Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

FOLLOW-UP TO: “Instead of nominating Marco Rubio, the Republicans should just cut out the pretense and nominate his doppelgänger: Charlie McCarthy”

[Rubio] turned a question about his finances into an opportunity to retell his compelling family narrative, and then, into even sweeter lemonade: “I’m not worried about my finances, I’m worried about the finances of everyday Americans who today are struggling in an economy that is not producing good paying jobs while everything else costs more.”

Nicely played. But there are legitimate issues involving Rubio’s personal and campaign finances. At some point, “my father was a bartender” isn’t going to be a sufficient answer, especially if the debate helps turn this into Rubio’s moment, and Rubio’s nomination.

This strange, worrisome GOP race, Ruth Marcus, Washington Post, today


A common refrain about Rubio is that he’s a man in a hurry.  A refrain that I trust is about to become common is that he also is a man on the take.  Which he is.  Pure and simple.  This spade needs to be called a spade, and will be, whether it’s Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders—or a massive swell from the news media of the sort that, finally, is occurring in the wake of Wednesday’s debate calling all but one member of the entire cast (Kasich was the exception) grifters, scam artists, fraudsters, liars on a truly grand scale—that begins it loudly enough to be heard.

Instead of nominating Marco Rubio, the Republicans should just cut out the pretense and nominate his doppelgänger: Charlie McCarthy, me, yesterday

According to a post-debate NBC News/SurveyMonkey post-debate poll of 3,387 Republican or Republican-leaning registered voters, including 1,226 who watched the debate, there is … virtually no change in the status of the various the respective candidates from their pre-debate status.   With the exception of Cruz, who has bounced to third place.

Trump and Carson tie at 26 percent, Cruz has 10 percent, Rubio 9 percent, Jeb Bush 5 percent), Fiorina 4 percent, and the other four tied at 2 percent.

In the comments thread to my post from yesterday, AB reader William Ryan and I had this exchange:

William Ryan

October 31, 2015 11:00 am

Lets all face the fact Marco Rubio is not presidential material. I think if I read correctly this morning in the Daily Kos. com they did call him a liar. Please go see and read that story about his personal financial situation . This guy to me is too young and inexperienced that makes him in my mind’s eye very unpresidential material. He needs much more experience in lying and should take lessons from the Clintons.

Beverly Mann

October 31, 2015 12:22 pm

I beg to differ, William. It sure looks like Rubio has had loads of experience lying. And loads of experience doing shady things under the radar.

The radar now has him in its sights. Can’t wait till he gets the nomination and the Dems start running ads with adult children of bartenders, maids and other blue collar workers, who have mortgages, retirement funds and college tuition funds without having exchanged government favors for salaries for themselves and their spouses paid by billionaires, and without arranging for nine-figure government contracts in exchange for massive financial but quiet political support, and who didn’t improperly use an organization’s credit card for personal travel and home-improvement projects. Or who get by without luxuries or retirement funds or college tuition funds, because their jobs don’t pay enough to allow it.

One thing that struck me about the my-father-was-a-bartender excuse is how really demeaning of people who come from working class families it is. If you’re from a working class family, you’re entitled to act unethically because, y’know, how else can you support your family in style?

Another thing that struck me is something really obvious: That Rubio wants to further undermine collective bargaining, is against raising the minimum wage, and wants to end government assistance in making healthcare insurance available. Because those things make us weak as people, see.

I’m guessing that some Republicans had a similar reaction to mine.  Minus the Medicare-and-Social-Security-make-us-weak-as-people part, since that wasn’t mentioned specifically at the debate.

As Steve Benen wrote on Thursday (I linked to it also in my earlier post), Rubio’s big moments all came in what were patently memorized lines and responses.  And Benen appears to be on to something.  Here’s an excerpt:

RUBIO: No Jeb, I don’t remember – well, let me tell you. I don’t remember you ever complaining about John McCain’s vote record. The only reason why you’re doing it now is because we’re running for the same position, and someone has convinced you that attacking me is going to help you.

If it was boxing, someone would have intervened to stop the fight. It was the confrontation everyone knew was coming – Jeb telegraphed his punch for days – but the intended target knew exactly what to say. It led to headlines about Rubio being “spectacular.”

And to a degree, the gushing praise is understandable. Rubio looked as if he’d practiced that soliloquy in front of a mirror for hours, and then delivered his scripted lines nicely. Later, the far-right Floridian referenced entitlements – Rubio is on record condemning Medicare and Social Security for “weakening us as a people” – and said to laughter, “Nothing has to change for current beneficiaries. My mother is on Medicare and Social Security. I’m against anything that’s bad for my mother.”

It’s the sort of quality that impresses debate scorers: candidates who memorize their carefully crafted lines and hit their marks are seen as the “winners.”

But it’s also true that we saw two very different Marco Rubios last night. The scripted senator excelled, dazzling pundits and earning hearty audience applause. The unscripted senator struggled in ways careful observers shouldn’t overlook.  [Italics in both sentences in the original.]

I suspect that we’re actually in a post-political-consultant period in presidential campaigns, in that sizable swaths of the electorate is repulsed by, or at least resistant to, the packaged, scripted crescendo lines that so many politicians think is the ultimate in campaigning.  But most of political journalists haven’t quite caught on yet. Kathleen Parker, who’s a Bush cheerleader, writes today:

While Bush’s attempted takedown [of Rubio about Rubio’s Senate attendance record] may be a worthy discussion — at what point are missed votes a firing offense? — Bush’s jab boomeranged. Just minutes after he had identified his central weakness as not being able to “fake anger,” Bush attempted to fake anger — or at least disgust. In an odd little flourish, he tossed a little leftover red meat to the fragment of the GOP base that still hates all things French.

“The Senate,” he said, “what is it — like a French workweek? You get like three days where you have to show up?”

Like, not really. Although France officially has a 35-hour workweek, French Ambassador Gérard Araud tweeted, “The French work an average of 39.6 hours a week compared to 39.2 for the Germans.” And Fortune magazine reports that French workers are about as productive as Americans.

No “fact” goes unchecked these days.

Though not exactly crucial to the global flow of things, this speck of a moment was nonetheless revealing. Bush’s snark attack obviously wasn’t spontaneous and came across like a committee-produced “laugh line.” Someone apparently forgot to cue the audience and it collapsed like a Roquefort souffle.

Parker’s exactly right about Bush, but missed the same point about Rubio.

Trump and Carson don’t memorize scripts written for them by consultants.  So, tacitly, they won the debate.  Just as Bernie Sanders’ appeal is based somewhat on his own refusal to memorize scripts and zingy soundbites prepared for him by consultants.  In dramatic contrast to Clinton, who’s downright addicted to zingy soundbites prepared for her by consultants.

Clinton has the advantage of being extremely familiar to, and popular with, older Democrats, especially female ones.  And her campaign, unlike Trump’s and Carson’s, is based on normal, coherent policy proposals, in addition to the ad nauseam I AM WOMAN! theme of it.  Unlike Trump and Carson, Clinton’s not crazy. She’s just wedded—welded, I think—to an outdated mode of campaigning for president.  I don’t think she can change that.  And it’s one reason why I think that in this election, Clinton is not the Democrat in the race who has the strongest potential general election appeal.

I just don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore.  Y’know?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , Comments (2) | |

Worst Socialist Ever part MMMCDLXIII*

I just notice that in the second quarter of 2015 US real gross private domestic investment surpassed US real government consumption expenditures & gross investment for the first time since the data have been collected (1947).

The long era of US socialism as lead by Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and the Bushs has ended under raging capitalist Barack Obama (and the insane Republican posse in congress and the 50 little Hoovers).


I think this is relevant to the debate about secular stagnation. It isn’t so clear to me that the US economy needs bubbles to achieve full employment with positive interest rates. I think it might be enough to end the extraordinary austerity.

update 1: Latin numbering corrected in title thanks to Warren in comments.

update 2: more importantly JW Mason argues convincingly that I should have looked at nominal private investment and nominal government consumption plus investment. That measures how much the two cost us. He argues that comparing real this and real that is a mistake as the difference depends on the base year. This is very important because the investment deflator has been falling like a rock (mostly computers and such getting cheaper). Now real vs real comparisons with different price indices (which grow at different rates) are very common — there is a huge literature on PPP corrected GDP and its growth in different countries.

Here is the nominal graph nominalsocialist

As JW Mason noted, it looks very different — the strikign feature is how coincidentally similar the two flows happen to be.

On the other hand and in my defence, I note the striking pattern during the Obama presidency


The almost complete absence of growth of nominal government consumption plus investment is extraordinary (and has been noted again and again).

To be clear, I was being facetious, Obama isn’t a socialist and he isn’t the worst moderate progressive ever — he’s just president and has to deal with Congress over the Federal budget (with avoiding default a principal goal) and has little influence over state and local budgets.

Comments (12) | |

VSPs Get Their Way With Budget Deal: Social Security Benefits Are Cut

by Barkley Rosser     (Econospeak)

VSPs Get Their Way With Budget Deal: Social Security Benefits Are Cut

All the Very Serious People are jumping up and down and cheering.  We have a budget deal in the House and the debt ceiling is being raised and there will be no more artificial budget crises until after the new president is in office, hurray hurray hurray!  Not only that, all the Dems in the House voted for it, with everybody gushing gratitude to John Boehner for making it possible by resigning as Speaker to turn it over to reasonable Paul Ryan once Boehner could get this deal through the House, thwarting the evil Tea Party/Freedom Caucus bomb throwers who want to have a big crisis with the government shut down and indeed bankrupt outright. We are saved!

Well, indeed there certainly are these benefits.  But without much publicity, Paul Ryan is reported to be behind slipping into the deal something that he has long supported, entitlement benefit cuts, which have been heavily featured in past budgets he has proposed.  The particular cut is the ending in Social Security of the ability of couples to “file and suspend” with this being replaced by “deemed filing.”  File and suspend allowed someone to get Social Security benefits prior to retiring, while not having to accept the lower benefits one gets if one retires at 62 or 66.  One can get the higher benefits later.  This will now not be allowed, so one must accept the lower benefits if one starts getting benefits early.  This has only been possible for  married couples with this involving one getting spousal benefits and then their own through some semi-complicated maneuvers that have been allowed since 2001.

Tags: Comments (34) | |

Instead of nominating Marco Rubio, the Republicans should just cut out the pretense and nominate his doppelgänger: Charlie McCarthy

Bill Clinton had a line during his 1992 campaign that he said, mantra-like, so often in fact that eventually it lost its meaning and was just a cringe-inducing song-like chorus.  The line, the slogan, was, “People who work hard and play by the rules.”  It was—until he repeated it to a point well beyond when people actually would think of its meaning when they heard it, rather than just cringe or role their eyes—a very effective campaign mantra and also one that said something meaningful.  And it’s a line that I’ve thought of repeatedly since Thursday night’s debate.

Marco Rubio neither works hard nor plays by the rules.  Except, of course, the rules that politicians these days play by, although Rubio has throughout his political career—which is to say, virtually throughout his adult life once he graduated from law school—been jaw-droppingly adept at it, finding two billionaires to sponsor his political career and shore up his personal finances. One of them is human, the other is a corporate person.

The corporate person is GEO Group, the second-largest private, for-profit prison company in the United States—is there another country that has a private-prisons industry?  I have no idea—and whose company’s only client is government entities.  Including the State of Florida, thanks to Rubio during his tenure as Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives (of billionaires, human and corporate).  The other is Miami billionaire Norman Braman.

A common refrain about Rubio is that he’s a man in a hurry.  A refrain that I trust is about to become common is that he also is a man on the take.  Which he is.  Pure and simple.  This spade needs to be called a spade, and will be, whether it’s Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders—or a massive swell from the news media of the sort that, finally, is occurring in the wake of Wednesday’s debate calling all but one member of the entire cast (Kasich was the exception) grifters, scam artists, fraudsters, liars on a truly grand scale—that begins it loudly enough to be heard.

Regarding GEO-Group-as-Rubio-family-financier, the first article about it (to my knowledge) in a major national publication was by Staten Island-based freelance writer Michael Cohen published in the Washington Post on April 28 of this year.  Its title is “How for-profit prisons have become the biggest lobby no one is talking about.”  Its subtitle is “Sen. Marco Rubio is one of the biggest beneficiaries.”  Among its paragraphs about Rubio is this one:

Marco Rubio is one of the best examples of the private prison industry’s growing political influence, a connection that deserves far more attention now that he’s officially launched a presidential bid. The U.S. senator has a history of close ties to the nation’s second-largest for-profit prison company, GEO Group, stretching back to his days as speaker of the Florida House of Representatives. While Rubio was leading the House, GEO was awarded a state government contract for a $110 million prison soon after Rubio hired an economic consultant who had been a trustee for a GEO real estate trust. Over his career, Rubio has received nearly $40,000 in campaign donations from GEO, making him the Senate’s top career recipient of contributions from the company. (Rubio’s office did not respond to requests for comment.)

The statute of limitations has run on potential public corruption charges under the federal criminal code.  But many public officials have been charged and convicted for conduct that bears, let’s just say, a resemblance to Rubio’s. Former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell would dispute that his was one such case, since McDonnell contends that when he pushed that vitamin supplement in exchange for $165,000 (or whatever the amount was) in gifts and sweetheart loans, he did so not in his official capacity but as a private individual.

Then there is the curious case of Norman Braman, Florida tax policy when Rubio was speaker of the Florida House, and Rubio’s job teaching Political Science at a Florida public university courtesy of a newly created and paid for in full by Braman after Rubio left the Florida House in order to run full-time for the U.S. Senate.  (Full time except for that adjunct teaching position, of course.)  In an article published Monday on Alternet, Lou Dubose of the Washington Spectator summarized the details as revealed earlier by The New York Times:

In an interview with The New York Times, the senator described Norman Braman, a Miami billionaire who once owned the Philadelphia Eagles and now sells BMWs, Rolls-Royces, Cadillacs, Audis and Bugatis, as “a father figure who had given him advice on everything, from what books to read to how to manage a staff.”

Braman, the Times reported, gave Rubio more than advice.

He contributed $255,000 to an advocacy group Rubio formed to lobby for one of his signature-mark initiatives while he was speaker of the Florida House of Representatives: a dramatic reduction of property taxes and increase in the state sales tax.

When Rubio left state government, he got a job teaching at Florida International University, committing to raise his salary from private donors. Braman contributed $100,000 to the university, earmarked for Rubio’s salary.

Braman donated to Rubio’s U.S. Senate campaign, and hired Rubio as a lawyer for seven months while he campaigned. He hired Rubio’s wife, and her company, to work for his charitable foundation. And he is reported to have committed $10 million to Rubio’s presidential campaign.

The New York Times reporters suggested that Rubio’s involvement with Braman will lead to a more thorough examination of the Florida Senator’s personal finances as the presidential campaign continues.

Dubose’s article is titled “Marco Rubio’s Financial Messes” and subtitled “Fishy financials don’t make for a great campaign.”  And, really, they don’t.

Rubio’s debate riposte—not about any of this, which he wasn’t asked about, but to a question about problems with his and his wife’s handling of their family’s cash flow—was that, well, he unlike Bush and Trump comes from a family of very modest means, and as an adult he received no financial assistance from his parents.  This presumably will do double duty as a response to questions about what the conduct that many people, I suspect, will view as amounting to public corruption.  But it’s a line that will continue to work only until someone other than me—to reiterate, e.g., Trump, Sanders, Clinton, or journalists—points out that many, many people who come from families of very modest means actually do work hard and do play by the rules.

Many of them, like Rubio’s mother, whom he mentioned during the debate in reference to Medicare and Social Security—he said she relies on them—are weak as people.  So, too, is he, by his own admission, for allowing his mother to rely on those federal programs rather than supporting her, including paying her healthcare costs.  Like people did in the old days. I was unaware of this admission by him, and in fact was unaware that he thinks Medicare and Social Security weaken us as people, until I read Steve Benen’s post yesterday on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC blog (h/t Paul Waldman):

Later, the far-right Floridian referenced entitlements – Rubio is on record condemning Medicare and Social Security for “weakening us as a people” – and said to laughter, “Nothing has to change for current beneficiaries. My mother is on Medicare and Social Security. I’m against anything that’s bad for my mother.”

That same record (video, actually) includes, specifically, Rubio’s statement that Medicare and Social Security have made us as a people lazy.

It will be a relief to many that as long as Mrs. Rubio is alive, Medicare and Social Security will be safe under a Rubio presidency.  Enabling the lazy Rubio to avoid having to support her.

The Democrats can only hope that Marco Rubio will be the Republican nominee for president.  Our current campaign finance system reduces most American politicians to ventriloquists’ puppets, but Rubio is unmistakably Charlie McCarthy reincarnate.  To the point of comedy.  Like the original Charlie McCarthy.  Next time you hear or see him speak, just think of how comfortably he would fit on Edgar Bergen’s lap.*

A week or two ago I read—I don’t remember where—that there is a Super PAC tied to Rubio that has a huge amount of funding but only one donor, whose identity is anonymous.  Rubio indeed would fit perfectly on Edgar Bergen’s lap, but here’s betting that that donor isn’t Edgar Bergen.


*Link to Paul Krugman’s blog post from this morning titled “Policy and Character” added. 10/30 at 11:01 p.m.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Comments (15) | |

Laubach & Williams do not see yet that Natural Real Rate is Rising

Yesterday a paper came out by John Williams and Thomas Laubach called, Measuring the Natural Rate of Interest Redux. They presented their model to determine the natural real rate of interest. In short, their model gives a steadily low natural real rate that would justify keeping nominal interest rates low.

Paul Krugman jumped on board and used the paper to support his views that the Fed should continue to keep the Fed rate on the zero lower bound. He said…

“Laubach and Williams find that the natural rate has plunged in recent years, and is now very, very low. The particular statistical method they use is reasonable…”

“L-W attribute the decline in the natural rate largely to the slowing of potential output, which in turn reflects demography and what looks like a slowdown in technological progress. That’s more speculative. But the low natural rate is as solid a result as anything in real time can be.”

Hold on a second, I see a problem with the statistical method. The method is not reasonable. As well, their result is not as solid as anything that can be in real time. I will compare their method to the “real time” method from my research in effective demand.

The main problem that I see is that their method is based on the trend growth rate of potential GDP. I do not agree with the CBO’s estimate of potential output. I have my own estimate based on unemployment, capacity utilization and labor share. These variables give data in real time month to month, except for labor share which is released every 3 months.

Here is a graph comparing the CBO’s potential GDP with the one that I calculate using effective demand.

CBO ED potent

The linear trend line for the CBO potential has a slope of 56.8, while the slope of my potential is 60.2. My trend line shows potential output growing faster than the CBO’s. Thus I end up calculating a higher natural real interest rate than Laubach and Williams. And if we look at the comparison just since the 1st quarter of 2014, we see an even stronger difference.

CBO ED potent rec

The difference in slopes is 66.78 (CBO) and 100.67 (Effective Demand). For me, the natural real interest rate is rising higher but they do not see it because their view of potential output is limited to how the CBO is adjusting it. To say that the CBO adjustments are “real time” is not correct. Their adjustments are constrained which makes them seriously lag real time.

So I will calculate a natural real interest rate using my effective demand potential output, then compare this natural real rate against figure 7 from the LW paper where different “estimates of the natural rate of interest under alternative output measures” are given. I have overlaid my line onto the graph (light blue line). My line is a 3-year average for the percentage change of the effective demand potential which I graphed above.

lw ed comp

Through the years from 1980 to 2010, my line (light blue) tracked in range with the various estimates from Laubach and Williams. I show more potential growth during the late 1990’s which is seen by my higher natural real rate during that time.

However, the most important difference is found since the crisis. I see that the natural real rate has risen while the estimates of Laubach and Williams have trended downward.  This is primarily due to the difference in how I see potential output and how the CBO sees it.

As the CBO adjusts potential downward, the natural real rate will look lower if you base it on a growth trend of potential. In fact, if the CBO adjusted potential more strongly downward, the natural real rate that Laubach and Williams calculate might go so negative that people might freak out.

However, my calculation of potential quickly adjusted downward during the crisis as seen in the next graph. My adjustment took place in “real time”.

cbo ed comp

The CBO is taking time to adjust potential downward. I adjusted it quickly. As a consequence, I now see that the natural real rate is heading upward to normal levels. Eventually Laubach and Williams will see what I see, but they have to wait for the CBO to adjust potential completely.

Laubach and Williams actually talk about the natural real rate returning to a normal level…

“The LW model assumes that the recent decline in the natural rate is permanent; that is, the natural rate will stay at historic lows for the indefinite future… but eventually the natural rate will return to a more normal level.”

Their results seem to show that there are adverse effects from the recession that are keeping the natural real rate low. Still, they expect the natural real rate to rise again. Obviously, I see the natural real rate already climbing back up toward more normal levels. They do not see it… yet.

Comments (8) | |

Carly Fiorina’s Truthiness

Russ Choma wrote an excellent article on Carly Fiorina’s habit of making precise claims which turn out to be false.

I had one comment

Excellent article, but you missed one. “Ronald Reagan got rid of the the 55 mph national speed limit, he deregulated trucking and the airlines, that’s the last time it happened.” is false. Trucking and airlines were deregulated by Carter


The Motor Carrier Act of *1980* partially deregulated the trucking industry, dramatically increasing the number of trucking companies in operation.[17] … The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 *established*a federal minimum for truck weight limits, ”

Asterisks mine. Note deregulation under Carter. The only reference to the Reagan years s the reference to the introduction of a new federal regulation.

“The Airline Deregulation Act is a 1978 United States federal law intended to remove government control over fares, routes and market entry (of new airlines) fromcommercial aviation.”

It may be GOP dogma that Reagan was (among many other things) the great deregulator. However, in actual US history Carter deregulated more than Reagan.

Comments (9) | |

Industrial Production as a share of real GDP

I regularly see people comment about the decline in the importance of industrial production but I never see any data on how much it has declined.  Finally, I saw a libertarian blogger talk about as a point in his argument but he also revealed that he   had not idea what had happened to industrial production relative to the economy.

The Federal Reserve actually publishes the value of industrial production as part of its monthly industrial production report, so it is quite easy to get the  raw data to construct a series of industrial production as a share of GDP.  It has fallen from 33% of real GDP in 1972 — as far back as the data goes — to 23% currently.  The trend is for the share to fall 2.4% annually.

Manufacturing employment has had a similar fall, from 31% to 13.7% last quarter. The employment has seen a 2.4% annual decline.


For a while I agreed that there was an error in using this data to calculate industrial production as a share of GDP.   But after more consideration and checking with the Fed I have concluded that the original chart is correct.  There is no conceptional difference between the Fed data and the real GDP accounts.



Comments (29) | |

The decline in prime age labor participation: the smoking gun (Part 1of 2)

by New Deal democrat   (Bonddad blog)

The decline in prime age labor participation: the smoking gun (Part 1of 2)

I recently wrote about the compelling evidence that the biggest reason for the decline in the prime working age labor participation rate was the increase in the number of second-earner spouses who decided to stay at home and raise their children, occasioned by the particularly significant decline in wages among lower quintile jobs, together with the soaring costs of outside day care.
Since that time (and I’d like to think in part because of my argument), the issue of the “child care cost crunch” has become much more visible, with the candidates in the recent Democratic Presidential debate weighing in, in support of more assistance for working mothers.
For example, Fortune magazine repored that:

the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a worker advocacy group, finds that caretaking costs have become so exorbitant that in most parts of the U.S., families spend more on childcare than they do on rent (included in that number: babysitting, nannies, and out-of-home day care centers.
I think [the cost of childcare] plays a role in a woman’s decision to go to work,” says Gould. “It is taking a toll on labor force participation and therefore on the economy.”
Measuring child care costs against a variety of benchmarks—including the cost of college tuition, the HHS’s 10 percent affordability threshold, and median family incomes—demonstrates that high quality child care is out of reach for working families.

And the Pew Research Foundations updated its study of the impact of child care on the careers of mothers in the labor force:

Tags: Comments (1) | |

Making a Difference in American Families’ Lives by Crying ‘Wolf’ about Sexism

“Her campaign has been about how to make a difference in American families’ lives – a cause she’s fought for her entire life,” said [Clinton campaign] spokeswoman, Christina Reynolds. “It’s a shame Senator Sanders’s campaign has decided to make the campaign about political attacks. Voters want to hear about how their candidate will fight for them, not fight each other.”

Bernie Sanders Walking the Line Between Personal Attacks and Political Critiques, Patrick Healy and Maggie Haberman, New York Times, today

Absolutely, Clinton’s campaign has been about how to make a difference in American families’ lives, and voters want to hear about how their candidate will fight for them, not fight each other.  Which is why Clinton three times within two days publicly told those very voters and all the world that Sanders told her, and her alone, that she should stop speaking in a literally loud voice about the issue of gun control legislation, and that he did so because she is a woman and he is sexist.

This will make a difference in American families’ lives.  At least the lives of hardworking ones.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , Comments (1) | |