Hillary Clinton and Keystone XL Pipeline

Dear Friends,

As you have probably already heard, Hillary Clinton has changed her mind and decided that she can take a position on the Keystone XL Pipeline and the good news is she opposes the pipeline.  I am very happy that she has finally reached the correct decision, but I remain wary of her as a true environmental advocate.

Her statement lacks a certain clarity and enthusiasm.

I think it is imperative that we look at the Keystone XL pipeline as what I believe it is: A distraction from the important work we have to do to combat climate change, and, unfortunately from my perspective, one that interferes with our ability to move forward and deal with other issues.

The pipeline is not just a "distraction" that "interferes" with other things.  Approving the pipeline sets fossil fuel extraction, even the dirties of fossil fuels, as a priority over alternative non-fossil energy.  It is not a mere distraction.  It is the absolute wrong thing to do.

While I am happy that she finally is opposing the pipeline, Martin O'Malley summed up my feelings very well.

On issue after issue--marriage equality, drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants, children fleeing violence in Central America, the Syrian refugee crisis, and now the Keystone Pipeline, Secretary Clinton has followed--not forged--public opinion. Leadership is about stating where you stand on critical issues, regardless of how they poll or focus group.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Has The Times Dismissed Bernie Sanders?

Dear Friends,

As I wrote a couple of days ago, The New York Times seems to have decided that it will not provide fair coverage to Bernie Sanders.  About that same time Margaret Sullivan the Public Editor for The Times, wrote a column entitled: "Has The Times Dismissed Bernie Sanders?" (here).  It was good that she took the complaints seriously enough to write the column, but in my view her response was rather dismissive in itself.  Here is one of her first paragraphs.

It’s not hard to understand the news judgment at play here: Given Hillary Rodham Clinton as such a dominant candidate, with widespread support, lots of money and the Democratic Party’s likely imprimatur, almost any other Democratic candidate looked like an also-ran. And Mr. Sanders — whose politics are significantly left of center and who is 74 years old — didn’t appear to be the kind of candidate to change that view.

What I hear her saying is that The Times will cover the person with money, establishment support and centrist views who will not upset the status quo with which The Times is very happy.

Ms. Sullivan goes on to provide the numbers which speak for themselves, but she interprets the lopsided coverage of Hillary Clinton by saying that The Times did not ignore Mr. Sanders and that some of the coverage of Hillary was not favorable.  The fact that Senator Sanders is not burdened by a huge email scandal hardly justifies not giving him coverage.

How does this compare with the coverage of some of the other candidates, particularly Mrs. Clinton? Looking at August alone, The Times ran 14 articles on Mr. Sanders, compared with 54 on Mrs. Clinton. Donald Trump – like Mr. Sanders, also considered by many an extreme long shot for his party’s nomination – got the most coverage last month: 63 articles. Other Republican candidates received far less ink than Trump: Jeb Bush was the subject of 18 articles in August, and Marco Rubio, 10. (Of course, not all press is good press for any of the candidates. In Mrs. Clinton’s case, for example, many of the August articles dealt with her questionable email practices as secretary of state.)

So, in terms of numbers alone, The Times certainly has not ignored Mr. Sanders. The Times did get off to a very slow start with its Sanders coverage but has responded as the crowds at his events have grown.

What Ms. Sullivan wrote was technically correct.  The Times has not ignored Bernie Sanders.  They simply gave Hillary Clinton almost 4 times the coverage when measured in stories about them.  Ms. Sullivan also pointed out the obvious that Donald Trump who we can only hope is not a serious candidate got the most coverage.  Ms. Sullivan makes no attempt to justify that fact on journalistic or any other grounds.  It is in fact something about which I hope she is embarrassed.

In a separate column, Ms. Sullivan published an email from The Times Senior Editor, Carolyn Ryan, responding to criticisms of the coverage or lack thereof of Bernie Sanders (here).  Ms. Ryan also uses the numbers to indicate that they have not ignored Bernie Sanders but fails to justify the huge difference in coverage.  In my view, her response is more defensive than enlightening.  Of course, the fact is the criticism that The Times is not providing fair coverage to Bernie Sanders is valid so it is impossible to defend The Times' coverage.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Bernie Sanders Leads the Way

Dear Friends,

A clear pattern is developing.  Bernie Sanders continues to speak out on issues he has always supported and pushed for solutions he has always supported, but now he has a platform that is gaining incredible support, despite attempts by the establishment to limit his exposure.  The result is that the establishment is being forced to react to these issues and are proposing similar, but less effective solutions.  There have been two examples in the last couple of days.

As you all know, Bernie has been proposing free public college tuition, etc. for a long time.  Now President Obama has proposed a national advisory board to push for the idea of free community college.  President Obama is, as happens way too often, a day late and a dollar short.

The second example is that Attorney General Loretta Lynch is now proposing actually prosecuting individuals on Wall Street instead of just getting minuscule fines from the big banks.  If Attorney General Lynch's initiative actually is implemented, it will overturn Attorney General Holder's ridiculous policy that the big banks were too big to jail, a policy that President Obama embraced.  Not coincidentally, President Obama takes the same approach to those in the Bush administration who are war criminals (think Vice President Cheney) but is trying to prosecute whistleblowers who disclosed the crimes.  Senator Sanders has long called for prosecuting individuals on Wall Street and now the pressure that he has exerted is getting results.

Bernie needs our support and encouragement.  He is getting people engaged in politics again and giving all of us hope that we can get real change in government.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal