Hillary Clinton rattles a mean saber

Balloon Juice called it beating the Likud war drums, another appropriate description of America's former top diplomat publicly slobbering for a pre-emptive strike on some brown people in the eastern Mediterranean.

Palestinian and human rights advocates were aghast over remarks made by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) convention on Monday, saying that her speech represented "everything that is bad" with U.S. imperialism and policy in the Middle East.

During the address, Clinton vowed to take the U.S.-Israel relationship to "the next level"—a level which seemingly includes more war and imperialism, few, if any, rights for Palestinians, and definitely no economic boycotts of Israel.

She even used hawk talk against the BDS initiative, exhorting the young draft-eligible warriors in the crowd to arm themselves and run to the front.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke at an annual conference held by AIPAC and praised students at colleges and universities who are on “the front lines of the battle to oppose the alarming boycott, divestment and sanctions movement known as BDS.”

The part of the speech on BDS was specifically directed at young people attending the pro-Israel lobby group’s conference, and it received roaring applause.

During her speech, Clinton declared, “Particularly at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise across the world, especially in Europe, we must repudiate all efforts to malign, isolate, and undermine Israel and the Jewish people.”

Just your standard neoconservative talking points.  Credit her for swinging the terrible, swift sword of  'anti-Semitism' as swiftly and strongly as she uses 'sexism' and 'misogyny' (and her supporters use "Berniebros").  The best defense is a good offense, after all.

Politicians like Clinton and groups like AIPAC use a State Department definition of anti-Semitism. Palestine Legal argues this definition “erroneously includes criticism of Israel as a nation state in the definition.” This departs from the “conventional understanding of anti-Semitism as hate and ethno-religious bias against Jewish people.” It redefines anti-Semitism to include “demonizing Israel,” “applying a double standard to Israel,” and “delegitimizing Israel.”

Words matter, you see.  Did you ever think that Hillary Clinton could get to the right of Donald Trump on foreign policy American hegemony continuous war in the Middle East?

Last month, Trump suggested he was “neutral” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so that he could negotiate with both parties.

“I think making a deal would be in Israel’s interests,” the brash billionaire said on ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos on Sunday. “I don’t know one Jewish person that doesn’t want to have a deal, a good deal, a proper deal, but a really good deal. But I would say it’s probably one of the toughest deals. Me being a dealmaker, it’s probably one of the toughest deals in the world to make, because there’s just so many — there’s just so many decades of hatred between the two sides.”

Clinton seized on Trump’s reluctance to take a stand.

“America can’t ever be neutral when it comes to Israel’s security or survival,” she said. “We can’t be neutral when rockets rain down on residential neighborhoods, when civilians are stabbed in the street, when suicide bombers target the innocent. Some things aren’t negotiable. And anyone who doesn’t understand that has no business being our president."

More "Let's Make a Deal" from Donald.  Sounds kind of pussified to me.  At least we know, between the two front-runners, who's got the bigger fingers.  

Maybe the Nobel Committee could award her a pre-emptive Peace Prize, like they did for Obama.  That worked out pretty well.  Not so much for American soldiers or Afghani wedding parties or Syrian children, but Lockheed Martin, et.al. sure turned a tidy profit.  There will always be Republicans who believe Clinton is not more pro-Israel than Trump, however, and Sheldon Adelson is helping with that (hat tip for this link to No More Mister).

In the meantime, tough-talking theocrats like Ted Cruz are sufficiently blocked from their own pandering to the Jewish lobby.  No matter how much he'd actually like to carpet-bomb some country or turn the desert into glass, Cruz and his devout Christian-soldier ilk are only in the fight to see if the prophecies in their favorite book can come true: their Savior floating down from the sky with a thousand angels on white horseback in tow, and them floating up to meet Him.

This Easter season, it's not rebirth being celebrated.  It's death.

Texas Green Party state convention scheduled for April 9, 10

The pastoral Grey Forest community in Bexar County will host the state's Green Party delegates, candidates, and conventioneers in early spring.

The GPTX state nominating convention will take place April 9. Voting delegates were elected at the county nominating conventions on March 19, where the party also voted to grant the Green Party nomination to candidates who will appear on the general election ballot in November. This process is similar to the major parties' primary elections, except it is done 'caucus-style'.

Delegates will also consider any resolutions brought up from the counties.

The GPTX state meeting occurs the following day -- Sunday, April 10th -- when delegates elect party officers and conduct other party business. There will be three At-Large SEC positions filled in addition to Co-Chair, Treasurer, & Secretary. If you are interested in running for one of the party officer positions, please inform the state co-chairs at the contact below so that you can be listed in the agenda packet. Nominations will be accepted at the meeting. Party-building and candidate support workshops will also be held.

Delegates from the counties to the GPTX state convention and meeting are kindly requested to RSVP for planning purposes as breakfast and lunch will be provided. There is no charge to attend the state convention, but donations to offset the costs are requested.

WHEN: April 9, beginning at 8 a.m. and April 10, 2016

WHERE:

Grey Forest Clubhouse
18249 Sherwood Trail
Grey Forest, TX 78023

Google map and directions

CONTACT: valkyrie at calicodmp dot com

Harris County's Greens approved the following candidates for the November ballot:

• Joshua Darr, US House District 2
• Thomas Kleven, US House District 18
• James Partsch-Galvan, US House District 29
• Joseph McElligott, Texas House District 127
• Brian M. Harrison, Texas House District 147
• Laura Palmer, State Board of Education District 6
• Natalie Upchurch, Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector

A full list of Green Party statewide filings can be found here.  (George Reiter, the US House candidate for District 9, and Deb Shafto, the Texas Senate District 6 nominee, withdrew from their respective races without a candidate selected to replace them.  In doing so, they cited conflicts with their positions on Houston Pacifica affiliate KPFT's local station board.  If they were to run for public office, that board's by-laws would require that they resign their posts.)

The GPUS will hold its presidential nominating convention this August at the University of Houston's main campus.  Registration -- including meals and lodging -- is open for that event.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance wishes we could be in Cuba with President Obama right now -- instead of looking over these busted NCAA brackets -- in bringing you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff looked at the legislative and judicial primary runoffs for Harris County.

When Libby Shaw at Daily Kos learned some of the drinking water supplies in the state exceeded the federal standard for arsenic, she asked how will small government -- government-loathing lawmakers -- react? What will they do? Nothing, of course. Pretend the problem does not exist. No Worries Texas. We Can Shoot the Arsenic Out of the Water.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is disgusted to see Greg Abbott leading the charge against legal voters in Texas, but, he is not the only one. The wrongly-named American Civil Rights Union wants to disenfranchise voters, too.

Socratic Gadfly, with new news about it, updates a major blog piece from last fall about the First Amendment, politicization of academics, academic freedom, and fired professor Melissa Click.

Hillary Clinton admitted to Chris Matthews that she sold her vote to invade Iraq for $20 billion, to George W. Bush. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs is glad that's finally cleared up.

Guest columnist Judge Brian Holman writes a guest column in the Lewisville Texan Journal about that city court system's improving indigent defense.

Bluedaze posted details of the "100% renewable" Denton town hall this week, and Texas Vox announced the upcoming public hearing calling for better city management in Austin.

Neil at All People Have Value said that people in the Houston area should stop doing dumb things that cause wildfires. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

Dos Centavos advanced H-Town's Cesar Chavez parade.

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

Juanita Jean contemplates the sheer awesomeness of a Trump/Carson ticket, Election Law Blog has Ted Cruz's "Voter Fraud Joke of the Day", and Trail Blazers helps shoot down the rumor that Rick Perry will be drafted for president at a brokered GOP convention this summer.

Prairie Weather commented on the media narrative about the presumptive winners in our nation's presidential nomination process, but doesn't specify the actual losers.

Grits for Breakfast wants to know why the Texas Rangers seem incapable of rooting out local corruption when they are called upon to investigate it.

Ty Clevenger complains about the State Bar of Texas' refusal to take action against Ken Paxton, and The Houston Press realized that state Sen. Donna Campbell of San Antonio apparently doesn't understand the (almost worthless) medical cannabis bill she voted for in the last legislative session.

Lone Star Ma focuses on the 9th of the United Nations' new sustainable development goals: "Build resilient infrastructure, promote sustainable industrialization and foster innovation." And Houston Strategies took note of the recent Atlantic piece that pointed out the inconvenient truth about income inequality and affordable housing in "liberal" cities.

Dan Solomon talks to Wendy Davis about Dawn Porter’s abortion law documentary Trapped, among other things.

The Makeshift Academic reminds us that Merrick Garland has a lot of company in the confirmation process.

Pages of Victory paraphrases one of Charles Dickens' most famous sentences in compiling a list of his own.

Kate Braun of The Rag Blog observed the convergence of pagan and non-pagan spring rituals: the vernal equinox and Palm Sunday.

And congratulations go to Somervell County Salon on her blog's eleventh anniversary.

Sunday Funnies

Three-dimensional chess not necessary

When checkers is too tough for your opponents.

My favorite of all was LDS Bishop Hatch saying this ...

GOP Sen. Hatch last week: Obama "could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won’t do that" https://t.co/pKzQ80UKQt

— Sudeep Reddy (@Reddy) March 16, 2016

... and then Jake Tapper elbowed the Utahn in the teeth with this:

CNN's Jake Tapper challenges Sen. Orrin Hatch: "You must be thrilled Obama followed your suggestion" on SCOTUS nom. https://t.co/eK5RnbUPfV

— Media Matters (@mmfa) March 16, 2016

Even when you consider the mean IQ of these Republickin pigs running the Senate, Judge Garland is still a sacrificial lamb to the politics of the extremists.

Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington D.C. Circuit will most likely not become Justice Merrick Garland of the Supreme Court, at least not while President Barack Obama remains in office. He seems unlikely to get even a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, or a vote either by that panel or the whole Senate. 

And it may be partly because it’s hard to imagine an Obama nominee more likely to win confirmation, if the Republicans allowed a vote.

He wouldn't have been my choice, but as when Antonin Scalia asked for Elena Kagan in 2009 (he got Sonia Sotomayor that year and Kagan in 2010) the opinion of the current SCOTUS judges as to who might be worthy to join them is apparently given serious consideration.

So respected is Garland as a judge that Chief Justice Roberts, at his confirmation hearing (in 2005), answered a question about one of his majority opinions by noting that Judge Garland had dissented and, said Roberts, "Anytime Judge Garland disagrees, you know you're in a difficult area."

Yeah, but still no, and that's a win-win.

(T)he pitched political battle over Garland’s fate could turn in unexpected ways, and will shape – and be shaped by – the 2016 race: Not just Donald Trump’s unprecedented presidential bid but the fight to control the Senate, in which a platoon of Senate Republicans are facing stiff challenges. 

[...] 

Garland’s nomination would need 14 Republicans to disrupt an inevitable filibuster, and five to be confirmed. Even if (SML Mitch) McConnell had not drawn that early line in the sand, that would not have been easy, but it would not have been impossible, and surely would have carried shorter odds than if Obama had chosen a nominee closer to the base of the Democratic party. Put differently, there would be comparatively little political danger to the GOP in considering, and rejecting a liberal firebrand, even one plucked from the ranks of women or minorities.

So who do you want picking your next Supreme Court justice (if it can't be Bernie Sanders, that is)? Trump with a Democratic Senate, or Clinton with a Democratic Senate?

For the Republican base, the issue is even more stark: it’s not just a question of how Garland would vote, it’s their refusal to countenance handing Obama any sort of victory. Polls conducted before Garland’s nomination found nearly seven in ten Republicans saying Obama shouldn’t even try to fill the seat. 

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus captured the two notions – the court’s potential shift, anger at Obama – on Twitter. “We won’t stand by while Obama attempts to install a liberal majority on #SCOTUS to undermine our Constitution & protect his lawless actions,” he said.

Overlook the misuse of the definition of the word 'lawless' here; this is the expiring establishment GOP making one last symbolic stand for their rebel base.  There's a little more back-and-forth at the link about whether McConnell will fold, whether the Republican senators on the verge of being swept out of office in a blue wave will convince him to at least hold a hearing, even if it's to turn down the best nominee suited to their philosophy they will ever get.  

Obama's already standing at the finish line while they are lacing up their shoes.

“We have forced them into a telescoping series of untenable positions, where even agreeing to meet with the guy is a cave in the view of their base,” said a senior Democratic congressional aide. 

“It’s a win-win situation. Either we get the confirmation, and change the balance of the court for a generation, or they have to fight to November defending the most extreme, untenable position of no-votes, and we’ll annihilate them on that,” the aide said. “And then President Clinton nominates” Scalia’s successor. 

So, the aide said, “I don’t care if McConnell caves or not.”

Checkmate, Mr. Turtle.  Care for a game of checkers?  You can be black this time ...

The hearse is waiting outside

There's room for another casket.  The one already in the back is ... little.

Clinton’s victories in Ohio, Florida, Illinois and North Carolina put her firmly on course to defeat her primary rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. As the results were announced on Tuesday evening, she took the stage before a boisterous crowd of supporters here and seemed to pivot towards the Republican frontrunner, Donald Trump, who also won in Florida.

“We are moving closer to securing the Democratic Party nomination and winning this election in November!” Clinton declared.

No polling versus reality shockers to be had on this night.

It looked as if Sanders might prove the Clinton campaign’s bullish prediction wrong after he won a stunning upset in Michigan on March 8, but Clinton’s victories on Tuesday helped her stop Sanders’ momentum and establish a seemingly unbeatable lead.

Though Clinton was expected to win the primaries in North Carolina and Florida on Tuesday, polls showed her potentially losing in Ohio, Arizona, Missouri and Illinois. Even if Sanders had won all of the states that were in play on Tuesday, he would still have faced an uphill battle. However, by taking Ohio and Illinois, Clinton definitively pulled ahead.

Elsewhere, the mood was more that of a wake.

Sanders took the stage shortly after Clinton’s appearance in Florida and addressed more than 7,000 of his cheering supporters in a convention center in Phoenix with his usual stump speech. The 74-year-old senator mentioned raising the minimum wage, getting money out of politics, fixing free trade deals and reforming the criminal justice system, among other typical stump-speech issues.

What Sanders didn’t mention were the five states that voted in the Democratic primaries Tuesday night, and what the results meant for his viability as a candidate. This was in contrast to Sanders’ election night appearance on Super Tuesday, when he explicitly downplayed his mixed showing and reassured his supporters he would take the fight to “every” state. In contrast with most election night gatherings, there were no TVs showing primary results in Phoenix, so Sanders’ supporters were not shown Clinton’s wins racking up in the background as the evening progressed. Arizona’s Democrats vote next Tuesday, and Sanders is expected to do well in the state.

Thanks again, corporate media.

No major cable network carried his speech, which coincided with Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s remarks and later, as Sanders continued speaking, with Donald Trump’s victory speech.

So we wait a bit longer for Team Sanders to wake up and smell the coffee, bust a move, and instruct his support network which way to go.  If you know any Sanders people, you already know that they're considering all options.  Since so many of them aren't Democrats -- like Sanders himself, allegedly -- we should expect to see wholesale defections among the blue ranks as Clinton turns her battleship to the right and steams ahead for the fall.  And there ought to be plenty of Republicans for them to recruit.

That's the only interesting storyline left to unfold (as far as I'm concerned): post-Sanders, how do the Democrats plan, go, and do in the general.  They may have been gifted with another Goldwater ... or perhaps will deliver us the nation's worst nightmare.  There's a bitter pill the #NeverTrumps have to swallow.  Will they?

Some Democrats say it's just like 2008 and  Hillary's PUMAs: everybody will get over their upset and fall in line, get onboard.  Eventually.  By November.

I'll just be glad to get to blogging about some things beside the presidentials every day after the past two months.

Against Bernie Sanders

(Open Source Dem, aka J. R. Behrman, infrequent poster here, former SD-13 committee chair, former presiding judge of the Harris County EVBB, former chair of the Texas Democratic Party's Progressive Populist Caucus -- among other honoraria -- posted this to his Facebook page after sending it to me.  I offered him my deepest condolences on the loss of his wife last week.)

I oppose the nomination of Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont. 

That is a surprise to some who fancy me a "left-wing" member of the Democratic Party. After all, I supported George McGovern back in the day. I supported Howard Dean there for a while. Moreover, I did not just support Barack Obama in 2008, I fought the pro-Clinton state party establishment tooth and nail through the highly contested primary and convention process. 

No, Belinda and I are so conservative we come around from the other side to a sort of traditional liberalism. 

Moreover, I have grave reservations about Secretary Clinton and her "permanent campaign" entourage, not least their reprise of the "inevitable" campaign. It is not doing her any good now, and it will be a burden for her when she challenges whoever or, dare I say, whatever the GOP comes up with. 

So why my change now? 

First, it will take not a "village" but an entire national party to defeat the GOP at all echelons of government today in 50 gerrymandered states and dozens of rotten Congressional Districts. 

Sanders is an independent and has kept his distance from the Democratic Party -- unlike, say, Howard Dean. Our nominee must first take the reins of the Democratic Party. 

Second, Hillary Clinton has been an altogether loyal and constructive contributor to the administration of President Obama. 

Sure, Sanders' socialism is somewhat attractive to me, as far as it goes. Labels do not scare me. But, President Obama is not a socialist (or a Muslim). He has pretty much exhausted the limits of what can be done in just one of the nine echelons of our dysfunctional government and politics. These accomplishments do not deserve Sanders' conceited dismissal. 

No, his socialism is almost a museum piece and does not even begin to provide a robust intellectual foundation for future governments. As Paul Glastris at Washington Monthly says, Sanders is "intellectually consistent but not intellectually honest." 

Even venerable socialist governments and even the formidable Green parties in Europe or charismatic leaders like Yanis Varoufakis are struggling to dump obsolete or delusional intellectual frameworksto govern their own parties, and to fix a broken socialist international. 

Finally, Bernie Sanders is simply a novelty. Sure, he is charming and attractive to political junkies who are disillusioned with and critical of our party and government. 

(Yes, that could be said of me.) 

But I stand with those like Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown, who expect to see more actual progress from a Clinton administration than a Sanders crusade. 

In any event, here is what I would like to do: 

Build a strong party 

Sanders would need and Clinton will need a new kind of political party to actually govern. This is where the most radical of new ideas can flourish, because a political party is "lightweight" -- a good thing in engineering -- even "flimsy". It is easily transformed almost overnight. No negotiations or "deals" with the crazy-right are necessary or even possible. 

Not a lousy claque 

A political party is not, actually, an extension of government, though you would not know that here in one-party Texas with its kludge of cornpone state and county parties. No, my party should be a check on government and an instrument of the people. In our case, that is a party rooted in republican principle and built on democratic aspirations. 

Make it work 

This means that the Sanders and Clinton supporters will have to have a voice in party affairs, will have to cultivate party loyalty, and will have to stop political exit on the left that is manifest as despair and apathy. Otherwise, right-wing extremism will just keep growing and poisoning everything. 

Right here, right now! 

There is actually no better place to start that transformation than Harris and eight surrounding counties in Texas. It will take strategy, planning, and finance. That is where I hope to play a role. 

But not for a while. 

The wheels are off my life right now, following Belinda's death. I will sign in at the desultory Senate District Convention, but not attend the silly state convention. 

After the national election, it will be time to consider robust reconstruction of the post-Reconstruction Texas Democratic Party. It is now just an antique facility for bi-partisan concession-tending that is no longer viable at any echelon of government or politics.

$20 billion for her Iraq vote

“I’m sitting there in the Oval Office, and Bush says to me, ‘What do you need?’ And I said, ‘I need $20 billion to rebuild, you know, New York,’ and he said, ‘You got it.’ And he was good to his word,” Clinton said in response to Matthews’ question on why Bernie Sanders was right on the Iraq War vote and Clinton was wrong. 

“Literally, that same day, I get back to the Capitol, and the Republicans are trying to take that money away. We kept calling the White House, Bush kept saying, ‘I gave them my word, I’m going to stick with it.’..."

About the four-minute mark in the video embedded here.

I suppose we should take her word for it.  I mean, she's probably not lying about this.  This is how a "progressive who gets things done" operates, after all.

She is either clueless about the things she says and does, or she just doesn't care what anybody thinks about it.  We already had one president like that, and he's in the photograph above.

Y'all go ahead and hug it out, though.  I'm done.

Update: I'll let the Republicans handle this one (the other gaffe from last night):

In comments that are sure to draw the ire of her Republican critics, Hillary Clinton sought to contrast the war in Iraq with the intervention in Libya during her stint as secretary of state. 

“I’ve said Iraq was a mistake,” Clinton told Chris Matthews during an MSNBC town hall event on Monday night. “Libya was a different kind of calculation. And we didn’t lose a single person. We didn’t have a problem in supporting our European and Arab allies in working with NATO.” 

As Politico noted, Clinton was probably referring to the U.S.-backed overthrow of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi in 2011 and not the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi, where four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, were killed.

A few predictions for tomorrow

I've previously forecast that March 1 -- and then March 15 -- would be the day of reckoning for Bernie Sanders and his erstwhile presidential campaign.  I have to extend the deadline further out for that because he continues to rise in the polling, even as Hillary Clinton keeps shooting herself in the foot, the one which also happens to be in her mouth.

New Public Policy Polling surveys of the 5 states that will vote on Tuesday find that the Democratic contests in Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio are all toss ups, while Hillary Clinton maintains a significant advantage in Florida and North Carolina. [...] 

Clinton leads Bernie Sanders just 46/41 in Ohio and 48/45 in Illinois, while narrowly trailing Sanders in Missouri 47/46. Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri are all open primary states and Sanders is benefiting from significant support from independent voters and a small swath of Republicans planning to vote in each state, putting him in position to potentially pull an upset sweep of the region on Tuesday night ...

The race is going to go on for some time; more debates and town hall fora should ultimately be on tap despite resistance from the buffoonish Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and the primary schedule is somewhat lighter ahead, with more states moving to 'winner take all' upping the ante.

And the polling could be askew, as it was in Michigan.

Here's what we know: down by 37 in Illinois just five days ago, Sanders is now up by two according to CBS News; down by 30 in Ohio five days ago, Sanders is now down by only single digits; the only polling in Missouri has Sanders in a statistical dead heat with Clinton, per the poll's margin of error; and while the polling in Florida at first blush seems less favorable -- Sanders has "only" cut 17 points off Clinton's 45-point lead in the last 48 hours, according to CBS News -- the Sanders campaign reports its internal polling shows a race in the high single-digits, and given that this internal data turned out to be correct in Michigan, it seems we should all be paying it some mind.

Go read more there as Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook is already sounding the "we're losing!" alarm bells.  Time -- as in tomorrow evening -- will tell, but it looks as if Bernie is going to make it a race for awhile longer.  How much longer?  Won't hazard another guess.

For the Republicans, the outcome seems more certain.

Billionaire Donald Trump has slightly increased his overwhelming lead in Florida to 24 percentage points, while Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) looks set for a crushing defeat in his home state, according to a Quinnipiac poll released (today).

Everyone say "goodnight, little Marco".  More looking-ahead from Non-Prophet News.

The expectation is that Rubio will drop out after he loses in Florida. If Kasich is able to pull (the upset) off in Ohio, then he will likely stay in the race for the foreseeable future. That's a problem for Ted Cruz less because Kasich will be taking stealing his delegates, but because he will be stealing his media coverage. Kasich is the only one left who hasn't gotten any time in the limelight, and Rubio dropping out sets the perfect stage for everyone to start talking about Kasich and not talking about a two-person race. 

After these states cast their ballots, the calendar cools down until April 26; until then, only four states (Arizona, Utah, Wisconsin, and New York) will vote. That's a long time for a great deal of speculation about the race to occur and conspiracies theories to spread. What happens on Tuesday will go a long way towards setting the narrative of what happens over the next month.

There is no reason to believe that Trump is going to be upset, blocked, or otherwise prevented from the GOP nomination.  Not today, not tomorrow, not at the convention, brokered or not.  There is some reason to believe that Hillary Clinton will.  Everything you'll read and hear after Tuesday night will be spin about the polls or the he said/she said bullshit.  Until we have more debates or more election results, take everything with a shaker of salt.

The Weekly Wrangle

(Satirical news item: "Trump to give rally attendees 'Freedom Bats'")

The Texas Progressive Alliance is enjoying spring training baseball and also ready to fill out a bracket as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff analyzed the Democratic and Republican presidential primary returns in Harris County.

Libby Shaw, contributing to Daily Kos, learned that residents in the Houston, Clear Lake City and Galveston areas are sitting ducks. Why? Because our area politicians and local leadership has done jack, zip, nada to address the region’s storm and flood infrastructure. Not a thing has been done since Hurricane Ike in 2008. Nothing but talk and finger pointing. Wake up Texas, Houston. It'ss not a question of if, but when.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is appalled at John Cornyn's threat to ruin the career of any potential Supreme Court nominee. Just when you think a Republican can't sink any lower, John Cornyn does.

Hillary Clinton's braincramp about Nancy Reagan's contributions in the 1980s during the AIDS crisis won her the WTF of the Week, according to PDiddie at Brains and Eggs.

SocraticGadfly looked at that statement, and also the one about Bernie Sanders -- who allegedly "wasn't with her" on healthcare reform in 1993 -- and wonders if we're in dogwhistle season.

John Coby at Bay Area Houston celebrated the arrival of spring's Political Cicadas.

The Lewisville Texan Journal updated their story on a drug-related double shooting with the announcement of an arrest being made.

Neil at All People Have Value commended the local National Weather Service for offering a clear and intelligent explanation to the general public for a missed forecast. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

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

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

President Obama made an appearance at this year's South by Southwest Interactive, and the Texas Election Law Blog reported that he encouraged civic engagement in technological innovation, including electronic voter registration.

Also from SXSW, the Texas Observer attended the Open Carry Texas march down Congress Avenue, which included a topless woman and a "Cocks Not Glocks" counter-protester.

Grits for Breakfast assembles a compendium of motives for the shooting at Sen. John Whitmire's office.

Houston Matters previews the Galveston municipal elections.

Lone Star Ma focuses on the eighth of the United Nations' new Sustainable Development Goals: "Promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth, employment and decent work for all."

Harold Cook tries to make sense of the ever-murky Republican presidential primary, and Prairie Weather observes that the party of personal responsibility is running away from its irresponsible behavior.

Politifact Texas checked on Trump's claim that he was rushed onstage by an a member of ISIS, and ... you can probably guess the answer.

Somervell County Salon cringed at Hillary Clinton's insinuation that "melted hearts" would fix institutional racism.

Newsdesk gives a primer on Robert Morrow, the Travis County GOP's wacky new chair.

The TSTA Blog decries the rising cost of public universities in Texas and the effort to dodge responsibility for it in the Legislature.

Christopher Andrews examines the social life of small urban spaces.

Save Buffalo Bayou sees no change in the release of water behind dams, despite their leaks, in light of recent heavy rains.

And the Houston Press covers the worst road trips from Houston (with tongue-in-cheek, we think).

Sunday Funnies

Hillary's braincramp about the Reagans and AIDS

I think 'brainfart' is about as kind a description as can be.

In an appearance on MSNBC Friday afternoon, Hillary Clinton found herself in a situation that called for her to say some nice things about the recently deceased former first lady Nancy Reagan, and she made the somewhat odd choice to highlight HIV/AIDS advocacy. According to Clinton, "Because of both President and Mrs. Reagan — in particular Mrs. Reagan — we started a national conversation. When before nobody would talk about it, nobody wanted to do anything about it." 

Clinton described Reagan's role as "very effective low-key advocacy" and "something that I really appreciated."

Oops.

This observation of one first lady by another must have occurred in some alternate universe, because here on Earth -- in the United States, "in the '80's", as Clinton noted -- what she said happened actually did not happen.  Quite the opposite.

It's not another one of Clinton's lies and it doesn't make sense as a pander (why would any Republican be drawn to her campaign by her sympathizing with the plight of gay men with a deathly illness?  When in all of the history of the HIV in the USA has that ever been the case?).  Could it have been some desire to say something nice about someone on the day of her burial?  If so, she could have simply stated, "She looked good in red," and left it at that.

I'm going to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt here and say that she confused "Just Say No" with the AIDS crisis.  As comedienne Lizz Winstead observed, she couldn't have gotten it mixed up with Alzheimer's, because the Reagans didn't acknowledge that either until long after they were out of the White House.

I misspoke. Turns out Nancy Reagan was the WORST on HIV/AIDS. Sorry for the confusion. Oh and Reagan Vetoed Stem cell research also. kbye

— Lizz Winstead (@lizzwinstead) March 11, 2016

I don't think people making lame excuses for her is what she needs.  Apologies are cool, but it's still difficult to comprehend the thought process behind the 'misspeaking'.  Lacking any better or more coherent explanation however, let's just mark it down as the most recent in a litany of bad judgements and move on.

Update: NO, German Lopez and Garance Franke-Rute, this is not 'the best explanation', or even a good one.  Only if your thought process just stopped working in the '80s would this be even slightly plausible.

4) What Clinton said perfectly encapsulated the viewpoint of mainstream Democrats in the 1980s, before the party became gay friendly

— Garance Franke-Ruta (@thegarance) March 11, 2016

And if Franke-Rute is correct that establishment Democrats beyond Hillary Clinton believed that the Reagans were AIDS advocates, low-key or otherwise ... what does that say about the Democratic establishment?

It's obvious with a cursory Google search that non-establishment liberal politicians -- not the same as mainstream Democrats, mind you -- were not thinking this.

Update II: Some people believe Clinton should do more than apologize.  And more from What Would Jack Do? with the harshest response of all, Dan Savage's, linked.

'Elegant' and 'civil', my ass

My POV was that Rubio had a very good showing in what they're calling the 'civil' debate.  Few other than red partisans agree with me, it seems.  Most of the chatter this morning is around harmony ... and discord.

Donald Trump was on cruise control for so much of the early going in the 12th Republican debate Thursday night that he teased his rivals about their timidity. 

“So far, I cannot believe how civil it’s been up here,” Trump said with a wry grin and a glance at Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. 

Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ohio Gov. John Kasich all steered clear of open confrontation with Trump for much of the night on the debate stage at the University of Miami. It was clear that all the candidates, even Trump, were aware that the nasty tone of the last two debates had turned off many voters. 

The tepid atmosphere seemed to suit Trump, who held himself back this time from insulting the other candidates, in a departure from his recent practice. There were no references to “little Marco,” no labeling of Cruz as “nasty” or a “liar.” 

Trump has shown signs of trying to soften his roughest edges in the last few months, as he has tightened his grip on the Republican nomination. And more than ever Thursday, he sought to portray himself as more presidential than he has often appeared. 

After the debate, Trump referred to the evening as “elegant.”

Yes, it was ... if you don't consider discussion -- or the lack of it -- of waterboarding, or bombing women and children, or choke-slamming journalists or sucker-punch assaults at your rallies 'inelegant'.  If 'elegant' is defined as no dick-length comparisons, then hey, it was artful.

In the first half hour of Thursday’s debate, Trump and his GOP rivals seemed to almost go out of their way to avoid attacking one another even as they debated heated topics like entitlement reform and immigration. 

[...] 

At one point, Cruz trashed Democrat Hillary Clinton, suggesting she believed that Social Security could be made solvent by cutting waste, fraud and abuse. When a moderator pointed out that Trump had only minutes earlier voiced the same position and asked if he was comparing Trump to Clinton, Cruz backed off. “I’ll let Donald speak for himself,” he replied. 

Just seconds later, Trump and Cruz tangled over immigration—with the real estate mogul accusing his rival of previously supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants. But instead of blasting Trump—as he has previously on the issue—Cruz just laughed it off. 

Trump repeated his charge—albeit in a softer tone—but then he notably shifted back to a more conciliatory tone. “We’re all in this together. We’re going to come up with solutions. We’re going to find the answers to things,” Trump said.

Peace, love, and understanding.  On the stage.  Off it, not so much.

Former GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush will meet with three of the four remaining Republican contenders on Wednesday and Thursday, perhaps to drum up a plan to deny Donald Trump the party's nomination. 

The news comes as Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and Ohio Gov. John Kasich have struggled to gain traction in a GOP race once thought to be dominated by the former Florida governor. 

Bush will meet with the candidates in Florida, where all three are campaigning ahead of Tuesday's primary in that state, an aide said. 

None of the three campaigns offered insight regarding what, exactly, the meetings with Bush will discuss, although it's speculated the Republicans are seeking a strategy to ensure the party's nomination goes to anyone but Trump, the party's current front-runner.

There's also a call for Condi.

A group of Republican donors and strategists has been working to persuade former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to make an independent bid for president, according to a memo outlining the plan obtained by POLITICO Florida.

The group has grown increasingly dissatisfied with New York billionaire Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner who has roiled the party’s establishment as he has surged ahead in the polls.

“The reality of the matter is that we will have President Trump or President Clinton — if we don’t have President Rice,” read the memo, which was written by Joel Searby, a consultant with Florida-based GOP firm Data Targeting.

POLITICO reported last month about a memo that a group of donors was working on with Data Targeting to look at the viability of a third-party run amid Trump’s ascent. The newest memo, sent Thursday, is an update on the firm’s work.

“We have been in touch with Dr. Rice through her chief of staff,” read the plan, which is stamped “confidential.” “She is reluctant at this stage. We are asking for anyone wanting to assist to encourage her to run.”

That should turn out as well as finding WMD in Iraq.  Perhaps this commentary from Josh Marshall is the prelude to the conversation that Bus, Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich are having later today in Florida.

As everyone has noted, Trump is now trying not only to pivot to the general election but reassure GOP party stakeholders with his restraint and smother his competitors with talk of unity. I thought Trump and Cruz did very well for themselves but in very different ways. Trump owned his frontrunner-dom, didn't deign to rise to the taunts of his competitors and didn't let the moderators -- especially Dana Bash -- orchestrate a confrontation. He didn't allow himself to get knocked off that game. A bit more tired by the end of the debate, he was a little less able to keep attack Donald under wraps. But overall, he kept it cool and restrained. He kept to his plan.

Cruz was attempting something very different.

He knocked Trump a few times here and there. But that wasn't his main goal. Most of what he was trying to do he could have done even if Trump wasn't on the stage. Cruz's main goal was to talk to the audience, to engage in a soliloquy of conservative purity and drive. There is a big basket of anti-Trump votes out there. And Cruz's goal was to scoop them up. So attacking Trump, except to set up his own perorations, was basically irrelevant. He was trying to swoop up the existing anti-Trump vote, not pull Trump's supporters away from him.

[...]

Rubio and Kasich both had some good moments. But they're both basically out of the game.

[...]

The upshot is that Trump has decided he has little need to attack his opponents any more and much to gain by smothering his opponents and defanging GOP stakeholders with expressions of unity and demonstrations of restraint. On the driving themes of his campaign though, economic nationalism, xenophobia and revanchist anger at losers, freeloaders and protestors, there was no shift at all.

Everything I saw tonight made me think that Trump is well on his way to becoming the GOP nominee. I see no big obstacle stands in his way. Just as important, if for whatever reason Donald Trump isn't the nominee, it is now extremely difficult to see how the nomination won't go to Ted Cruz. Maybe you can steal the nomination from one factional, plurality winner. You can't steal it from the guy who came in a close second too. That just won't fly.

Drumpf.  With a slight opening for Poop Cruz.  Those are the two end results from a raunchy ten weeks of conservative gang wars, and now comes the distillation down to one.

Not all that fun or interesting after all, was it?

Vox called it for the two at the front, declared civility both winner and loser, and the biggest losers were the #NeverTrump effort and international trade deals.  If it turns out that the GOP indeed chooses to deny Obama a win on the TransPacific Partnership, I can be happy about that.

Trump vs. Cruz (and not just tonight)

I think Bernie Sanders has a better chance (today, at least) of getting his party's nomination than Ted Cruz has of getting his, but your mileage may vary.  Matt Bai has posed the question to few cringing conservative insiders, and the results may not surprise you.

Imagine you have this incredibly valuable sports car, and when you drive it up to a valet stand there are two guys anxiously vying to take the keys. One of them looks wild-eyed and agitated, like he just drank seven Red Bulls. The other is a guy you remember from high school, except that you hated each other and he’s eyeing the hubcaps with contempt. 

Now you have a rough idea of how Republican insiders in Washington are feeling this week. With the season of choosing passing its midpoint, governing Republicans are slowly resigning themselves to what looks like a two-man race between the unpredictable Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, a man so universally disliked that if you Google “hated senator,” every single link that pops up is about him. (Try it yourself.) 

It’s an agonizing thing for them to contemplate, but in conversations with a half dozen of the leading Republican strategists and lobbyists this week, it became clear that a solid consensus is forming as to which guy they would rather see get the keys. When it comes to Trump versus Cruz at the top of the ticket, most in the so-called establishment would prefer the devil they know to the daredevil they don’t.

At least he didn't bury the lede.

The more likely scenario for denying Trump the nomination, at this point, is that Cruz can overtake him, or that he ends up mounting a serious convention challenge if Trump can’t lock up the delegates before then. And while the D.C. elites are none too jazzed about this possibility, they’re starting to almost embrace it. 

The reason Republicans in Washington don’t like Cruz is that even by the standards of Washington, where we think of blatant self-promotion the way most other Americans think about getting out of bed in the morning, he seems to stand out for his insincerity. 

Colleagues disdain the holier-than-the-rest-of-you image he has cultivated since arriving in the Senate just three years ago.But that same opportunism, they will tell you, is what ultimately makes Cruz a more palatable nominee. That’s because they assume that Cruz’s evangelical and anti-government purity is more a matter of political positioning than it is of actual zealotry. 

If nothing else, the insiders believe, Cruz is coachable and calculating in a way Trump is not, and he’s a more reliable conservative.

They will fall in line.  They always fall in line.  In this calculus, the White House is abandoned for the tenuous clench of the Senate.

With Cruz as the nominee, Republicans figure they have at least an outside shot at holding the Senate, mainly by giving their more vulnerable candidates some distance from him. Less so with Trump, whose insatiable need for controversy and incendiary appeals to emotion might overwhelm everything else. 

None of which is to say that Cruz has a better chance of winning than Trump. He doesn’t, and even most governing Republicans will admit that Trump could conceivably broaden the appeal of the party nationally, while Cruz almost certainly runs its aground. He’d have a better chance of landing his own show on MSNBC than he would of winning the popular vote — something Republicans have done only once in the last 20 years. 

But that might not be the worst thing in the world, either. If Cruz were to become the nominee and suffer a Goldwater-type thrashing in November (which probably can’t happen, given the polarized electoral math of the country today, but he could certainly do worse than John McCain or Mitt Romney), then governing Republicans might finally be able to go on the offensive against their own activists. 

The argument then would go something like this: “Hey, we tried it your way, and we nominated a purist, and we got dismantled, and now the Clintons are prying up floorboards in the Lincoln Bedroom and retrieving all the secret files they once squirreled away. So maybe it’s time to build a more tolerant party that actually governs.” 

It’s a bleak excuse for optimism, to be sure — half-hoping to lose in the expectation that you can make people understand how to win. But for Republicans in Washington, it’s all pretty bleak right about now.

There'll be a post in the future about whether the GOP can indeed hold the upper chamber -- highly doubtful despite the scads of money to be poured into competitive races -- but your takeaway ahead of tonight's showdown is that the Republican nominee loses very little of the vote, base or otherwise, to a third party nominee -- no matter who it is -- to Clinton, or to their crying rooms on Election Day.  (More on the potential Libertarian spoiler here.)

Oh yeah, fight night.

Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, John Kasich and Marco Rubio will face off at CNN's presidential debate on Thursday night in a state that could make one of the four men virtually unstoppable -- and spell doom for another. 

Thursday's debate here comes just five days ahead of the next week's "Super Tuesday 3," when there are more than 350 delegates up for grabs, including in winner-take-all contests in Florida and Ohio. 

Both Trump and Rubio are predicting that they will be victorious here in the Sunshine State, and fully aware of how much is riding on Florida. For Trump, a win here would fuel his growing momentum and further grow his delegate lead; for Rubio, losing his home state could be the death knell for his campaign. 

Cruz and Kasich will also take the debate stage at a crucial moment in their campaigns. Cruz is aggressively trying to convince the Republican Party to coalesce around him, arguing he is the only candidate other than Trump capable of reaching 1,237 delegates; Kasich, who still has not won a single state, is eying his home state of Ohio with fresh optimism after a new poll this week showed him ahead of Rubio nationally. A Fox News poll released Wednesday showed Kasich leading Trump in Ohio, but the front-runner topping Rubio in Florida.

More there on what's at stake for each of the four men left standing, and more in the Twitter feed, top right column, as the bell rings for the main event this evening.

Sanders and Clinton square off in Florida

Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders clashed vividly over immigration reform, health care and Cuba during a contentious debate Wednesday as the two Democrats appealed to Hispanic voters and tried to outdo each other in assailing Donald J. Trump.

Mrs. Clinton, bruised by her surprise loss in the Michigan primary a day earlier, was on the attack throughout the debate as she sought to undercut Mr. Sanders’s momentum before the next round of primaries.

Aiming her remarks at viewers watching on Univision, a Spanish-language sponsor of the debate, Mrs. Clinton threw his past support for Fidel Castro and President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua in Mr. Sanders’s face and repeatedly criticized him for opposing a 2007 bill that would have created a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants in the country illegally.

“We had Republican support,” Mrs. Clinton said. “We had a president willing to sign it. I voted for that bill. Senator Sanders voted against it.”

She refused to let up when Mr. Sanders explained that he thought the guest worker provisions in the bill were “akin to slavery.” Mrs. Clinton argued that she, Senator Edward M. Kennedy and Hispanic groups would never have supported such a bill. Her broadsides finally became too much for Mr. Sanders when she accused him of supporting “vigilantes known as Minutemen” on the border.

“No, I do not support vigilantes — that is a horrific statement, an unfair statement to make,” Mr. Sanders said. “Madam Secretary, I will match my record against yours any day of the week.”

This might be the only accusation that catches some traction against Sanders.  Otherwise his performance scored slightly better than Hillary's on the Bloomberg report card.

Initially positioned herself as the chief Democratic leader, focused on the GOP and party differences. Then shifted to dish out cherry-picked criticism of her rival’s congressional votes (sometimes in a misleading fashion) —but often bristled when he swiped back at her. Was given noticeably tougher questions than Sanders, and offered serviceable if pre-packaged answers on topics such as her email server, voters’ distrust of her, and Benghazi. Avoided any glaring oh-my moments that could have supercharged Sanders’ newfound momentum, but didn’t do anything to slow him down.

Almost exactly how I and others saw it, and how it's been unfolding for the past few scrapes.  Clinton's trust and honesty issues are cemented, and they are costing her dearly with the youngest voters.

Small wins aren't what Sanders needs at this point, as everybody who's been following closely knows, so the results next Tuesday in Florida -- and Ohio and Illinois and Missouri and North Carolina -- will tell us whether there was breakthrough in Michigan or not.

Gadfly took issue with Sanders' refusal to hit Clinton over Honduras, and The Onion had far and away the best snark ...

MIAMI—Surreptitiously grabbing the explosive device stashed inside her lectern and pulling its pin as soon as she heard moderator Jorge Ramos mention her support for the Iraq War and the Wall Street bailout, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton reportedly threw a flash grenade onto the stage during Wednesday night’s Democratic debate to divert attention away from a question about her Senate voting record. 

“That’s an important question, Jorge, and one I’m happy to answer,” said the former secretary of state just as the military-grade M84 stun grenade exploded, emitting a deafening blast and blinding flash of white light that prevented anything on stage from being seen or heard for the duration of Clinton’s answer. 

After cowering with their hands over their ringing ears for approximately 70 seconds, rattled audience members, the debate’s moderators, and fellow candidate Bernie Sanders were said to have regained their vision and hearing just in time to make out the final sentence of Clinton’s response: “And that’s why I’ve always stood on the side of the middle class and working families.” 

At press time, a misty white gas was seen pouring from the base of Clinton’s podium toward the moderators’ desk as Ramos cited Clinton’s changing positions on gay marriage, the Keystone XL pipeline, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Tonight's Florida debate details

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will meet for their fourth one-on-one debate Wednesday evening in Miami — one night after Sanders won an upset victory in Michigan, reshaping their party’s presidential race as Clinton seemed close to clinching it. 

The debate is sponsored by The Washington Post and the Spanish-language network Univision. It will begin at 9 p.m. Eastern. 

Viewers can watch the debate live on The Post’s website or via The Washington Post app for Apple TV. It will also be shown on CNN. Spanish-speaking viewers can watch it on Univision. 

This debate comes at an unexpected moment of drama in the Democratic race.
Clinton is still the clear leader, in terms of states won and delegates accumulated. She added to her delegate lead Tuesday by winning a lopsided victory in Mississippi and dividing Michigan’s delegates nearly evenly with Sanders. 

[...] 

In the debate, moderators will probably ask about immigration policy, a vital subject in Florida — and a subject on which Clinton and Sanders differ significantly from the GOP candidates. 

Both Democrats have said they support a legal pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are already in the United States. And both have said they would preserve President Obama’s executive actions, which are intended to stop the deportations of undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children and of undocumented parents whose children are U.S. citizens or legal residents. 

Sanders — whose father was an immigrant from Poland — would go even further than that. He says he would issue an expanded order that would protect from deportation all undocumented residents who have lived in the country for at least five years.

Besides contrasting their views on immigration with each other's -- and Donald Drumps's -- expect these things to also play out.

FLINT FACT CHECK: At the Flint debate on Sunday, Clinton appeared to catch Sanders off guard when she accused him of not supporting the auto bailout -- an attack that Sanders the following day said was "categorically untrue." Both candidates have since doubled down on their attacks and released ads on the issue. Tonight they could likely take it up again in person. 

TESTY EXCHANGES: Clinton and Sanders tend to remain cordial, but at the debate on Sunday, things got contentious. Sanders told Clinton, "excuse me, I'm talking," which Clinton's campaign aides described as "disrespectful" and "rude." Sanders responded by saying he thought Clinton was the one being "rude” since she was the one interrupting. Either way, as they share a stage tonight, keep an eye out for who tries to override who. 

PRAISE FOR SANDERS: Despite what could be some heated back-and-forths between the two candidates, Clinton has tried to pivot her rhetoric and attention to the general election -- part of which may include getting Sanders (and his supporters) on her side. In recent days, she's had some kinder words for her opponent: She’s called him an "ally" and said she "would hope to enlist" him to help should she be the nominee. Thus tonight, don't be surprised if Clinton finds moments to praise him as opposed to just knocking him down. That said, Sanders told ABC News' David Wright that that language was premature. After last night's stunning upset, will Clinton have to change her tune again? 

A BREAK-OUT MOMENT: [...] The pressure is still on Sanders. Yes, he scored a major upset in a large, diverse state, but Clinton won one too and actually expanded her delegate lead with her overwhelming victory in Mississippi on Tuesday night. Though the Vermont senator has said he is confident in his path forward, realistically he needs to find a way to translate his Michigan win into more solid victories in that region and beyond in order to tighten that delegate gap. His performance tonight could be his chance.

Follow the Twitter machine at the top right for my takes or at the hashtag #DemDebate.