A super PAC backing Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is going negative, circulating an email that yokes her chief rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to some of the more controversial remarks made by Jeremy Corbyn, the United Kingdom’s new Labour Party leader, including his praise for the late Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan leader who provided discounted fuel to Vermont in a deal supported by Sanders.
Clinton’s camp has long said it has no plans to attack Sanders. But the super PAC, called Correct the Record, departed from its defense of Clinton’s record as a former secretary of state in an email Monday that compares Sanders with Corbyn. Correct the Record, led by Clinton ally David Brock, also has sent trackers after Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.
In response to the attacks against Sanders by the pro-Hillary SuperPAC Sanders’ campaign sent an email to supporters linking Clinton to wealthy donors, dirty tactics, and billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch.
“Yesterday, one of Hillary Clinton’s most prominent Super PACs attacked our campaign pretty viciously.
“They suggested I’d be friendly with Middle East terrorist organizations, and even tried to link me to a dead communist dictator.
“It was the kind of onslaught I expected to see from the Koch Brothers or Sheldon Adelson, and it’s the second time a billionaire Super PAC has tried to stop the momentum of the political revolution we’re building together.”
I expect that as Bernie Sanders’ poll numbers continue to rise, the attacks against him by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and her affiliated SuperPACs will only increase.
Is the national media going to start giving more credence to Bernie Sanders’ campaign now that Hillary’s backers are attacking him?
Yeah, even the forces on the faux “left” are becoming worried about a real progressive with some momentum. Expect lots more of the same.
Recommended reading:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Rich-Dont-Always-Win/dp/1609804341
I’m at the part where the real causes of and proposed solutions to the economic disparity that fomented the Great Depression are outlined in no-nonsense terms. The parallels to today’s political and economic climate are stunning, as are the identical lies and political posturing from the conservative forces of both eras.
Charles’ great catch on Sam Pizzigati’s terrific history of the U.S. labor movement in the 20th century.
I remain neutral; may the best woman win.
This election is getting interesting all of a sudden. I went into it thinking it was going to be a ho-hum Hillary beats ______ (insert Republican here) 52-48 but now I have no idea who is going to win either nomination, much less the general.
Things I’m curious about:
1. Do the Democrats get the same kind of turn out they did in Obama’s two elections and does it matter if the nominee is Bernie, Hillary, or other?
2. Does the support for Trump wane as other candidates drop out of the GOP race or does he pick up their respective supporters?
3. Does Biden get in and does it matter if he does?
Dan,
Excellent questions.
1. As long as the candidate can effectively (Sanders/Warren) run on wealth inequality.
2. Per the excellent Marcy Wheeler @emptywheel in Salon, GOP has conditioned its base to valuing the most obnoxious.
“Donald Trump is ruining everything for the GOP: The five stages of Republican grief explained
Republicans hoping to take back the White House have found a badly coiffed billionaire standing in their way”
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/30/donald_trump_is_ruining_everything_for_the_gop_the_five_stages_of_republican_grief_explained/
I was wrong about Trump. I think the nomination is his to lose.
3. Unless HRC gets going, Wall Street and the elites would love Biden to get in, but his Senate record is terrible on wealth inequality.
Obama crushed Dems in the midterms by talking about the global war on terror.
Do not forget that Sanders is a Zionist. This neutralizes any role for middle class champion he might claim.
Israel is occupying an ethnic Palestine people and committing slow genocide. They do not think they can retain power in the region because of, by their own admission, Israel’s lack of reproduction compared to the Islamic Palestinians.
This highlights their fear of Iran’s modern middle class as an economically free state as well.
Israel sympathizes on the side of the Sunni minority in the Middle East and is another state which prefers military power to Democratic freedom, like Saudi Arabia, Syria under el-Assad and, formerly, Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
I might also mention The United States under George W. Bush as a Sunni sympathizer.
I don’t really see what qualifies him as a Zionist. And while I realize that there is a very passionate group of pro-Palestinian activists, I do not think that is a top or even second tier issue for most voters. Does the average working, single mother care who is currently occupying a stretch of desert 6000 miles away? I don’t know, but I tend to doubt it.