How was it?

I feel asleep before it began (long, exhausting day).  I hear it had its moments...

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, in by far their testiest encounter of the campaign, tangled Thursday night over the role of money in politics and the philosophical underpinnings of the Democratic Party in their first one-on-one debate. 

The candidates scowled, frowned, and cut each other off as they traded attacks that had before been launched from the less personal remove of press releases and tweets.

Sanders said Clinton’s speaking fees and campaign finance donations from Wall Street would hinder her from bringing sweeping changes needed to protect the middle class.

Clinton accused Sanders’ operation of engaging in a “very artful smear campaign” to make her appear too cozy with Wall Street. Instead, she said, her ties to financial executives give her valuable insights into how they operate. 

"I don’t think these kinds of attacks by insinuation are worthy of you,’’ Clinton told the Vermont senator. “Enough is enough."

It's been kind of a scold all week from the Clinton side.

Somebody got booed from what I understand.  There were also purity tests galore, which to me is the most important distinction.  I have laughed until I cried for months now at Hillary's supporters' attempt to fit her square peg into that round hole.  (Now don't construe that as sexist; it's a common figure of speech and you are smart enough to be aware of it.)

It was by far Sanders’ strongest and smoothest performance. 

For a senator with limited experience on the national stage, he was finally able to go toe-to-toe with one of the most skillful debaters in the party —toggling between his signature anger and the occasional joke. 

This was the last time New Hampshire voters were scheduled to see them on stage together before voting Tuesday’s primary election, and came as the contest has taken a more personal turn. 

The candidates debated what it means to be a progressive in the Democratic Party. Sanders said Clinton represents the party establishment and that he represents "ordinary Americans." 

“Senator Sanders is the only person to characterize me — the first woman running to be the first woman president, as part of the establishment,” Clinton said. “It’s really quite amusing to me.”

She doesn't sound all that amused, does she?  Did she sound amused when she said it?  She played the "lady" card too quickly again too.  Did that work?

Did anybody use the word 'pragmatic' or 'pragmatism'?

About halfway through the debate, the pair returned to a fight that broke out via social media this week, when Sanders unleashed a Twitter offensive over Clinton’s progressive credentials. 

“You can be a moderate,” Sanders wrote. “You can be a progressive. But you cannot be a moderate and a progressive.” 

During the debate, Clinton confronted Sanders, calling him “the self-proclaimed gatekeeper of progressivism.” 

“I am a progressive who gets things done,” Clinton said. “The root word of the word progressive is progress.” 

She said that by Sanders’ definition, President Obama wouldn’t be considered a liberal because he took campaign donations from Wall Street. 

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive?” Sanders said. “Yeah. I do.”

Bernie is wrong about Obama, and Predator drones, Trans-Pacific Trade Partnerships, and not fighting for a public option when he had a Democratic Congress are just a few of the reasons why Sanders is in the hunt for the White House ... and of course why he's almost winning.  But the establishment is simply not going to be denied again.

Since I didn't watch, I missed all of the negativity but Oliver Knox seems to think they ended the evening in harmony.

Democratic presidential rivals Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton knocked each other around Thursday in their first one-on-one debate of the 2016 season, but ultimately closed ranks behind the notion of keeping the White House in their party’s hands. 

Sanders spent much of the evening arguing that he was the true standard-bearer for the Democratic Party, hammering the former secretary of state over her ties to Wall Street and vote in favor of the war in Iraq. Clinton focused her energies largely on defending her progressive bonafides, while arguing that the Vermont independent was putting ideological purity on a pedestal above pragmatic proposals that could actually become reality. 

But by the end of their MSNBC encounter, the two candidates closed ranks. 

It started when moderator Chuck Todd asserted that Clinton did not think Sanders could be president. She looked genuinely surprised, and said, “I never said that,” then brushed aside his follow-up about whether she might pick Sanders as a running mate if she wins the party’s nomination. 

“Well, I’m certainly going to unite the party, but I’m not getting ahead of myself. I think that would be a little bit presumptuous,” Clinton said. “If I’m so fortunate as to be the nominee, the first person I will call to talk to about where we go and how we get it done will be Sen. Sanders.”

Todd tried the question on Sanders. 

“I agree with what the secretary said. We shouldn’t be getting ahead of ourselves,” the Vermont senator replied. ”And as I have said many times, you know, sometimes in these campaigns, things get a little bit out of hand. I happen to respect the secretary very much, I hope it’s mutual. And on our worst days, I think it is fair to say we are 100 times better than any Republican candidate.” 

Clinton agreed, declaring “That’s true, that’s true.”

That sounds agreeable.  Bernie's already thinking about making sure his people line up behind her about a month or so from now; my revised prediction is shortly after their debate in Flint and the Michigan primary on March 8.

Plan B goes into effect at that time.

Round Two, El Caballero y La Dama

Last night was substantive, calm, rational, and revealing.  This evening we're probably back to the shouting and hand-waving and accusations and such.

The next Democratic debate is tonight at 9 pm Eastern. It will take place at the University of New Hampshire in Durham, and will air on MSNBC. An online live stream will be available at MSNBC.com. 

This debate wasn't on the sparse original list of six that the Democratic National Committee approved. But when NBC and the New Hampshire Union Leader decided to host an "unsanctioned" debate between the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, without the DNC's approval, Hillary Clinton — who seemed to regret her allies' role in limiting the debates, and hoped for an opportunity to shrink Bernie Sanders's large lead in New Hampshire — said she'd show up. The Sanders team then used the opening to get Clinton to agree to three more debates in exchange for his own attendance. 

The upshot is that this will be the first face-off between the two candidates since they fought to a virtual tie in the Iowa caucuses. And it will also be the first featuring only Clinton and Sanders, since Martin O'Malley suspended his campaign Monday night.

Again from last night, I saw it as among Bernie Sanders' finest public moments.  He simply communicates with a sincerity and a humility that Hillary Clinton cannot.  She didn't really have too many bad moments; it's just that she comes off as your standard 'say anything' politician when you have the opportunity to compare the two closely.

This debate comes just five days before the February 9 New Hampshire primary — a primary Bernie Sanders is expected to win, since Clinton has trailed him in state polls for most of the past six months. 

Weirdly enough, this seriously raises the stakes of tonight's debate for Sanders. Because if he loses New Hampshire to Clinton, it will be interpreted as a major blow to his campaign. The Granite State is a really good fit for Sanders both geographically (he represents neighboring Vermont) and demographically (it's overwhelmingly white, and white Democrats are more likely to back him). And the next states to vote — Nevada and South Carolina — seem to favor Clinton. 

That's why Clinton was so eager to add this debate — to give her the chance to turn her numbers in New Hampshire around, and perhaps even pull off an improbable come-from-behind victory there like she did in 2008. If Clinton triumphs in New Hampshire, she could deflate Sanders's campaign early, and roll to victory elsewhere.

She'll roll no matter what happens tonight or on February 9.  I've been saying it since the summer.

It's nice to have hope and to be inspired, but the deck is stacked too strongly against him.  Maybe I'm just cynical after watching politics so closely for the past decade-plus, and after getting my hopes up with people like Howard Dean in 2004, David Van Os in 2006, John Edwards in 2008, and more recently Wendy Davis in 2014 and Chris Bell in the last municipal cycle.

Unsurprisingly, then, the contest between them has been getting more tense. In recent days, Sanders has more aggressively questioned Clinton's progressive credentials, criticizing her for raising money on Wall Street and voting for the Iraq war. And Clinton has been been increasingly focused on gun control, one of the few issues she has a more liberal record than Sanders on — while sowing doubts about Sanders's electability. Expect all these topics to come up quite a bit tonight.

Since New Hampshire is a primary, at least we won't have any coin flips.

I used to be a big, big proponent of caucuses, but not any more.

Update: A party divided.

What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss?

The stakes weren't as high as if you had the misfortune of meeting Anton Chigurh, but the answer to his question with regard to the Iowa Democratic Caucus events is: "perhaps our democracy", and with respect to certain Clinton supporters... their dignity.

Last night, as the story of the coin tosses in some Iowa precincts began to take on Kennedy-assassination dimensions (among both believers and heretics, mind you) I thought I would join the fun in teasing the Clintonistas a little about it.  I had not been online much of the afternoon and some of the evening, so I didn't know that so many people had already lost their sense of humor about the matter.  I did post about the six-for-six yesterday, and did research a little further and received a good answer about the county delegates versus the national delegates conflation, which satisfied me.  Steve Kornacki at MSNBC made the same mistake in interpretation that I did, and apologized for it, but I didn't know that either until after the following Twitter exchange.

@MargaretClancy @PDiddie Except we now know there were 13 coin tosses, and Bernie won six of them. Sorry! https://t.co/kdFbkfaqCw

— Susie Madrak (@SusieMadrak) February 3, 2016

Let's disclose that Susie is a long-time Democratic activist and blogger, most recently at Crooks and Liars but now at Blue Nation Review, which is owned by David Brock, who is ... you get the picture.  (Suzie is also my Facebook friend, we've interacted recently and not just on the 2016 campaign, and C&L under her stewardship has linked to Brains several times over the years, producing traffic in the hundreds and even thousands of daily clicks on each occasion.)

Her professional association with Brock isn't the biggest problem here, sadly.  Click on the Blue Nation Review piece -- after the word "Sorry!" in the Tweet above -- and then click on the link she has there to this Des Moines Register story about the coin flips, and then compare it to her excerpt at BNR.

They don't square for me, but the excerpt she used does appear in this DMR story, which I found at the end of this Snopes link, which describes the coin flip caper as a 'mixture' of proven and unproven (and perhaps yet, or never to be, proven) claims.

Update, 1 p.m CST: Susie's fixed the link at the original without noting the correction.  Aren't there journalist rules about that?  (I have a screenshot of the original in case anybody wants it.)

So... in the spirit of snark, I'm offering the following to Madrak and everybody else who feels so upset about the whole thing:

"For a limited time, receive this 'Hillary Clinton Victory in Iowa' coin when you make a $1 campaign contribution!" *We're only asking for a dollar instead of $49.95 plus shipping and handling so that Hillary can demonstrate she has some small donor support, according to James Carville's recent e-mail

Groundhog Toons

Let's do it all over again next Tuesday, shall we?

"We might never be this close again ..."

Kissing your sister

Or in Ted Cruz's case... like kissing your daughter.  With coin flips awarding split delegations in six precincts to Hillary, the "inevitable" candidate's campaign might finally be able to declare actual victory sometime this morning.  If they find that missing 5% of the vote, that is.  I'm sure it's amongst all those scraps of paper in a postal bin or a plastic bucket, in a half-dozen or so high school gyms scattered across BF Iowa.  In the middle of a blizzard at the moment.

This is the most even-handed account, but that doesn't mean someone isn't spinning...

The Democratic battle in Iowa was so close that both Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders — the 74-year-old socialist with no major endorsements — and Hillary Clinton left the state without a clear-cut victory.

The race was too close to call when the candidates headed to the airport to escape an impending blizzard, bound for New Hampshire and its primary just over a week away. 

How about that?  Old and socialist in the first sentence.

 Aboard a charter jet bound for New Hampshire, Clinton Press Secretary Brian Fallon told reporters that "we believe strongly that we won."

"It's not clear post-Iowa what Senator Sanders' path to victory is," Fallon added.

He means "post-new Hampshire", but whatever.  He was probably exhausted after being up so late, maybe a little drunk from all that champagne.

(Fallon's) claim got a boost at around 4:00 a.m. ET, based on a statement from the Iowa Democratic Party which NBC News reported showed Clinton was the apparent winner.

Oh, so they did find those missing votes.  Good.

With just one precinct yet to declare, NBC News has declared Clinton the apparent winner based on a report from the Iowa Democratic Party showing her narrowly ahead of Sen. Bernie Sanders.

"Tonight we saw an historically close Iowa Democratic Caucus," the party said in a statement shortly before 4 a.m. ET.

NBC News has allocated 21 of the 52 available national delegates to Clinton and 20 to Sanders as of 2:37 a.m. EST.

The Iowa Democratic Party said Clinton has been awarded 699.57 state delegate equivalents while Sanders has been awarded 695.49. 

A five-delegate margin because they went for six-for six in coin flips.  VICTORY!

The narrow victory in Iowa could offer a whiff of vindication for Clinton, who in 2008 lost Iowa in humiliating fashion to Barack Obama when her third place finish set in motion the destruction of her first presidential bid. 

But for Clinton this time to barely edge out Sanders, who was dismissed as a gadfly just months ago, showed continued weaknesses for the former secretary of state among significant portions of the Democratic coalition — particularly younger voters and those seeking a more progressive vision. 

And it demonstrated the limits of a state-of-the-art political operation to make up for lingering doubts with the candidate herself, who on paper seemed build a campaign that did everything right this time around in Iowa.

I missed Clinton's win by six percentage points on the high side but did a little better with Cruz, Trump and Rubio.  I called it 26-23-20 Carnival, Clown, Cubanito and it came out ...

The Texas senator garnered the support of 28 percent of caucus goers, a significant win in a field of a dozen candidates splitting the vote. Trump finished a disappointing second place, four points behind Cruz.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio had a surprisingly strong showing, coming in a close third place with 23 percent and performing better than polls had suggested. 

With Martin O'Malley and Mike Huckabee turning in their resignations early in the evening, the field clarifies somewhat.  Jeb Bush at 5% and sixth place is a dead man walking, has been for some time.  Chris Christie needs to make something happen in New Hampshire.  John Kasich's NYT endorsement didn't help at all, and the rest of the stragglers need to go on and go home for fresh clothes, or maybe forever.

So a woman, an old Socialist Jew, and two Cubans, one born in Canada, will be duking it out in the headlines for the next week, until the media can get Trump back on his feet in the Granite State. That stands a better chance of happening than Clinton making a comeback there (JMHO).

In other breaking news...

Groundhog Punxsutawney Phil saw no shadow when he emerged from his Pennsylvania home this morning, meaning early springlike weather, according to tradition.

Developing.

The big political week ahead

-- With the capitulation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz's embargo on Democratic debates, there are now two events scheduled post-Iowa and pre-New Hampshire: a town hall on Wednesday evening hosted by CNN and the debate that almost wasn't on Thursday night, moderated by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd.  These events will take place with whatever spin the campaigns will be generating from the Hawkeye State's caucus results, which I have predicted will be a Clinton win of some proportion larger than the last and most historically accurate poll conducted.  With a sizable lead in New Hampshire, Sanders must still improve his standing with not-so-white electorates in Nevada (he's not close) and South Carolina (he's not close) in order to make it a contest to Super Tuesday, where the biggest prize is Texas (and he's not close here either, though the polling is dated).

Should Bernie pull off the upset tonight -- after all, his 2-point deficit is within the Register's MoE of 4% -- and with NH all but in the can for him, history would be Feeling the Bern.  That would scramble the race tremendously.  I'd like to see it happen but I just don't think it will.

Update: Quinnipiac's poll released today shows Sanders with a 3-point lead over Clinton -- precisely at the MoE -- and Trump pulling away from Cruz, for whatever these last-minute results are worth. Q's polling gets a good report card from Nate Silver, if that also means anything.  I'd say it means "nailbiter" for both parties late into tonight.

-- As for the Republicans, Trump is favored to win tonight also in the polling, but my stated belief is that he gets upset by Ted Cruz, whose ground game in Iowa is unmatched and his followers are as fervent as The Donald's.

So watch the turnout for the GOP tonight, because that will produce higher (or lower) expectations for Trump, Cruz, and Marco Rubio, who's finally showing some signs of life.  Update: And may win the crown awarded by the media if he finishes a close third.

Pollsters have noted differences in their results when they change their assumptions about voter turnout. Trump's success in particular depends on first-time voters registering and showing up to caucus. A recent Monmouth University poll found that when likely Iowa caucus-goers are polled, Trump leads Cruz 30 percent to 23 percent. However, when the pollster narrows the sample size to registered Republicans who have a history of voting, the odds shift in Cruz's favor and he leads Trump 28 percent to 23 percent.

Monmouth's poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers is based on an estimate of 170,000 voters coming out, which surpasses Iowa's 122,000 record turnout in 2012. Increasing the turnout estimate to 200,000 gives Trump an 11-point lead, while decreasing it to 130,000 ties the two opponents at 26 percent.

There's also this from Cong. Steve King, R-Cantaloupe Calves, a demonstrated moron on immigration but probably not as dumb about his state's politics.

"If there is a turnout that goes well above 135,000, then that looks well (sic) for Trump," said U.S. Rep. Steve King of Iowa, a national co-chair of Cruz's campaign. "If there's a turnout that's down in that area, still a record turnout — something 135,000 or less — then that looks really good for Ted Cruz, and it's a more legitimate measure — the loyal caucus goers that are paying attention and evaluating on the issues."

King's been taking lessons from the Sarah Palin School of English, but we can still divine the point: turnout around 130-135K makes Ted Cruz look genuinely happy instead of his usual fake and creepy.

I wasted an hour of my life watching the second episode of "The Circus", with the four guys running for third place in the GOP primary, on Showtime over the weekend.  Don't bother with it.  It's terrible, they're terrible, the reporters -- Mark Halperin, John Heileman, Mark McKinnon -- are terrible.  Maybe the first episode with the front-runners was better, but I'm not giving the series any more chances.  Just watching McKinnon, in that short brim Stetson that looks too big on him, who's so scrawny he looks like a cancer victim, pick at -- but not taste -- any of a beautiful pastrami sandwich from Katz' Deli in New York was enough to put me off, but then they started in with Jeb and Fat Bastard, who's allegedly had a lap band for over three years and still looks morbidly obese. I had to take my nausea meds before they even got to Rubio.  What does that tell you?

But do read this on the four roads out of Iowa, with the bias of mine being on Road Number Four.

-- Voting in New Hampshire a week from tomorrow, more spin for a couple of weeks, and then Nevada and South Carolina close out February.

The "Yes We Can/No We Can't" Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance is quite ready to go back to ignoring Iowa as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff highlighted how the tables got turned on the video fraudsters who tried to sting Planned Parenthood.

Libby Shaw at Daily Kos is quite pleased to learn that in Texas justice can trump politics, in the most ironic way. The Texas Blues: A Stunning Royal Backfire.

South Texas Chisme knows Texas Republicans love business owners way more than citizens. Why else do they allow dangerous companies to operate next to schools?

John Coby at Bay Area Houston asks: Can the Democratic Party carry Bernie Sanders' socialist message and win?

Ted at jobsanger also went the full 'socialist' on Sanders.

While those two Clinton-supporting bloggers played the "soshulist" card, PDiddie at Brains and Eggs is at least glad to see that some Democrats know how to find -- and push -- the panic button.

With less inflammatory words like "pragmatism" on the table, SocraticGadfly looks at who the more "can-do" Democratic presidential candidate is, and shows that it's Bernie Sanders.

Egberto Willies shares the video of Pastor Robert Jeffress calmly explaining the hypocrisy of evangelicals' support of Donald Trump.

TXsharon at Bluedaze has to explain changing paradigms to confused Denton city officials who misused research on fracked natural gas.

Neil at All People Have Value considered both everyday life and the full picture at the intersection of Main & Cosmos in Houston. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

===================

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

Some Texas legislators want to keep affordable housing out of their districts, and they've given themselves the power to do it. The Texas Observer reminds us that The House Always Wins.

Millard Fillmore's Bathtub reveals democratic socialism's darkest secret: it's more democracy than socialism.

A second case of the Zika virus has been confirmed in Harris County, according to the Houston Press.

Grits for Breakfast posts the chart drawn by Black Live Matters that assesses the police department's use of force policies in Austin, Houston, San Antonio, and other cities around the country.

Harold Cook reviews Jay Newton-Small's book Broad influence; How Women Are Changing the Way America Works.

Keep Austin Wonky interviews Travis County Commissioner candidate James Nortey.

Raise Your Hand Texas quantifies Texas school enrollment.

Raj Mankad rides along on a driverless car test drive.

Rainey Knudsen pens an open letter to the other 49 states.

Francisca Ortega reports that many child brides are still being forced to marry in the United States.

Rick Campbell tells of a quest to help Houston preserve its music history.

Katharine Shilcutt sets the record straight on Texas food.

The Makeshift Academic explores ways to limit the potential damage of the Friedrichs decision.

Not of It has the details on the American (Urban) Planning Association's biennial conference in Austin in March.

And The Rag Blog posted a moving eulogy of Harris County Commissioner El Franco Lee.

A-Skeered uh Soshulism

Ted (he's blocked me from commenting at his shop, so I'm going to be a little rougher on him even than usual).

Bernie Sanders (and his supporters) think they can explain his socialist identity to the voters, and that voters will flock to him once they understand his "democratic socialism". I am a democratic socialist myself, and I wish that was true -- but I don't think it is.

We'll stop there and let you read the rest if you choose.  I really and truly feel sorry for Ted; he suffers from the very worst case of "Battered Democrat Syndrome" I have ever observed.  Be sure and follow the link therein to Molly Ivins declaring in 2006 she wouldn't support Hillary Clinton.

John (who is only occasionally full of wit, and not this particular time).

Now Socialists across the country have found their re-emerging leader, Senator Bernie Sanders, to carry their flag and to possibly lead a major party with established infrastructure and resources. Sanders, the former 8-year Chairman of the Liberty Union Party has given them a once in a lifetime opportunity for their socialist ideas of free health care, free college, and never ending peace and love. 

The Affordable Healthcare Act is no where near socialism. Not even close. It was nothing more than an overhaul of our insurance industries policies and regulations. Unfortunately facts don't matter to the hoards of ignorant voters the GOP has learned to manipulate. Just one shout of SOCIALISM! and the battle is lost, the ideas are dead. Sanders should know this. After spending over 2 decades disguised as an independent his socialist ideas have failed in Congress.

Update (2/1): Two posts in two days on the same topic -- on a previous schedule of about one post every two weeks -- qualifies as an obsession.

I think he was going for the insult but was overcome with passive-aggressiveness, not to mention he's just plain wrong about Sanders' legislative record.  For his part, though, John gets the point that Ted misses; "soshulism" is an equal opportunity smear.  Those hammer-and-sickle ads Claire McCaskill has ominously warned us about will be employed irrespective of whether Sanders can pull out the nomination or not.

And once more for the sake of clarity: I support Sanders' campaign, have donated and planted a yard sign, but do not think he can be nominated for reasons that do not include "soshulism".  And I was on the record about that two weeks before Black Lives Matters inserted itself into the national conversation.

What's being used here is -- as we know well by now -- garden variety fear, a motivational tool the Republicans use constantly and the power of which fearful and intellectually lazy Democrats understand.  On evidence in the GOP primary: Ted Cruz has been stunned to watch Donald Trump get to the right of him by using the worst possible language, and that has turned into the success model for 2016: say anything, push the buttons of people's worst instincts, and let the chips fall.

It's sad to see Democrats Red-scaring and Red-baiting, but hey... as long as our gal wins, right? That's just politics, after all.  Exciting our base, driving up turnout and all that.  About the best thing that can be said about the 2016 primary battles is that we're not hearing that "too much money" complaint.  Reuters, from last summer:

"There's growing public awareness about rich people trying to buy elections and that makes the task of winning all the more difficult," said Darrell West, the author of "Billionaires: Reflections on the Upper Crust," and the director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution think tank.

Once we get Trump against Clinton in the general, he can use that "I can't be bought" tactic on her. Won't that be something to see?

How bad does socialism look compared to plutocracy and fascism?  That's the right poll question.

Sunday Funnies

Clinton and her e-mails again

The issue:

The Obama administration confirmed for the first time Friday that Hillary Clinton's home server contained closely guarded government secrets, censoring 22 emails that contained material requiring one of the highest levels of classification. The revelation comes three days before Clinton competes in the Iowa presidential caucuses. 

State Department officials also said the agency's Diplomatic Security and Intelligence and Research bureaus are investigating if any of the information was classified at the time of transmission, going to the heart of Clinton's defense of her email practices.

The scalded, scolding response from the Hillary sycophant.

The response from the White House:

Asked Friday if he had "certainty and confidence" that Clinton will not be indicted over the email controversy, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said any decision to prosecute Clinton would rest with the Justice Department. 

"That is a decision to be made solely by independent prosecutors," Earnest said. "But again, based on what we know from the Department of Justice, it does not seem to be headed in that direction."

The response from former federal prosecutor Joseph DiGenova:

However, as we previously noted, the implications are tough for the DOJ: if they indict, they crush their own candidate’s chances of the presidency. If they do not, someone will leak the details and the FBI will revolt… The leaking of the Clinton emails has been compared to as the next “Watergate” by former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova this week, if current FBI investigations don’t proceed in an appropriate manner. The revelation comes after more emails from Hillary Clinton’s personal email have come to light. 

“[The investigation has reached] a critical mass,” DiGenova told radio host Laura Ingraham when discussing the FBI’s still pending investigation. Though Clinton is still yet to be charged with any crime, DiGenova advised on Tuesday that changes may be on the horizon. The mishandling over the classified intelligence may lead to an imminent indictment, with DiGenova suggesting it may come to a head within 60 days. 

“I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [US Attorney General Loretta Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general,” he said. 

“The intelligence community will not stand for that. They will fight for indictment and they are already in the process of gearing themselves to basically revolt if she refuses to bring charges.” 

The FBI also is looking into Clinton’s email setup, but has said nothing about the nature of its probe. Independent experts say it is highly unlikely that Clinton will be charged with wrongdoing, based on the limited details that have surfaced up to now and the lack of indications that she intended to break any laws.

And the characterization of DiGenova by Media Matters.

Right-wing media are reporting discredited Republican lawyer Joseph DiGenova's baseless claim that Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed "numerous federal crimes" with her private email use, failing to note that Clinton is not the target of the FBI's investigation and that the probe is not criminal in nature.

Make of it all what you wish.

The elephant WAS in the room

But he left shortly after the opening and ambled over to MSNBC and CNN, where the circus reconvened.

Moderator Megyn Kelly asked Senator Cruz to address “the elephant not in the room,” referring to his absent rival. “I’m a maniac, and everyone on this stage is stupid, fat and ugly,” replied Cruz, getting the “Trump portion out of the way.” Read more.

It will be a long time before Ted says something I agree with again.  Or maybe just a few minutes.

Cruz later criticized the moderators, suggesting that they were trying to incite his rivals to gang up on him. “If you ask one more mean question, I may have to leave the stage,” said the Texas senator, in another mocking reference to the absent GOP frontrunner. Read more.

Despite these clever moments, it was not Cruz's finest hour last night.  It actually may have been his worst, in a nasty exchange with Marco Rubio on immigration.  And it almost surely was Rand Paul's best, as well as Jim Gilmore's in the undercard.  John Kasich and Chris Christie did not advance whatever their remaining prospects are.  Carly Fiorina was terrible and Ben Carson is just out of his element.  There's a reason these two candidates' numbers deflated just as rapidly as they inflated.  Even diehard Republicans see them for what they are.

As for Trump's counter-event, it seemed both understated and overblown, certainly in the eyes of his supporters.  Later this morning the ratings for both of last night's reality shows will be announced, and one side will have something to brag about.

Update: Nothing for anybody to brag about.

Thursday night’s Fox News/Google GOP Debate attracted better ratings than candidate Donald Trump’s counter-event and the previous Jan. 14 Republican presidential debate on Fox Business that featured the billionaire real estate investor and reality TV star. 

[...] 

According to CNN Money, the main stage portion of Thursday night’s debate on Fox News drew in 12.5 million viewers. The previous Republican presidential debate on Fox Business attracted 11 million viewers. MSNBC and CNN reported a combined 2.7 million person viewership during Trump’s fundraiser for veterans. 

Though last night’s debate beat out the previous contest, it was the second-lowest rated GOP debate of the 2016 campaign season.

Ted Cruz will emerge from Iowa next week as the last chance to stop the Trump train, because he's doing all the little things a politician has to do to win there.  If he upsets the Donald next Monday night, you shouldn't be surprised.

Democrats also squabble about their debates

Two days ago the Manchester (NH) Union Leader, the newspaper of record in the Granite State, got together with MSNBC and scheduled a "unsanctioned" (not approved by the DNC) Democratic candidates debate, to be held on February 4 and moderated by Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd. That prompted Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley to say yes, and Bernie Sanders to say no, rationalizing...

“DNC has said this would be an unsanctioned debate so we would not want to jeopardize our ability to participate in future debates,” Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told the AP.

Yesterday, Debbie Wasserman Schultz shot the idea down.

“We have no plans to sanction any further debates before the upcoming First in the Nation caucuses and primary, but will reconvene with our campaigns after those two contests to review our schedule,” she said in a statement.

Late yesterday, Sanders made a counter-offer.

Sanders’ campaign released a statement late Wednesday calling for additional debates in the Democratic primary, but with specific provisions.

They want one each in March, April and May. All three must not be scheduled on a Friday, Saturday or holiday, and all three must include Martin O’Malley as well as Sanders and Clinton.

“If the Clinton campaign will commit to this schedule, we would ask the DNC to arrange a debate in New Hampshire on Feb. 4,” the Sanders campaign’s statement said. It noted that Sanders has called for more debates since the beginning of the race, and accused Clinton of wanting few.

Sanders’ campaign said Clinton now wants more debates because “the dynamics of the race have changed and Sen. Sanders has significant momentum.

“Sen. Sanders is happy to have more debates but we are not going to schedule them on an ad hoc basis at the whim of the Clinton campaign.”

No response yet from Deb.  More from The New Civil Rights Project on this development.  Martin O'Malley saw an opening and took a shot.

Martin O'Malley is pissed at Bernie Sanders. With the Democrats on track to add a new debate for their presidential candidates between Iowa and New Hampshire, the long-shot candidate ripped into Sanders (who has yet to agree to this debate, while Hillary Clinton has) with an odd charge. He claimed that Sanders' public calls over the summer for additional debates had been "totally disingenuous" and that Sanders had privately worked against more face-offs being added to the lineup. "Bernie Sanders didn't want any more debates, from the beginning," O'Malley said following an event in Grinnell, Iowa, on Wednesday night. 

Speaking with reporters from Mother Jones and MSNBC, O'Malley seemed to fault Sanders more than Clinton for the limited number of debates on the Democratic side. The number of debates was set by the Democratic Party, and the rules it established prohibited candidates from participating in debates that were not sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee. O'Malley claims that, once these rules were announced, his campaign reached out to the Sanders camp seeking their support in pushing for more debates. But, O'Malley says, Sanders declined. "We knew as soon as those rigged rules came down, we knew that if [Sanders] would agree to do more debates, we would have more debates, but he would never agree," O'Malley said. "He didn't want more debates." O'Malley's charge, however, is a bit hard to square with Sanders' actions at the time. The Vermont senator was in fact sending letters to the DNC and posting petitions to his website rallying supporters behind more debates.

Because it's MO'M, nobody's paying attention.  I feel bad for the guy that even his temper tantrums are under the radar.  I'm figuring that the next time I blog about him, it's that he's dropping out.  Less than a week from now.

As for Clinton... it's all going to be okay.  Really and truly.

"Let's watch losers debate the man who isn't there"

One No Trump.

Whee, one more Republican debate before Iowa votes, after which somebody will win the Iowa caucuses and nobody will drop out and we’ll have a million more debates, even after Hillary Rodham Clinton’s two terms as president are over. And it’s tonight! What’s going to happen? We don’t know, do you?

It gets a lot NSFW after that, Wonky-style.  Here are YouGov's polling results on Trump's boycott; while he continues to lead in Iowa, even pulling the evangelical vote there, a plurality (43%) in the YG survey deem his withdrawal from tonight's Fox debate  'unacceptable'.  But like many others at this point, I think Trump is going to win the Republican nomination, mostly because nothing he has done has slowed his roll.

As for tonight, Rand gets back on stage, while Carnival Cruz takes the center. And look who the cat dragged in; why, it's Jim Gilmore, fighting his way back to the kiddie table.  Too bad it's way too late to matter; the world in which Ted Cruz is looking like the only alternative to Trump is causing some queasy stomachs in the GOP.

Some powerful Republicans are dismayed at what this election cycle has yielded. Party officials (last) week declared themselves against Ted Cruz. But none, with the exception of the former Alaska governor, will endorse his top rival — Donald Trump. 

Cruz and Trump kicked off their campaigns as radical candidates pit against the stale "establishment," then rose to take the top spots in national and early state polls. Now "the establishment" must choose which they'll support for the nomination. 

Cruz's week of hard hits got worse (last) Thursday. Five Republican senators told CNN they didn't want Cruz to win, and Texas Sen. John Cornyn expressed concern with the race. The AP reported one Republican senator vowed to vote for Democrat Bernie Sanders before Cruz, though the senator denied it, according to the Charlotte Observer. 

That comes after the Republican governor of Iowa, the first state to host a primary caucus, announced he wanted Cruz to lose, and after Bob Dole, a former Republican presidential nominee, said he preferred Trump, who also (last) week got the endorsement of Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin.

Tonight's spotlight dance for the Cuban Canuck may come at a perfect moment for him to surge as the voting is set to begin ... or it could just be another missed opportunity.  Don't watch tonight; I'll do that for you and Tweet some of the best laughs in the top right column.

The stingers get stung

The news broke late yesterday afternoon, and every media outlet has posted a story about it, so consider this one a coda.

A Harris County grand jury on Monday indicted the videographers behind undercover recordings of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Houston and cleared the women's health provider of any wrongdoing. 

The indictments — part of the county prosecutor's investigation into allegations that Planned Parenthood was illegally selling fetal tissue — include charges against anti-abortion activists David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt for tampering with a governmental record, a second-degree felony that carries a punishment of up to 20 years in prison. The grand jury handed down a second charge for Daleiden for “Prohibition of the Purchase and Sale of Human Organs," according to the Harris County District Attorney's office. That charge is a class A misdemeanor that carries a punishment of up to a year in jail. 

The grand jury cleared Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston of breaking any laws.

The Republican district attorney, appointed by Greg Abbott (and subsequently re-elected against a worthy Democratic challenger) investigated the national women's healthcare organization for wrongdoings associated with the undercover and heavily edited videotapes by the two folks named above.  It was the Texas lieutenant governor, Dan Patrick, who pressured the DA to bring charges to a grand jury.  She did, and the grand jury returned an indictment.  Just not against Planned Parenthood.

The irony is so rich it must be fattening.

"We were called upon to investigate allegations of criminal conduct by Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast,” Anderson said in a statement. "As I stated at the outset of this investigation, we must go where the evidence leads us. All the evidence uncovered in the course of this investigation was presented to the grand jury. I respect their decision on this difficult case."

Rarely do you see a group of right-wing freaks get clocked this badly all around the horn.  It reminds me of the kind of embarrassment inflicted upon themselves -- and the rest of the state of Texas --  by the advocates of the Operation Jade Helm conspiracy.  Except in this case, women's lives and health have been endangered by their rabid, frothing extremism.

On to the next outrage, patriots!  You have lost the Battle of the So-Called Baby Killers.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance, in bringing you this week's blog post roundup, hopes everyone stays safe in the Northeast as the socialist snowplows come to the rescue.

Off the Kuff interviewed Harris County Sheriff candidates Ed Gonzalez and Jeff Stauber.

SocraticGadfly questions the mainstream media narrative that the GOP presidential race is down to a Trump-Cruz two-person event with this analysis and has a follow-up skewering of the Trump-Palin fun coming.

McBlogger goes the full 'pragmatism' on Bernie Sanders.

State Sen. Rodney Ellis, state Rep. Garnet Coleman, three current and one former Houston city councilmen all want to take the place of the recently-departed Harris County Commissioner El Franco Lee on the November ballot. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs has the latest on the most highly contested 2016 race that you won't be eligible to vote for.

Of course the frackers are big GOP donors. CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme knows that the Texas Republicans don't work for you. They work for their rich buddies.

In additional fracking developments, Texas Vox has the details on the teleconference open to the public on EPA's assessment of hydraulic fracturing and its effect on drinking water, and TXsharon at Bluedaze has more environmental news from across the country.

Texas Leftist writes about the legal challenge to Obama's executive action on immigration moving toward the SCOTUS.

nonsequiteuse attended the HISD meeting where Confederate heroes, and the schools named after them, were on the agenda.

Neil at All People Have Value took a Martin Luther King Day picture of two different types of birds sharing space in peace. We could learn from these birds. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

=================

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

Democratic Blog News has this pointed reminder: "Texas primary early voting starts on Tuesday, February 16, 2016 and runs through Friday, February 26, 2016. [...] Texas early voting voters will likely have cast about half of their total primary ballots by the time SC Democrats vote in their primary on Saturday, February 27th."

Prairie Weather helps out with a good definition of 'progressive'.

Zachery B. Taylor asks whether academia is helping or hurting democracy.

Jonathan Tilove noted that Greg Abbott flew Air Adelson to Israel and then Davos.

Ty Clevenger appealed the slap on the wrist given US Judge Walter S. Smith Jr. in his judicial misconduct investigation.

Keep Austin Wonky interviews Texas House candidate Huey Rey Fischer.

The Current advertises a movie screening to raise money for the Texas Civil Rights Project.

Texans for Public Justice filed a complaint with the FEC against Ted Cruz for his failure to report those Goldman Sachs and Citibank loans from 2012.

Anastasia Hansen tells you things you may not have known about Houston's bus system.

And Progress Texas documents four decades of Texas abortion laws.

Sunday Funnies, The Hopelessness of Unaudacity edition

Props to Ted Rall for the title of this week's edition.

Rodney Ellis wants to fill vacancy on Harris commissioners' court

But he doesn't want the interim job.

Longtime state Sen. Rodney Ellis has begun making calls to local Democratic Party leaders and plans to run for the Harris County Commissioner seat left vacant after the death of El Franco Lee, a spokesman said Thursday night. 

County Judge Ed Emmett will announce and swear in Lee's temporary replacement in Precinct 1 on Friday and Lee's name will remain on the ballot for the primary. 

But Ellis' campaign spokesman David Edmonson said late Thursday the Houston lawmaker was not pursuing Emmett's interim appointment. Ellis has researched the statute, and has asked an aide to lay out the steps a candidate like him would need to take to get his name removed from the November ballot for senator should the Democratic Party chairs choose him as the general election candidate for the commissioner's seat.

I take this at face value; Judge Emmett will appoint someone to serve for the rest of this year who is not named Rodney Ellis, and that is a little surprising.  Whatever it means, Emmett will announce his pick at ten a.m. this morning, and I'll update here (but not until this afternoon, so watch your Twitter for breaking news at that time).

Update: It's Gene Locke, former city attorney, former mayoral challenger.

Locke, 68, a senior partner at the Andrews Kurth law firm, served as city attorney under the late Mayor Bob Lanier in the 1990s and ran for mayor in 2009, losing in a runoff to Annise Parker. 

"I plan to be a hands-on, on the ground, let's get with the program commissioner, which means that I will follow in El Franco's footsteps," Locke said. 

He added: "This precinct belongs to El Franco Lee, and anything that I do over the next several months is dedicated to him." 

Asked if he intended to run for the post in November, Locke said, "My intention is to go back to the practice of law and enjoy my family."

Locke tried the old "black, brown, and red" (names you'll recognize) route to the mayor's office in 2009, made the runoff but didn't come all that close to City Hall.  In a related development, Quorum Report notes that another powerful state legislator is thinking of challenging -- in whatever fashion that happens to take, since at this point it's the Precinct One chairs who will vote to select a permanent replacement this summer -- for the seat on commissioners' court.

... Rep. Garnet Coleman tells QR he is looking at it as well: "As chair of county affairs, it’s something I’ve looked at for a very long time. I didn’t think that Rodney would pursue it, but he decided to."

Update II:

City Councilmen Jerry Davis, Dwight Boykins and Larry Green said Friday they have begun campaigning, such as it is, under these unusual circumstances. Councilman C.O. Bradford said constituents had encouraged him to run, and he's considering it. 

[...] 

A legal memo prepared for county Democratic chair Lane Lewis outlined a path by which Ellis said he could seek the (November) ballot spot. In mid-June the Democratic party chairs for Precinct 1 will vote for a candidate to replace Lee on the ballot. 

If the party chose him for commissioner, Ellis could withdraw his name from the ballot for state senator, which would trigger a second process by the Democratic leaders to pick a Democrat for state Senate.

Presumably there will be six months of schmoozing the precinct chairs with votes in the contest.  We can start the Ellis/Coleman replacement watch to ticking, and Borris Miles is allegedly the early front-runner in a potential SD-13 special election.

Medicare for All and the Hyde Amendment

What does Bernie Sanders' 'Medicare for All' do about the Hyde Amendment?  This is the conversation we should be having about his healthcare initiative, and there's a cogent (though somewhat caustic) discussion happening over at Balloon Juice about it.

One of the issues that is being elided over by (Sanders') plan is the assumption that the Hyde Amendment won’t apply.  The Hyde Amendment is a long standing restriction on federal funds for abortions.  The Stupak Amendment in the House Bill and the Nelson  Amendment in the passed PPACA enshrined Hyde into PPACA. 

My company offers full coverage for elective abortion for commercial, employer sponsored coverage unless the employer specifically requests that we don’t cover it.  Most insurers offer full coverage with only normal co-pays, co-insurance and deductibles for elective abortion because it is a simple and straightforward medical procedure. 

Going to single payer in a universe where Hyde/Nelson applies means the vast majority of women who don’t have $500 to $1,000 in spare cash lying around lose access to affordable abortion options.

I'm pretty sure that they need that much money, or more, now (2009 statistic) if they don't have any (or very limited) healthcare coverage now.  That's to say nothing of the expense associated with onerous restrictions within the Texas law, such as hospital admitting privileges that resulted in closed clinics across the state, necessitating 300-mile one way trips, two times, to satisfy the waiting period.  And so on.

And this is where Larry Levitt’s comment comes into play.   Our political universe has a demonstrated durable anti-female sexual autonomy majority of 240+ votes in the House during the most liberal Congress in two generations.  Any Democratic House majority on current maps will have dozens of representatives from districts that are more Republican than the nation.  Better maps in 2022 will still have a marginal House seat be a Republican leaning seat.  Even deep Blue seats are not guarantees to produce pro-female sexual autonomy votes (Lipinsky, Lynch etc). 

This is part of the larger objection Clintonites, i.e. 'pragmatists' have about electing Sanders, which is essentially culled down to "he won't be able to get anything through Congress" (as if Obama has, or Clinton would).  And that reveals another of my many objections to a second Clinton presidency (or a third Obama one, if you prefer): that one of her 'grand bargains' with Republicans in Congress whittles, privatizes, or eliminates more of the New Deal programs that first created an American middle class, dooming this nation to an austerity so severe that a shooting revolution becomes more possible than a political one.

If you still don't get that, then read this.

In related news, and apparently in response to my challenge, Ted steps up and applauds the DNC.  He just steadfastly and stubbornly refuses to comprehend that 'progressive' and 'politically correct liberal' are two very different things.

Update (1/23): Sanders calls for a repeal of the Hyde Amendment.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance hopes that Alan Rickman is attending a David Bowie concert in heaven as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff describes the qualities he wants in a county commissioner to succeed the late El Franco Lee.

Libby Shaw, contributing at Daily Kos, continues her series on the state’s top three leaders, their hopeless pandering, and lack of vision, in The Texas Blues: Living in a place run by the Three Stooges of Bigotry, Snake Oil and Malfeasance.

SocraticGadfly, anticipating last Sunday's Democratic debate, took a cold look at the new heat -- primarily on Hillary Clinton's side -- between her and Bernie Sanders on single-payer health care vs. gun nuttery.

Before the last GOP debate, PDiddie at Brains and Eggs sensed desperation in the air. After it, the smell of fear lingered like... well, you-know-what.

Egberto Willies shared the video of Ted Cruz being carpet-bombed with facts by none other than Fox's Chris Wallace.

CoudBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is glad that there are regulations to keep our food, air, water, pharmaceuticals, workers, and consumer products safe. We need more and better, not worse and less.

TXsharon at Bluedaze shares the information on the D-FW public hearing regarding the region's air quality.

McBlogger has some more advice for the Clinton campaign in going after Sanders. (Hint: McB's a banker and doesn't care for Bernie's 'tax Wall Street' plans.)

Neil at All People Have Value noted the passing of baseball Hall of Famer and Negro League star Monte Irvin. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

The TPA is greatly saddened by the loss of Florencia "Flora" Medellin, and extends its deepest sympathies to her family and many friends.

And in commemoration of the Martin Luther King holiday today, Ashton Woods at Strength in Numbers posts the video and transcript of MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech.

=======================

And more blog posts about Texas goings-on...

Christopher Hooks, writing for Gawker, watched 13 Hours -- director Michael Bay's movie about Benghazi -- with 30,000 of his closest conservative friends at Cowboys Stadium in Dallas and lived to tell the tale write the review.

The FWST's PoliTex blog has details on Speaker Paul Ryan's swing through North Texas to help Congressional Republicans there, along with some related political quick hits.

David Saleh Rauf at the SAEN sees the San Antonio politicos buying up teevee air time well ahead of the March primary contests.

Grits for Breakfast pinpoints the underlying legislative problem that proponents of police body cameras will have to solve to achieve real transparency.

Better Texas Blog reviews the changes in penalties for not having health insurance.

Tamara Tabo laments how little we all know about our rights when we are pulled over by a police officer.

TransGriot reminds Caitlyn Jenner that changing hearts and minds in the GOP about LGBT issues is a waste of time.

The Great God Pan Is Dead selects his favorite art books from 2015.

Paradise in Hell ponders Greg Abbott's constitutional tantrum.

And Juanita Jean revels in the latest Ken Paxton revelations.