "and thats why we oppose the TPP." After all Clinton herself claims to oppose the TPP. Why can't her platform say it? According to the Washington Post, 90 delegates were supportive of Clinton 72 supported Sanders, and 25 were uncommitted. Sanders' supporters thought that enough of the uncommitted would see the merits of opposing the TPP to pass the amendment.

Ben Jealous, former president of the NAACP introduced the brief amendment, arguing that the party would give away an electoral advantage if it were too slippery on trade. It would create an opening for Donald Trump as a Republican who could campaign for the first time on a bad trade deal. Jealous said: "The majority of Democrats, like the majority of Americans, are against the TPP, Hillary is against the TPP. Bernie is against the TPP. Let’s not be bureaucrats — let’s be leaders." Jealous' amendment garnered just 74 votes. The press always goes on about the failings of Trump, will they similarly rail against the Democratic Party and Clinton who can't bring themselves to put a plank in the party platform that says what they claim, opposition to the TPP.

Jim Hightower, Sanders delegate from Texas moved that there not be any TPP vote in Congress. it was defeated with 71 for and 104 against. Immediately, there was active spinning of what had just happened. Maya Harris, senior policy adviser to the Clinton campaign said that Clinton "is not interested in tinkering around with the margins of the TPP and that the TPP fails the test now laid out in the platform." Clinton does not need to tinker around the margins she just has to come out and oppose the TPP.. No wonder people get fed up with a political establishment that ignores the obvious and tries to manipulate public opinion in a completely hypocritical way and with nonsensical spinning of what happens.

The nonsensical spin was evident too on the Sanders' side, a sign of what the Sanders campaign may be all about. Warren Gunnels, Sanders' policy director said:"The good news is that virtually everyone who spoke during the debate on trade made it clear that they opposed this unfettered free trade agreement.Sen. Sanders, Sec. Clinton and the overwhelming majority of Democrats agree: The TPP should not come up for a vote after the election. If Democrats are going to prevail in November we must make clear to the American people that we stand firmly against the TPP. We will continue fighting to protect American jobs and to ensure Congress does not pass this disastrous trade agreement."The bad news is that Clinton refused to have the Democratic Party clearly say that it opposes the TPP and has left a clear opening for Trump to criticize such rank hypocrisy. As Sanders delegate Robert Kraig put it: "We've had no speech here in favor of TPP, but we can't bring ourselves to say we oppose TPP."

Sanders supporters are expected to bring the issue up for a vote again at the Democratic Convention to be held in Philadelphia July 25th to 28th.

Opposition growing to giant Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a trade agreement among 12 Pacific Rim countries. It was signed in February this year in Auckland New Zealand. It took seven years of negotiations to arrive at the agreement.

 

There are 30 chapters to the agreement mainly concerned with public policy. The stated goals of the TPP are to:

.. "promote economic growth; support the creation and retention of jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and promote transparency, good governance, and enhanced labor and environmental protections."

While this all sounds very positive, there have been many critics of the TPP in Canada, the U.S. and elsewhere. Joseph Stiglitz, a distinguished economist who won a Nobel Prize, said the TPP could well be the worst trade agreement ever negotiated and should be renegotiated: "I think what Canada should do is use its influence to begin a renegotiation of TPP to make it an agreement that advances the interests of Canadian citizens and not just the large corporations." In particular, Stiglitz took issue with the investment-protection provisions, which would limit how governments could regulate businesses. The provisions give multinationals the right to sue the Canadian government or other governments who signed the agreement. As Stiglitzremarks:"It used to be the basic principle was polluter pay. If you damaged the environment, then you have to pay. Now if you pass a regulation that restricts ability to pollute or does something about climate change, you could be sued and could pay billions of dollars."

The Council of Canadians has long been critical of the TPP:

The Council of Canadians opposes this deal because it includes an investor-state dispute settlement provision that allows transnational corporations to sue governments over legislation or policies made in the public interest, it extends the patent length (and profits) of pharmaceutical corporations by delaying the introduction of lower cost generic drugs, it slashes the domestic content requirement for automobiles, putting thousands of autoworker jobs at risks, and it undermines family farmers by opening up the Canadian dairy market to imports without creating new export markets for Canadian farmers.A more detailed explanation of the effects on Canadian automakers can be found here.

A recent critique of the TPP by well-known activist Linda McQuaig can be found in the Toronto Star. McQuaig notes the legal rights that the TPP grants corporations, repeating Stiglitz's criticism that the decisions would be decided by closed tribunals. She cites a report by Gus Van Harlen of Osgoode Hall, a law professor.

Harlen examined how corporations have taken advantage of such legal rights under NAFTA the North American Free Trade Agreement. Canada has been sued 39 times and investors have won more than $190 million in compensation from Canadian taxpayers.

Lone Pine Resources has challenged fracking regulations in Canada. Trans-Canada is suing the U.S. for $15 billion for Obama's decision to not approve the Keystone pipeline. As Van Harten notes: And the cases are decided by private sector lawyers acting as arbitrators. Unlike regular judges, these arbitrators, paid exorbitant hourly rates, have a direct financial interest in encouraging foreign investors to bring claims and to stretch them out, and have so far earned “well over $1 billion in fees",

Bernie Sanders, rival candidate to Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party nomination for president of the U.S., has been a strong critic of the TPP and is pushing to have a plank in the Democratic election platform opposing a vote on the TPP. President Obama is a strong proponent of the TPP as Hillary Clinton was until recently. She now opposes it. However, the party seems reluctant to come out in direct opposition to president Obama:While Sanders won many concessions in the draft platform released July 1, including language promoting a $15-an-hour minimum wage, the document doesn't come out against the TPP. A platform opposing the trade deal would put the party in direct opposition of its leader, Obama.

At a meeting in St. Louis on June 24, those present produced a draft of the Democratic party election platform. Representative Keith Ellison introduced language opposing the TPP. His motion was defeated by a vote of 10 to five, with only the five pro-Sanders members voting in favor. This may be a prelude to this weekend when the full 187 platform members meet in Orlando Florida. If Clinton organizes her supporters to prevent opposition to the TPP from being part of the Democratic platform this will be seized upon by Republican nominee Donald Trump, who has made opposition to the deal a key part of his campaign. He will immediately accuse Clinton of not really being in opposition to the TPP. The move will also alienate Sanders' supporters.

The New York Times and others claim that Sanders is expected to endorse Clinton next week. If the Democratic Platform fails to oppose the TPP, Sanders may find it difficult to support her. If he does, his own followers will be angry. Elizabeth Warren is also a strong critic of the TPP.

UPDATE: Clinton supporters made sure motion opposing TPP was voted down. Will Sanders still support her? Trump will have a field day. Clinton obviously does not really oppose the TPP, it is a move to get some votes.

US bill on Puerto Rico bailout described as "colonial-style takeover"

A U.S. House committee has just approved the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act last Wednesday. The legislation gives control of the country's financial institutions to a board whose members are appointed by the U.S. government.

Activists and journalists warn that the bill would constitute a "colonial-style takeover" of Puerto Rico by the U.S. amid the country's crippling debt crisis. Journalist Juan Gonzalez explained: “The bill has provoked a furor among many island residents because it imposes a seven-member oversight board with dictatorial powers that harken back to colonial days.”

At one time, Puerto Rico was a Spanish colony and later a U.S. colony. There is disagreement in Puerto Rico about the relationship the country should have with the U.S. The two main parties differ — the Popular Democratic Party (PPD) wants the country to maintain the island's status with the US as a commonwealth while the New Progressive Party (PNP) wants Puerto Rico to be a state. The Puerto Rico Independence Party ( PIP) wants a separate country independent of the US. The PIP gets only about 5 percent of the vote while the other two get about 47 percent each. As long ago as 1914 Puerto Rico tried to gain independence from the US: In 1914, the Puerto Rican House of Delegates voted unanimously in favor of independence from the United States, but this was rejected by the U.S. Congress as "unconstitutional," and in violation of the 1900 Foraker Act.[59]

Puerto Rican activists condemn the present bill because it is meant just to protect bondholders, while "paving the way for massive cuts in public services." Gonzalez called the bill a poison pill that will involve a virtual takeover of the Puerto Rican economy. The board will have control of a five-year fiscal plan for Puerto Rico and would likely impose harsh cuts on social service spending and government pension funds. The bill would force the Puerto Rico government to reduce its minimum wage to $4.25 per hour for those under 25. The board would have to approve any new laws that are passed in Puerto Rico, and would also control capital investments in the country. As Gonzalez summed it up: “So you’re in essence creating … a control board that will be of nonresidents of the island running the financial affairs of Puerto Rico for the next five, possibly 10 years.” The bill has strong bi-partisan support, including from Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration. However, Bernie Sanders has condemned the bill as a gift for Wall Street. In a speech in the capital of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Sanders said:“It is unacceptable to me for the United States government to treat Puerto Rico like a colony during a time when its people are facing the worst fiscal and economic crisis in its history. In my view, the people of Puerto Rico must be empowered to determine their own destiny. When you establish a federal control board that says these unelected officials have the power to make major, major decisions impacting millions of people and they are accountable to nobody … that’s wrong.”

The bill is meant as a solution to Puerto Rico's long-standing debt crisis. The $72 billion in debt is unpayable according to the governor and has to be restructured. Much of the country's debt is owned by hedge funds. Sanders spoke out against what he called the "vulture capitalists" who wanted to impose crippling austerity measures on Puerto Rico that would hurt most the poor and working class. He said the hedge funds could afford to take a "massive haircut." Sanders said: “In the midst of this massive human crisis, it is morally unacceptable that billionaire hedge-fund managers have been calling for even more austerity in Puerto Rico. Austerity will not solve this crisis. As we all know from throughout the world, austerity will cause more suffering for working people and make the rich richer. We must vigorously oppose all efforts at austerity.It is unacceptable to me that vulture funds on Wall Street are demanding that Puerto Rico fire teachers, close schools, cut pensions and abolish the minimum wage so that they can reap huge profits off the suffering and the misery of the children and the people of Puerto Rico. We cannot allow that to happen. We will not allow that to happen.”The House will vote on the bill in June.

In contrast to Sanders, Clinton expressed support for the bill in spite of some reservations:“While I have serious concerns about several provisions in this bill, including the creation of an oversight board that would exert substantial control over Puerto Rico, I believe that we must move forward with this legislation,Otherwise, without any means of addressing this crisis, too many Puerto Ricans will continue to suffer. As this bill moves forward, I will work to ensure that concerns about the oversight board are addressed and any such entity includes members that will act in the best interest of Puerto Ricans — protecting their health, their pensions and their well-being.We can no longer sit idly by while hedge funds seek to maximize their profits at the island's expense.".

Sanders wants Congress to allow Puerto Rico to declare bankruptcy on its debt. The reworked version of the bill has the backing of the White House, Republican Speaker Paul Ryan, Democratic House Minority leader Nacy Pelosi, and progressive and conservative wings of both parties.

Bernie Sanders' campaign gains ground among younger women

As if to prove Sanders is right and Wall Street and other money interests control U.S. elections, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) overturned a ban on federal lobbyists, introduced by Obama in 2008, restricting donations from super-PACs.

A political action committee (PAC) is an organization that collects contributions from members and uses those funds to campaign for or against candidates for election or legislation. Only Hillary Clinton will benefit from the move, since she is the only candidate who takes such donations. Sanders refuses to take any funds from super-PACS. The move may help Sanders though, as it shows Hillary is dependent upon lobbyists for support.

According to the New York Times, Clinton received a total of $47.9 million from super-PACs in 2015 at the same time as she advocated campaign finance reform. The chair of the DNC, Debbie Schultz, also accepts money from super-PACs and corporate interests. As more and more Americans are asking their politicians to break off monetary dependence on wealthy individuals and corporations, the DNC is moving to gain increased funding from those sources to defeat Sanders who is attempting to reform the system. Shultz's seeming favoritism towards Clinton has led to calls for her resignation in some quarters.

A joint fund-raising group between the DNC and the Clinton campaign, named the Hillary Victory Fund, rose $26.9 million as of the the end of 2015. Thirty-three state Democratic parties signed pacts with Hillary's campaign. The Clinton campaign is said to control the funds and decide which states receive the funds. According to Bloomberg, New Hampshire received $124,000. Another factor that worked against Sanders in New Hampshire are that six super-delegates voted for Hillary even though Sanders received 60 percent of the vote in the primary election. Super-delegates are automatically seated and are free to vote for whomever they want.

The super-delegate system was started in the 1980s as a way of giving the party establishment more influence on determining who was the presidential nominee. Sanders will have an uphill battle to win. The Democratic establishment together with wealthy individual and corporate interests that bankroll the party are doing their best to defeat him.

The Sanders campaign and his policies have even caused splits among renowned elite economists. Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, provided data to explain the costs and benefits of Sanders economic agenda. These include his Medicare-for-all health plan, $15 an hour wage plan, equal gender pay program, and other programs. Four economists, Alan Krueger, Christina Romer, Austan Goolsbee, and Laura Tyson wrote an open letter to Friedman accusing him of "extreme claims" and claimed he undermined the whole progressive economic agenda. The Nobel Prize laureate Paul Krugman then set out in several blogs to criticize Friedman and Sanders. Citing the letter against Friedman, Krugman said Sanders was engaging in "fantasy" and "voodoo."

The attacks caused former Joint Economic Committee Executive Director, James Galbraith to defend Friedman. Galbraith, who teaches at the University of Texas, said none of Friedman's critics had actually crunched the numbers to show where Friedman was wrong. He directly accused all five prominent economists of dishonestly smearing Friedman to gain political points for Hillary Clinton. Galbraith said of the letter from the four economists:"You write that you have applied rigor to your analyses of economic proposals by Democrats and Republicans .On reading this sentence I looked to the bottom of the page, to find a reference or link to your rigorous review of Professor Friedman's study. I found nothing there."The criticism of Friedman is rather ironic since he himself supports Clinton, not Sanders. Galbraith concluded there were quite significant results from Sanders program because of their scale and that they were not fantasy. Galbraith concludes: "What the Friedman paper shows, is that under conventional assumptions, the projected impact of Senator Sanders' proposals stems from their scale and ambition. When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected. The Sanders program is big, and when you run it through a standard model, you get a big result. It is not fair or honest to claim that Professor Friedman's methods are extreme. Nor is it fair or honest to imply that you have given Professor Friedman's paper a rigorous review. You have not."

Galbraith is particularly angry that Paul Krugman has used his "high perch to airily dismiss the Friedman paper as 'nonsense.'" Many people rely on Krugman to make careful assessments, Galbraith claims, but in this case he has made no such assessment. Friedman's work in this case is far more careful than Krugman's casual dismissal of his work itself, based upon an analysis by the four economists that did not carefully analyze Friedman's work.

Along with the division about Sanders and his programs among economists, the polls vary as well. However, Sanders definitely appears to be gaining in popularity while Hillary's popularity is sliding. Ironically, Hillary is failing to gain the support of many women, especially younger women. Policies are trumping gender. The result has been some very flawed attempts to help Hillary by prominent feminists such as Gloria Steinem.

A recent poll by Fox News shows Sanders with 47 percent support to Clinton's 44 percent. This is a 10 percent gain over the same poll taken in January. While this is the first poll showing Clinton as trailing, in the last two Quinniplac University tracking polls Clinton led Sanders by only two per cent. The Hill blog notes:It's unclear whether the numbers are outliers or indicative of a dramatic change in the race. Outside of the Quinnipiac poll, Clinton posted double-digit leads in all three national polls conducted in February, with the largest lead coming in at 21 percentage points.

The Democratic establishment is getting more and more worried. Sanders was supposed to be the sheepherder who would help bring leftists back into the Democratic fold. The only problem is that he brought in too many sheep and it now looks as if they could take over the party and Clinton could lose the nomination.

Feminist Gloria Steinem supports Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders

Feminist icon from the 60s, Gloria Steinem, has urged women, especially younger women, who tend to support septuagenarian self-declared socialist Bernie Sanders from Vermont, to support Hillary Clinton as the U.S. Democratic presidential candidate.
 

Older feminists such as Steinem and Madeleine Albright hope Hillary Clinton will be the first woman president in U.S. history. Albright was the first female U.S. Secretary of State. She said the real revolution in the U.S. would not be that which Sanders speaks of, but electing the first female commander-in-chief. Albright said:
“We can tell our story of how we climbed the ladder, and a lot of you younger women think it’s done. It’s not done, There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”
Maybe there is a special place in hell for someone who claimed on national U.S. TV that 500,000 Iraqi children dead from sanctions on Hussein's Iraq was worth it.

Albright said women could be judgmental toward one another and that they may forget how hard Clinton has worked to get where she is. Surely it is her policies and performance that women are judging and should be judging rather than whether Clinton worked hard to get where she is. The fact that younger women are supporting an older man is a sign that they see gender as less important than policies.
Gloria Steinem, one of the most famous spokeswomen of the feminist movement, took Albright's sentiment a step further on Friday in an interview with the talk show host Bill Maher. Explaining how women tend to become more active in politics as they become older, she suggested younger women were just backing Mr. Sanders so that they could meet young men. Here is the exchange:
“When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie,’ ” Ms. Steinem said. Realizing that this was potentially offensive, Mr. Maher recoiled. “Oh. Now if I said that, ‘They’re for Bernie because that’s where the boys are,’ you’d swat me.” But Ms. Steinem laughed it off, replying, “How well do you know me?”
Why on earth would feminists be wondering about where the boys are? This is surely the sexist view of how women are supposed to be. Steinem's positions have often been controversial. She was a CIA agent for all of four years. She spied on radical women who participated in events in the former Soviet Union.

This is not to deny that Steinem contributed a great deal to the feminist movement. It just shows that her role is mixed.
Unlike some supporters of Clinton, many younger women apparently think other issues than gender should be decisive in choosing which presidential candidate they will support. On Facebook, Steinem attempted to walk back a bit from her comments but her attempt drew many caustic replies. Here is one:
Mandy Carson-Kimura How could that have been misunderstood? You did exactly the opposite of your goal which was to lean us towards Hillary! Between you and Madeline Albright you're driving us right into Bernie's arms! I vote with my brain and my integrity not my vagina!!! #bernitdown
Playing the gender card may not work for Hillary. She has too much bad policy baggage to outweigh any advantage she might gain by possibly being the first woman president. Younger women, especially those supporting feminist goals, may want to see a woman president but not just any woman president and in particular, Hillary Clinton.

Socialist sheep dog Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders, the self-described democratic socialist from Vermont is running for the presidential nomination for the Democratic Party to the delight of many on the left.

+ Add Image	1 of 2

Not only are progressives delighted but are putting their money where their mouth is as well:While unlike Rubio, Cruz, and Paul, Sanders may not have fat cat donors, what he does have is an army of grassroots supporters — everyday Americans who are sick of the system, sick of the Koch brothers and want to wrest the country out of the hands of the greedy, Politicus notes.Sanders has his own website where he sets out his policies. Even those relatively far to the left such as the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism applaud Sanders' decision to run and note that Sanders' left-wing populism is as American as apple pie. Sanders is quoted approvingly when he announced he was running for president:“Ever since I was a kid I never liked to see people without money or connections get put down or pushed around. When I came to Congress I tried to be a voice for people who did not have a voice—the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor. And that is what I will be doing as a candidate for president.”

While running for the president and presenting his progressive ideas to the American people is certainly a positive result, several articles in leftist publications suggest that the real function of Sander's run for presidency is to make sure the left stays within the two party system and ultimately supports Hillary Clinton for president. He is, in effect, a socialist sheep dog whose function is to herd left activists and their base into the Democratic corral, Two articles, one in the Black Agenda by Bruce Dixon and the other in Jacobin both argue that Sander's role is to prevent leftists from opting for a third party.

Sanders sits as an independent although he votes almost all the time with the Democrats. One might ask why he would run for the Democratic nomination for president rather than running for the president as an independent as others such as Ralph Nader have done. This would give him even more opportunities to present his ideas to large numbers of Americans. Instead of doing that, he is running for the Democratic nomination, a race he has about zero chance of winning. Meanwhile activists time and money is being diverted from other activities to his campaign within the Democratic party. In the summer of 2016 when this all ends no doubt Hillary Clinton will win. Then what will Sanders do? He tells us in an interview with George Stephanopolous on ABC news:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So if you lose in this nomination fight, will you support the Democratic nominee?

SANDERS: Yes. I have in the past.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Not going to run as an independent?

SANDERS: No, absolutely not. I've been very clear about that.

Dixon gives examples of other sheep dogs used to keep the left within the Democratic party, including Jesse Jackson and Dennis Kucinich. No doubt Elizabeth Warren is another example in this campaign. She refuses to run as an independent as many of her supporters want and has declared her support for Hillary Clinton. Dixon maintains that after electoral victory the left bloc that has been shepherded back into the fold often has little influence on policy. He notes that Obama in many areas has simply followed Bush and on medicare refused to even consider the type of universal system common to almost all advanced capitalist countries.

Ashley Smith in the Jacobin points out that Sanders could have built up support for an independent left in several ways rather than running for the presidential nomination for the Democrats. He could have run as an independent or alternatively he could have run for governor of Vermont as an independent where he would have an excellent chance of winning over the Democratic incumbent. Sanders is the most popular politician In Vermont. Surprisingly many activists including more than 50 from the Occupy Wall Street movement have formed People for Sanders. Their founding statement says:“We support Bernie Sanders in his bid to become the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. We stand firmly behind Senator Sanders as the strongest progressive possibility in the race right now. His commitment to our values is one of longstanding commitment. Sanders is the bold alternative.”

The statement fails to mention that Sanders has opposed several moderate gun control bills. This may not be too surprising since Vermont has high gun ownership and lax gun laws. He also believes that gun control laws probably do not reduce gun violence and that there is "elitism in the anti-gun movement" However, there is one very pernicious bill Sanders supported: In 2005, a Republican-dominated Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This law doesn’t protect gun owners; it protects gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers. The PLCAA was the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association for years, because it shields gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally. It is one of the most noxious pieces of pro-gun legislation ever passed. And Bernie Sanders voted for it. (Sanders’ campaign has not replied to a request for comment.)

Saunders also has stressed Israel's right to defend itself and while critical of Israel's excesses in the Gaza war tends to stress the responsibility of Hamas for what is happening following the Israeli line on the issue as indicated in the video of a rather raucous town hall meeting.

Not only are Sanders and Warren drawing leftists and activists into the Democratic party, Hillary also is joining the left populist chorus talking about issues such as inequality and criminal justice reform. Hillary welcomed Sander's entry into the presidential race saying: “I agree with Bernie. Focus must be on helping America’s middle class. GOP would hold them back. I welcome him to the race.”The final act is for Sanders is to urge the left to support Hillary or whatever other mainstream candidate is elected to run for the Democrats. As long as there are sheep dogs and establishment candidates mouthing populist rhetoric there is little hope of a third party being developed or any real alternative to a two-party system which ultimately ends up serving mostly big business with perhaps a few more crumbs trickling down to the rest of the populace when the Democrats win.