Already Desperate, Hillary Surrogates Dishonestly Bash Bernie

Two members of Congress who have endorsed the presidential candidacy of former senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) were not ready to wait for a truthful basis on which to attack her main rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), as polls showed the lead held in early February by the former secretary of State over the ex-representative shrinking in Iowa by nearly seven-tenths and in New Hampshire by six-sevenths.  Those states will, as is traditional, be the first two in each major party's contest for its presidential nomination.

Clinton (Michael Gross / Dept. of
State), Sanders (berniesanders.com)

On the June 11 edition of Ora's PoliticKING with Larry King, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) said of the ex-mayor of Burlington, "I don't know if he likes immigrants, because he doesn't seem to talk about immigrants."

Gutierrez offered no substantive criticism of Sanders, who voted against the fence along the US-Mexico border, who often mentions that his father was an immigrant, and who does discuss immigration.  Clinton, however, voted in favor of that fence and falsely claimed each of her grandparents was an immigrant.  Merely one of them was.

Yet, the congressman confirmed King's remark, "You support Hillary Clinton, who was against driver's licenses for [undocumented immigrants] and now is for it."  (Clinton's blatant waffling on that issue in a debate was arguably the start of the downfall of her first bid to be chief executive of this country.)

Moreover, in the runoff campaign that was held this year for mayor of Chicago, Sanders endorsed populist challenger Jesús García, who is an immigrant.  In contrast, Gutierrez backed corporatist incumbent Rahm Emanuel, who is neither an immigrant nor the son of any immigrant.

On the June 25 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) stated, "I think the media is giving Bernie a pass right now.  I very rarely read in any coverage of Bernie that he's a socialist...  [T]hey are not really giving the same scrutiny to Bernie Sanders that they're giving to, certainly, Hillary Clinton."

Apparently, McCaskill very rarely reads coverage of Sanders or even listens to any.

She continued, "Any other candidate [who were to have] the numbers Hillary Clinton ha[s]... would be talked about as absolutely untouchable."

Given that the margin between Clinton and Sanders in the Granite State has dwindled to eight percentage points, McCaskill should be asked to name a previous candidate the media considered invincible when his lead with regard to the first presidential primary was as slim.

Gutierrez, McCaskill
(Congressional Pictorial Directory)

"I think Bernie is too liberal to... become president."

A poll conducted by Gallup last month found that 47% of adults in the US (including 26% of Republicans!) are already willing to put a socialist in this nation's highest office -- a percentage that is likely to expand as Sanders continues to explain what socialism means to him.  But due to the following factors, support for him might already be sufficient.

• Said willingness could be higher among registered voters and/or likely voters than among all adults.
• The measurement of that willingness is likely weighed down by the states the Democratic ticket will not try to win.
• The national popular vote is irrelevant to the selection of the president.

The 19 states (DC included) the Democratic ticket carried in each of the last six presidential elections total 242 votes in the Electoral College.  To assert Sanders cannot both hold those and garner the 28 Electoral votes he would need from elsewhere is silly.  Here are some reasons why.

• Florida has 29 Electoral votes.
• The Republican Party will probably be in a weak position when its 15 (or more) presidential candidates have finished their battle against each other, during which they will expose their foolishness.
• The existence of all those candidacies creates a serious possibility of a scenario in which nobody secures a majority of delegates to the Republican National Convention before it is held.  In that case, the intra-party fight would stretch into the summer of 2016.

When granted the opportunity to scrutinize Sanders by citing three elements of what she had just called his "extreme message," McCaskill made several attempts to avoid specification of such examples but eventually gave the following responses.

"He would like to see Medicare-for-All."

So would a plurality of Americans.

"He would like to see expansion of entitlement."

So would McCaskill.  So, by her logic, she is extreme.  By the way, "entitlement" is used as a misnomer for earned benefits.

"He is not worried about a debt at all."

Maybe Sanders should have mentioned the national debt more than the literally 87 times he did during his eight-hour filibuster of the 2010 extension of George W. Bush's tax cuts for the highest incomes.

"He... is, frankly, against trade."

Opposition by Sanders to the Trans-Pacific Partnership does not mean he opposes trade in general.

Gutierrez and McCaskill gave publicity to the former first lady's much lesser-known opponent only to show us that her team feels vulnerable to his campaign, has no facts to use against him, and is willing to lie.  Smooth.