Wisconsin Just Elected Bernie Sanders President
04/06/2016 09:46 am ET
H. A. Goodman
Columnist published in The Cleveland Plain Dealer, The Baltimore Sun, The Hill, Salon, The Jerusalem Post www.hagoodman.com
Wisconsin represents more than just Bernie’s sixth straight win, or the likelihood of seven straight wins after Wyoming, right before New York. This political revolution, ignited by Bernie Sanders and fought for by people of all races, faiths, and ethnic backgrounds across the U.S. has been bolstered by political momentum. It’s not current delegate count or prior poll numbers, it’s unprecedented political momentum that will win Sanders the Democratic nomination.
It’s the fact Bernie Sanders isn’t going to be interviewed by the FBI like Clinton, and also the fact Wisconsin has kept political momentum alive at a crucial time in the Democratic Primary race. Since Sanders does better against GOP competition than Clinton, he’ll win the presidency when elected Democratic nominee. Clinton’s “FBI Primary” is around the corner and Wisconsin symbolizes the continuation of something profound.
Had Clinton won Wisconsin, America’s political establishment would have tried to nail the coffin shut on a political movement that is just getting started. Had Bernie lost Wisconsin, the naysayers would gleefully have remarked that ideals and principles are nice, but FBI investigations and Iraq votes define pragmatism. In short, Wisconsin kept the flame alive, despite attempts by DNC and progressive naysayers in the media (you know who they are, the same people who can’t stand H. A. Goodman) to dim the lights.
Thus, the “adults” in the room, as they like to be called, must come to the realization that Clinton isn’t only battling the FBI, but also Bernie Sanders and millions of voters opposed to status quo politics. In addition, this movement is bolstered by women and younger voters.
82% of voters ages 18-29 went to Bernie Sanders in Wisconsin.
66% of voters 30-44 went to Sanders.
Sure, but the older, more experienced voter chose Clinton, right?
Well, Clinton only won voters 45-64 by a margin of 54% to 46%.
Most importantly, 57% of voters were female, and the women of Wisconsin sided with Bernie Sanders over Clinton, 50% to 49%.
50% of female voters chose Bernie Sanders.
49% of female voters sided with Clinton.
The smartest people in the room also never imagined Bernie Sanders would be raising more money than Hillary Clinton. The professional “inevitability press” failed to predict Bernie Sanders battling a political juggernaut and former Secretary of State in April of 2016, and certainly never predicted Sanders would have earned over 1,000 pledged delegates at this point.
Political momentum from Wisconsin will result in even more money for the Sanders campaign.
Bernie’s ability to outraise even Hillary Clinton is highlighted in a U.S. News & World Report piece titled Bernie Sanders: the Fundraising Front-Runner: Say what you will about the viability of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ candidacy at this stage in the campaign.
He is an undisputed fundraising machine.
Sanders raised $43.5 million in February, according to filings to the Federal Election Commission, more than any candidate in either party.
Yes, the “undisputed fundraising machine” has raised “more money than any candidate in either party.” With all of Clinton’s Wall Street ties and prison lobbyist donors, Bernie Sanders soundly defeats the former Secretary of State and other Republicans in terms of fundraising.
Bernie’s Wisconsin victory will no doubt add even more money to the Sanders campaign. Like the inability of pundits to predict his ascent in national polls, and the Vermont Senator’s current political momentum, establishment critics never predicted the cascade of money flowing to Bernie Sanders. An article in The Washington Post titled Bernie Sanders outraises Hillary Clinton for third consecutive month highlights what poll numbers can’t tell you:
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s fundraising juggernaut outraised Hillary Clinton’s campaign in March, surpassing her for the third consecutive month.
Clinton announced on Monday that her campaign had raised $29.5 million for the month compared with the $44 million raised by the Sanders campaign. Sanders’s March fundraising haul surpasses the campaign’s own record-setting $43.3 million raised in February.
Sanders has made a point to raise a vast majority of his money from small-dollar contributors who donate online — an average of $27 each, according to the campaign. He has also criticized Clinton for devoting time to fundraising from the wealthy.
“What this campaign is doing is bringing together millions of people contributing an average of just $27 each to take on a billionaire class which is so used to buying elections,” Sanders said in a statement on Friday. “Working people standing together are going to propel this campaign to the Democratic nomination and then the White House.”
With an average of only $27, the Sanders campaign has outraised everyone in 2016. Not only has Sanders defeated Clinton in six straight contests, but he’s raised more money in three consecutive months.
While Bernie Sanders just won Wisconsin and will continue to outraise everyone else, Hillary Clinton must contend with the FBI. Years from now, somebody will be reading this and wondering how Americans could possibly vote for a person at risk of DOJ indictments. Yes, future readers, as of today establishment Democrats still think Clinton’s experience overshadows an FBI investigation.
Nonetheless, there are people questioning the logic of voting for a person linked to an FBI investigation. An article by Ronald J. Sievert in USA Today titled Hillary’s ‘classified’ smokescreen hides real crime highlights the case for DOJ indictment:
Law makes clear DOJ should prosecute Clinton for mishandling ‘national defense information,’ classified or not.
Since the beginning of the Clinton email scandal, the nation has been subjected to a political and criminal defense generated smokescreen. The Clinton campaign has attempted to make the public believe that she is not guilty of anything because the information on her very unprotected server was not “marked as classified” or “classified at the time.”
The applicable statute, 18 USC 793, however, does not even once mention the word “classified.” The focus is on “information respecting the national defense” that potentially “could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” 793 (f) specifically makes it a crime for anyone “entrusted with ... any document ... or information relating to the national defense ... through gross negligence (to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.” A jury (not a Democrat or Republican political administration) is, of course, the best body to determine gross negligence on the facts of this case.
The courts have held repeatedly that “national defense information” includes closely held military, foreign policy and intelligence information and that evidence that the information is classified is not necessary for a prosecution.
Evidence that the information was upon later review found to be classified, however, as is the case with approximately 2,000 Clinton messages, is of course one kind of proof that the information met the test of “national defense information” in the first place. (See U.S. v. Rosen and Weissman, 445 F. Supp. 2d 602 (E.D. Va. 2006) pertaining to a different provision but containing a good summary of law on national defense information and classified information.)
The fact that the information does not have to be “marked classified” at the time only makes sense because sometimes, as in the case of the Clinton case and other 793 cases, the information is originated and distributed before any security officer can perform a review and put a classification mark on it.
Bernie Sanders is indeed the real Democratic front-runner, especially since Clinton doesn’t have a genuine defense for her upcoming FBI interview. Intelligence within emails doesn’t have to be marked classified, can indeed become retroactively classified, and should never have been on Clinton’s unguarded private server. Once the FBI clears the “smokescreen” that establishment Democrats have allowed blur their vision, Clinton will likely concede the race to Sanders.
Finally, I explain in a recent CNN International appearance that Clinton faces potential FBI indictment. I also discuss on CNN New Day that Clinton’s email fiasco is the epitome of white privilege. Ultimately, Wisconsin just elected Bernie Sanders president, and the momentum from this win will lead to further landmark victories. While Bernie is raising more money than anyone, Clinton is facing potential FBI and DOJ indictment. Clinton’s excuses regarding retroactive classification won’t impress the FBI and very soon, Bernie Sanders will be the official Democratic front-runner. Wisconsin continued the momentum at a critical point and helped elect President Bernie Sanders.
Follow H. A. Goodman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HAGOODMANAUTHOR
H. A. Goodman
Columnist published in The Cleveland Plain Dealer, The Baltimore Sun, The Hill, Salon, The Jerusalem Post www.hagoodman.com
Wisconsin represents more than just Bernie’s sixth straight win, or the likelihood of seven straight wins after Wyoming, right before New York. This political revolution, ignited by Bernie Sanders and fought for by people of all races, faiths, and ethnic backgrounds across the U.S. has been bolstered by political momentum. It’s not current delegate count or prior poll numbers, it’s unprecedented political momentum that will win Sanders the Democratic nomination.
It’s the fact Bernie Sanders isn’t going to be interviewed by the FBI like Clinton, and also the fact Wisconsin has kept political momentum alive at a crucial time in the Democratic Primary race. Since Sanders does better against GOP competition than Clinton, he’ll win the presidency when elected Democratic nominee. Clinton’s “FBI Primary” is around the corner and Wisconsin symbolizes the continuation of something profound.
Had Clinton won Wisconsin, America’s political establishment would have tried to nail the coffin shut on a political movement that is just getting started. Had Bernie lost Wisconsin, the naysayers would gleefully have remarked that ideals and principles are nice, but FBI investigations and Iraq votes define pragmatism. In short, Wisconsin kept the flame alive, despite attempts by DNC and progressive naysayers in the media (you know who they are, the same people who can’t stand H. A. Goodman) to dim the lights.
Thus, the “adults” in the room, as they like to be called, must come to the realization that Clinton isn’t only battling the FBI, but also Bernie Sanders and millions of voters opposed to status quo politics. In addition, this movement is bolstered by women and younger voters.
82% of voters ages 18-29 went to Bernie Sanders in Wisconsin.
66% of voters 30-44 went to Sanders.
Sure, but the older, more experienced voter chose Clinton, right?
Well, Clinton only won voters 45-64 by a margin of 54% to 46%.
Most importantly, 57% of voters were female, and the women of Wisconsin sided with Bernie Sanders over Clinton, 50% to 49%.
50% of female voters chose Bernie Sanders.
49% of female voters sided with Clinton.
The smartest people in the room also never imagined Bernie Sanders would be raising more money than Hillary Clinton. The professional “inevitability press” failed to predict Bernie Sanders battling a political juggernaut and former Secretary of State in April of 2016, and certainly never predicted Sanders would have earned over 1,000 pledged delegates at this point.
Political momentum from Wisconsin will result in even more money for the Sanders campaign.
Bernie’s ability to outraise even Hillary Clinton is highlighted in a U.S. News & World Report piece titled Bernie Sanders: the Fundraising Front-Runner: Say what you will about the viability of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ candidacy at this stage in the campaign.
He is an undisputed fundraising machine.
Sanders raised $43.5 million in February, according to filings to the Federal Election Commission, more than any candidate in either party.
Yes, the “undisputed fundraising machine” has raised “more money than any candidate in either party.” With all of Clinton’s Wall Street ties and prison lobbyist donors, Bernie Sanders soundly defeats the former Secretary of State and other Republicans in terms of fundraising.
Bernie’s Wisconsin victory will no doubt add even more money to the Sanders campaign. Like the inability of pundits to predict his ascent in national polls, and the Vermont Senator’s current political momentum, establishment critics never predicted the cascade of money flowing to Bernie Sanders. An article in The Washington Post titled Bernie Sanders outraises Hillary Clinton for third consecutive month highlights what poll numbers can’t tell you:
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s fundraising juggernaut outraised Hillary Clinton’s campaign in March, surpassing her for the third consecutive month.
Clinton announced on Monday that her campaign had raised $29.5 million for the month compared with the $44 million raised by the Sanders campaign. Sanders’s March fundraising haul surpasses the campaign’s own record-setting $43.3 million raised in February.
Sanders has made a point to raise a vast majority of his money from small-dollar contributors who donate online — an average of $27 each, according to the campaign. He has also criticized Clinton for devoting time to fundraising from the wealthy.
“What this campaign is doing is bringing together millions of people contributing an average of just $27 each to take on a billionaire class which is so used to buying elections,” Sanders said in a statement on Friday. “Working people standing together are going to propel this campaign to the Democratic nomination and then the White House.”
With an average of only $27, the Sanders campaign has outraised everyone in 2016. Not only has Sanders defeated Clinton in six straight contests, but he’s raised more money in three consecutive months.
While Bernie Sanders just won Wisconsin and will continue to outraise everyone else, Hillary Clinton must contend with the FBI. Years from now, somebody will be reading this and wondering how Americans could possibly vote for a person at risk of DOJ indictments. Yes, future readers, as of today establishment Democrats still think Clinton’s experience overshadows an FBI investigation.
Nonetheless, there are people questioning the logic of voting for a person linked to an FBI investigation. An article by Ronald J. Sievert in USA Today titled Hillary’s ‘classified’ smokescreen hides real crime highlights the case for DOJ indictment:
Law makes clear DOJ should prosecute Clinton for mishandling ‘national defense information,’ classified or not.
Since the beginning of the Clinton email scandal, the nation has been subjected to a political and criminal defense generated smokescreen. The Clinton campaign has attempted to make the public believe that she is not guilty of anything because the information on her very unprotected server was not “marked as classified” or “classified at the time.”
The applicable statute, 18 USC 793, however, does not even once mention the word “classified.” The focus is on “information respecting the national defense” that potentially “could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” 793 (f) specifically makes it a crime for anyone “entrusted with ... any document ... or information relating to the national defense ... through gross negligence (to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.” A jury (not a Democrat or Republican political administration) is, of course, the best body to determine gross negligence on the facts of this case.
The courts have held repeatedly that “national defense information” includes closely held military, foreign policy and intelligence information and that evidence that the information is classified is not necessary for a prosecution.
Evidence that the information was upon later review found to be classified, however, as is the case with approximately 2,000 Clinton messages, is of course one kind of proof that the information met the test of “national defense information” in the first place. (See U.S. v. Rosen and Weissman, 445 F. Supp. 2d 602 (E.D. Va. 2006) pertaining to a different provision but containing a good summary of law on national defense information and classified information.)
The fact that the information does not have to be “marked classified” at the time only makes sense because sometimes, as in the case of the Clinton case and other 793 cases, the information is originated and distributed before any security officer can perform a review and put a classification mark on it.
Bernie Sanders is indeed the real Democratic front-runner, especially since Clinton doesn’t have a genuine defense for her upcoming FBI interview. Intelligence within emails doesn’t have to be marked classified, can indeed become retroactively classified, and should never have been on Clinton’s unguarded private server. Once the FBI clears the “smokescreen” that establishment Democrats have allowed blur their vision, Clinton will likely concede the race to Sanders.
Finally, I explain in a recent CNN International appearance that Clinton faces potential FBI indictment. I also discuss on CNN New Day that Clinton’s email fiasco is the epitome of white privilege. Ultimately, Wisconsin just elected Bernie Sanders president, and the momentum from this win will lead to further landmark victories. While Bernie is raising more money than anyone, Clinton is facing potential FBI and DOJ indictment. Clinton’s excuses regarding retroactive classification won’t impress the FBI and very soon, Bernie Sanders will be the official Democratic front-runner. Wisconsin continued the momentum at a critical point and helped elect President Bernie Sanders.
Follow H. A. Goodman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HAGOODMANAUTHOR
No comments:
Post a Comment