Quibbles and Bits, What Else Can We Expect By Now edition

Chewy, crunchy, bite-sized chunks and bits for your mental mastication...

>> Anybody surprised about the tax bill and the giveaways to Repubican donors?  I'm not.  This is what was bound to be expected when one party has the levers to the presidency, the congress, and the judiciary.  Also, notice that the bill only has approximately 30% support nationwide, and it was still passed.   The bill will add $1 Trillion to the budget deficit, which the Republicans cynically decided will be dealt with, later of course, by cutting our social safety net.   The safety net has been in the Republican cross hairs for decades, and now they see their chance. 

Also, all of those tax deductions that you have now and may depend on?  Don't count on them being there now.  Mortgage tax deductions are in the cross hairs, as well as write-offs for school supplies paid out of pocket by teachers, decreasing of the maximum annual 401(k) contribution to $2,400 per year, etc. etc. etc.   All to give the Kochs, Adelsons, Waltons, and their spawn those nice tax cuts - which will do NOTHING to stimulate the economy.   But then, that's not what this is about at all - it's about entrenching dynastic wealth.   The establishment of a permanent aristocracy in this country - essentially, neo-feudalism.  

No, they have no shame.  No, they have no scruples.  No, they do not give a shit and never have.

BUT - in the end, We The People need to take ultimate responsibility for the actions of our government, as the players within the government were elected, not selected.  We The People make this bed, now we're laying in it.


>> The domino effect that the Harvey Weinstein affair has had - the #MeToo campaign, and the downfall of a lot of powerful men such as Matt Lauer - has been fascinating to watch, and long overdue.  It's a sign of one of the pillars of patriarchy coming down - male dominance may finally be seeing its dawning hour.   It's high time - testosterone has fueled things in this world for far too long.

>> I have been a subscriber to SiriusXM for several years, in large part because of the Progress Channel.   Lately, however, I've noticed a change in the channel's programming, to what appears to be far less critical of the DNC and the Democratic Party establishment.   The channel ID spots also declare the channel to be "the home of the resistance" - how ironic, considering that the DNC itself is what is being resisted in addition to T-Rump and his swamp things.  In looking at the SiriusXM website, I saw why: Zerlina Maxwell is the head of programming.  Who is Ms. Maxwell? Well, first, she's a former Clinton campaign staffer, carrying the title of Director of Progressive Media.   She was the person providing stories and - let's just call a spade a spade -propaganda to progressive web sites and media outlets.   That's ironic - Hillary's campaign eschewed the progressive vote for the most part in favor of going after moderate Republicans, so Zerlina's job was to keep those progressives in line.  We saw how well that worked.

Much more later. 

Woke Wordy Rappinghood

Throughout my childhood and through today, I've always been a bit of a stickler for, and fascinated by, words and their usage.   After all, words have meaning in context - and in meaning in context, there is power.   People in the communications disciplines - journalists, propagandists, pundits, writers, and on and on - are well aware of this dynamic and use it for their purposes.   I find my own interest especially piqued in the area of political communications and speech.   How words are used and co-opted by one side or another can literally change the direction of the country by creating the frame within which the terms of the debate are held, and a few examples of the seen in the following:

"Liberal" - there was a well-coordinated campaign waged by the conservative wing of the country - businesses and well-to-do families - to turn this word into a pejorative.  Specifically, I remember pundits in the 1980s, like the proto-Bill O'Reilly figure Wally George using this word in such a sneering, negative way that the intention seemed to be laid bare without any efforts to camouflage it.

"Resistance" - originally, this word was used to describe resistance against the entire political system. When Trump assumed office, the DNC co-opted the word to mean resistance against Trump - never mind the DNC's corruption and cynicism.

(pick your racist code word) -  when overt racial slurs were driven to the verboten bin, racists figured out other ways to say and imply the same bigoted concepts. 

The latest word to enter the ownership/co-option wars is the term "woke".   In far-left and libertarian circles, the term refers to an awareness of how corrupted the entire political system is - left and right.   You can go on any of the lefty video blogs by, for example, Sane Progressive or Claudia Stauber, and hear "woke" used in this way.   These people know, like most people, about how openly corrupt the Republicans are, but what they devote most of their time to is removing the "good guy" masks from many of the players wearing the Democratic or liberal capes, especially "sacred cows" like Bernie Sanders.   Other journalists and communicators who I would consider "woke" in this regard are Chris Hedges, Abby Martin, Peter Joseph, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, and others.

Then there is the other way I'm hearing it used.  I was driving to the light rail stop this morning to go to work, listening to the "Progress" channel on SiriusXM.   Stephanie Miller was on, and while I didn't get the name of her guest, the same guest gushed and gushed about how many races the Dems have won since the 2016 catastrophe (she quoted seven, when the last figure I remember was that the Dems lost four straight special elections since last November.) Then I heard her say something along the lines of people being "woke".   I nearly drove off the road in a fit of laughter hearing this, as the Stephanie Miller show has become a DNC propaganda outlet and nothing nearly approaching anything "woke".   The DNC and their minions are trying to co-opt another progressive trope, thanks to corporate outlets like MSNBC and willing, supposedly "progressive" mouthpieces like Miller and Randi Rhodes.

An awareness of words and meaning, and use, is an invaluable tool in the quest to become a truly aware, "woke" citizen.  Lacking this awareness leads to being manipulated, and falling prey to propagandists like Frank Luntz and his ilk.  Become aware, and we tune out his kind, with the truth laid out in front of us.  

Quibbles and Bits, Medium Morsels Edition

More long-awaited morsels, birthed and inspired by various media outlets:

>> Caitlin Johnstone, an up-and-coming blogger out of Australia, created quite the stir with  this missive, essentially wishing for the non-violent death of Senator John McCain.   Personally, while I think John McCain's voting record and warmongering rhetoric certainly point to considerable evil, I would never wish death or harm on anybody, regardless of what side of the fence their politics or other opinions reside - especially now that it's come out that Senator McCain has brain cancer. 
I will continue to read Ms. Johnstone's work, as in my view, she calls the balls and strikes correctly in most cases.   But for me, this post went a bit too far.  

>> I must bid a bittersweet adieu to a few media personalities whom I used to follow since the Air America days.   The common thread, to me, is that they all seem to be shilling for the DNC now, acting as shepherds to the Democratic "sheeple":

>>>>> Goodbye, Stephanie Miller.   When I started listening to you in 2005, your show was different, fresh, and funnier than the hell borne by the Bush II administration.   Some of Jim Ward's vocal antics had me literally on the floor laughing, and at the time, I had far too much trust in the Democratic Party, not to mention a world view that saw the country as a political duopoly.   Your recent shows tout the musings of establishment tools like Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid, and nowhere do I hear any challenging of the Democratic establishment or the wreckage they visited on the country in 2016.   You're playing what you describe as the "happy clappy cheerleader" for the Dems, and I've had enough.  

>>>>> Goodbye, Randi Rhodes.  I remembered your show the day after the election, where you castigated a caller who called Hillary Clinton a "bad candidate".   You said HRC was the most qualified person on the planet to be the President, extolling her virtues when it was HRC who got you fired from Air America 2008.   I juxtapose the video of you calling HRC a "fucking whore" around that time, against your more recent statements, and I'm floored by your hypocrisy.    You also had a guest on who stated that our electoral system "works perfectly", and has done so for 240 plus years, without one challenge from you whatsoever.   (The Nevada Caucuses, the millions of primary votes in California that were never counted, New York - all of this was OK to you, eh, Randi?) You've become a tool for the DNC, and I've had enough.

>>>>>Goodbye, Sam Seder.   Your interview with Tim Black, where you stated that the DNC did not rig the primaries against Bernie Sanders, was the excessive weight that snapped the spinal column for me.   That, and that you seem to generally be drifting toward a more centrist politics (still lefty, but more in line with the Democratic mainstream), had driven me away from your podcast.   I've had it with centrist nonsense cloaked in progressive-sounding language.  

In short, I don't buy or listen to podcasts for the purposes of getting marching orders or being told what to think.  Politically, I think for myself, and while I need information and different viewpoints, I don't need propaganda, and many of these podcasts are devolving into that area - sadly.

>>Finally, about the word "resist" or "resistance".   This term has officially been co-opted by the political and media elites, to the point where for me, the words have no meaning whatsoever.   Hillary Clinton called herself a "part of the resistance" soon after her election defeat.  REALLY, Hilly?  You are WHAT IS BEING RESISTED!!!  The only true resistance that is being waged (or can be waged) is in the streets and at the grass-roots, without the so-called "help" from traditional party structures like the Dems.  You can't be a part of a "resistance" when your behavior and policies are the target.   As Kshama Sawant said, the Democratic Party is the place where progressive ideas go to die - and that has been the case time after time. 

This time, I'm not falling for it.  

Supermajority? What Supermajority?

In California, we have what could be called a Democratic supermajority.  One would think, then, that we would have all of the nice things that come with a Democratic supermajority - like single-payor health care.   Governor Jerry Brown, in fact, ran on this during his presidential campaigns - and now seems to think otherwise.   The current bill, which would establish such a system, has been held in committee, with no more discussion this year - which makes me wonder, what supermajority?

This article may provide some explanation.   It talks about the role of money (again) and the reasons why the tony 1 percenters continue to fight against it.   I won't get into too many details, preferring that you click the link and decide for yourself.  

Shattered

I decided to provide what I thought was a somewhat appropriate-in-an-ironic-way music background for this post, a song about New York backing my post about a New York-based politician.   It helps that the song shares a title with the book I'm about to discuss: Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign.  

Authored by political insiders Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, the dome relies on interviews with campaign workers and volunteers (who go unidentified through the book in order to protect their identities, likely from recrimination from the Clintons).   While this factor may lead the reader to initially  question the authenticity of the claims made through the book, I found that there seemed to be enough consistency with the claims made and the historical record to allay this concern. 

From reading the book itself, I found myself arriving at the following impressions:

1. Hillary Clinton was her own worst enemy on several occasions described in the book.  Start with her "basket of deplorables" comment, followed up by her campaign's treatment of the Ready For Hillary PAC (which could have provided much-needed grass roots support to her campaign), and her non-communication regarding the pneumonia she suffered toward the end of the campaign.   The list is long, and it's disturbing for somebody of her intelligence and capability. 

2.  The book placed what I think is an inordinate amount of blame on the Bernie Sanders campaign.   Specifically, the book claims that the Sanders campaign relied on attacking Hillary's character, by bringing up her too-cozy relationship with the country's Financial Sector and Corporations.   My recollection of the 2016 Primary was that Bernie was bringing up facts about the candidate - which is HIS RIGHT - and that he was trying to win a primary - which is ALSO HIS RIGHT. 

3. As for the contest between Hillary and Bernie, the authors show a definite slant towards Hillary.   Bernie was portrayed as an inferior candidate, with big ideas and no substance to back them up.  Hillary was described as having performed extremely well during the primary candidates: a virtual mirror image of the opinions of much of the mainstream media. 

4.  You may have seen excerpts from the book regarding her (and Bill's) joint chew-out session with her campaign staff over the lack of movement in her numbers and the failure of the campaign to wrest control of the campaign narrative.   This assignment of blame to others can be seen in her recent interview where she "took full responsibility" for the campaign's failure, but then blames James Comey for his ill-timed letter and "Russian Wikileaks".   The book, on the other hand, places the primary blame where it belongs: on the candidate herself. 

I've heard about what a horrible candidate she was, what a horrible politician she is, what an enviable resume she has, etc. etc. etc.   When one boils it down, one finds that Hillary Clinton, in order to win this election, had to convincingly portray something she is not - a person of the people.   The book describes her as the consummate policy wonk, a competent administrator, and an expert as to the workings of the DC machine.  But a candidate has to be able to make the sale to the voters - a skill that, in these days, is so important that it renders all of the other qualities almost unnecessary.   Proof of this is easy to find on the Twitters and on the News: President Donald Trump.   Trump was a salesman, and he made the sale to the critical swing state voters.   Hillary, unfortunately, did not generate the same kind of buzz.   She seemed to be the most comfortable in the circles she ran in most often:  big money donors and other influential people and groups.   She seemed to believe that qualifications should beat out salesmanship in an election.  In the perfect world, this would be the case. 

The book is an imperfect, but worthwhile read.  

Legal Note:  The Youtube video attached to this post contains musical content owned by Universal Music Group.   It has been included here only for editorial purposes and no infringement is intended.   I will remove the link upon request.

Only You Can Set You Free...

Normally I would put a classic (at least to me) song on my arts blog (www.bollzillaswordsonmusic.blogspot.com), but there's a deeper cultural and political message here.

One thing I have noticed and thought about over the last few weeks in my sojourns through my Facebook feed, is how so much of our political discourse, especially around election time, is spent on the building up and tearing down of public images, and the establishments of "personality cults."   This dynamic occurs no matter what side a given candidate is on, and a few became especially adept at this art.  People like Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Obama are prime examples of how personality and public image are marketed and manipulated for the purposes of electioneering.   Obama build up an entire brand around himself - "Change We Can Believe In", "Yes We Can", and his face on those countless posters seen everywhere, matched with his affable, hip nature, drove him to the Presidency over old war horse John McCain, and won him Advertiser of the Year in one of the large advertising associations.   Indeed - those are like the first things that pops in the mind when his very name is mentioned.   Remember Ronald Reagan?  Affable.  All-American.  Folksy.  Cowboys and the "old west" aspects of America.   How bout Bill Clinton? Affable.  Accomplished.  Sax playing.  Relatable.  Slick.   The one-word traits of how we remember these men. 

Even those who don't ultimately win the Big Prize can succeed.   What are the first things one thinks of when the name Bernie Sanders comes up? Probably words and terms like old-and-wise, fighting, caring, progressive, etc.   The same kind of thing is being done for people like Nina Turner and Tulsi Gabbard - whether they intend to or not.     

But it can backfire.  One of the biggest reasons Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 Election is because she did not master the art of the personality cult to her advantage.   What are some of the first things one thinks of when her name is mentioned?  There were two distinct memes: one was that of the feminist trailblazer who possessed one of the most enviable resumes in history.   The other is that of the corrupt, dishonest, warmongering insider.   The latter meme has been trumpeted for over a quarter century, in large part because of Newt Gingrich's own mastery of public relations, but also in part because of Hillary's own doing. Unfortunately, there is objective evidence which shows her to be an unfair player, to say the least.   Then, there was the sense of entitlement, as seen in her ill-advised slogan, "I'm With Her."   The negative memes ultimately won out, sullying any attempts to build her image back up.  

The point to all of this is - personality cults serve as distractions to the goals we say we wish to attain as a society.   They do this by shifting the focus away from the person's actions (which really have an effect on our everyday lives), and towards the person himself or herself.   An image of a person is just that - an image.   An illusion with no real substance.   It's in the actions of these people where the substance really lies.

The mainstream media, which serves a product based on sonic and aural images, finds the building of these cults necessary as they provide marketable sound and sight bites which attract eyes and ears, and ultimately, advertiser dollars.    Obama was about the hope and change, but what really changed in his watch - at least from the economic and foreign policy standpoints?  Bill Clinton claimed to have balanced the budget - but he was also the beneficiary of the tech bubble (which was NOT of his doing) which brought in the extra revenues which were in part necessary to make that balancing a reality.   Don't get me started about Ronald Reagan.

So let's not allow ourselves to become distracted by the sonic and aural images of people who look and sound real good.   Let's look at their actions, and if those actions match up with their words.   One of the lyrics in Living Colour's song is "Only You Can Set You Free".   Well, this is how we can start setting ourselves and our minds free.  

(NOTE: the copyright for the above video is held by Sony Music Entertainment.   I share it here purely for educational/editorial purposes and no infringement is intended.   Upon request, I'll remove the link.)

Quibbles and Bits, Messages Without Bottles edition

More chewy and crunchy morsels, sans the gravy...

--> Since the election, I have noticed that many online outlets, especially those affiliated with the MSM like Newsweek and The Daily Beast, seem to go out of the their way to remind people that Bernie Sanders lost the 2016 primary.   They talk of his "failed" candidacy, that he "lost", and more like-sounding tropes.   This phrasing is not an accident: many of  these organizations supported Clinton in the primaries and the General Election, and are doing everything they can to bury the well-founded idea that the 2016 DNC primaries were rigged.   They want the readers to think that the primaries were conducted fairly and squarely (see New York, Nevada, Arizona, and California, to start with). They are also, as part of the political establishment, attempting to hold sway in the Democratic Party, and thwart the insurgence of Berniecrats who have sworn to primary several establishment Democratic politicians.   I find it interesting how the politics hasn't seemed to slow down after the election and "normal life" returns as it does post-most election years - because life isn't normal after this last election.  

--> There has been much discussion about the possibility of T-Rump leaving the presidency, by either impeachment or resignation.    Here's my take: at this stage, politically, it's best to leave him in the Oval Office.   The Republicans now have no excuse whatsoever:  they own him and his administration now.   He's at historic lows for approval rating at this stage in his Presidency, and the more he twists in the political winds, the more the Republicans won't be able to back away from him in 2018 and 2020.   Make them OWN him, and then the Dems might have a chance.  Besides, lose T-Rump, and who do you have? Bible-beater Pence, followed by Ayn Rand fanboy Paul Ryan, followed by other Repub monsters.   Now, if the Dems can get a spine...

--> There is an opportunity here for third parties to make a dent, in no small part due to the #DemExit movement.   The Democratic Party membership number has declined precipitously since the 2016 Primaries, and with the right people, message and strategy, we might see the Greens put up a congressman or two in 2018, as well as make strides at the local levels.  

More later... 

Subdivisions

Yes, yes, I know that the 2016 Election is four months decided, and we've had about six weeks to sample the governmental strains of T-Rump.   In elections past, the red side and blue side would take sides, and after the dust settled from Election Day, we (more or less) would come back together.  

Not this time.   Not in my just-under-50 years on this planet have I seen the nation so divided, so partitioned, so divvied up by ideology.   T-Rump talks about fences to enclose the country - but our nation already has these build around ourselves.   Fences more like moats, keeping out all of the "undesirable" news, information, and people so that we all live in our own protective bubbles.   

Separated - just how those that really run things in the world want us to be.

 And the fractures are being seen at the personal level in a way I've never seen before.   We all know and have some familiarity with how family gatherings, especially around dinner tables, can be awkward experiences when you're dealing with people who are equally opinionated about their polar-opposite view from one's own.  Yet, I didn't hear much of families being permanently torn apart by political issues. 

I've seen, and heard, a far different story this time out.  

I remember turning on the radio to listen to some talk, and on more than a few occasions, I've heard of friendships breaking up due to the issues surrounding the election.   I will venture a guess that more than a few marriages split up as a result, as well.   The Facebook memes seemed to take a darker, separationist turn.  One such meme told of a Trump supporter who stated that a vote for him doesn't mean the end - that "we can be adults", right?   But the answer to that meme was, "No, I can't call you a friend when you vote for somebody who is so completely against everything I believe in, and on a core level".  

What does this mean?   The more I think about it, the more questions I have rather than answers to give.   Is this yet another symptom of a collapsing empire?  It looks to me like America can't come to a consensus on what is even means to be an American at all.  Without that, what else do you have?  Without knowing what it means, you have a Nation-In-Name-Only - an empty shell with no substance.   Other nations can see it - but when will we agree to look at our own reflection in the mirror or reflecting pool and see what it is we've become?

Divided?  Our nation is subdivided. 

And if we don't find a consensus on a common set of values, our nation will crumble.  

Quibbles and Bits, Down the Slope and Up The Creek Edition

Straight to the snacks...

--> T-Rump is pretty much performing as expected.   By this, I mean that his propensity for executive orders, his hostility to the press, and his closing of executive power around a few confidants confirm that we did not elect a president in November 2016: we elected an authoritarian strongman.

--> T-Rump's cabinet choices (Tillerson, Devos, etc.), many of whom taken straight from the ranks of Corporate America and the Banks, define his stripe as a fascist in the classic, Mussolini-concocted definition of the term:  the merger of Corporate and State interests.   These selections show that he is just removing the middle man from the transaction - Big Oil now has a direct line into Foreign Affairs through Rex Tillerson, charter school management companies have a direct line into the White House through Betsy Devos, and so forth. 

--> We will never know for sure what would have happened if Clinton fulfilled her bank-appointed destiny and claimed the Oval Office, but we can be fairly sure of a couple of things.  For one, the TPP, with a few cosmetic touch-ups, would have been passed, and also, we would be in a full-on shooting war with Russia.   It might be plausible that Trump's business connections in Russia, and the inevitable corruption that goes with them, might just be what is preventing an all-out war with Putin - as ironic and twisted as that might sound. 

--> There are a few new-ish "third party" political organizations/donation bundlers appearing on the scene, such as Justice Democrats.   Debbie Lusignan from Sane Progressive has done some digging into these organizations, and surprise-surprise, the Democratic Establishment has their hands in those cookie jars.   Howard Dean gave a shout-out to Justice Democrats recently, and they are getting heavy promotion from The Young Turks and Secular Talk.   My advice is the same as Debbie's: don't donate to these organizations without doing your homework, and at that, only give directly to the candidates themselves. 

--> Finally, regarding Justice Democrats, et. al.   Their stated mission is to elicit a takeover of the Democratic Party by "Berniecrats" and other, more progressive elements, and to root out the corruption endemic within the Party.   I see this as a fool's errand due to what I think is a simple line of logic.  To start with, money is a form of power.  Big Money (Banks and Corporations) donate billions to the DNC, thus, they have the clout as to what and who get promoted.  Power does not concede without a demand, neither will it concede willingly.   As an example: look what happened after HRC's coronation at the DNC Convention, and at what the mainstream media didn't show: it tore the party apart (Check out the Youtube videos made immediately after the coronation.   Josh Fox did a 2-minute panorama of the arena and showed hundreds of empty seats, and noting the lack of enthusiasm.   Others showed the delegates walking out of the arena and going into the press tent.   Does any of this sound like a united party to you?). The HRC campaign responded by gambling that the Berniecrats had nothing of value to offer the campaign, that she and her people had this in the bag, that the Berniecrats had no place else to go, and as such would naturally fall in line behind her.   Plus, her opponent was Donald Trump!  The Benito Cheeto! How could she possibly lose?

Yeah. 

Not to mention, Kshama Sawant's recent statement on Democracy Now which an increasing number of progressives are subscribing to: that the Democratic Party is the place where progressive ideas go to die.   There is no real home for true progressive ideas and leaders in this country, save for the scattered third parties and political interest organizations.  

What is needed, as I see it:

1. Propose a meeting between the leaderships of the major progressive third-party organizations:  Socialist Alternative, The Green Party, Peace and Freedom, etc.    Without suggesting any kind of merger, find out which issues they can agree on and work together on.   This might even be applicable to particular candidates - cross-endorsements might be a way to create cohesion toward achieving specific goals;
2. Build from the ground up.  Kshama Sawant had the right idea, of running for and winning a local seat rather than national.   The state and local seats are where a party's (or political movement's) power base is located, and the more local seats, the more influence over a larger realm or area.   The Republican Party figured this out after Goldwater's disastrous 1964 campaign, and look where they area now;
3.  Think long term.   The things we progressives seek may not be achievable in our individual lifetimes.   But this isn't about my Generation X, or the Boomers.  This is about future generations - so they will have a world better than the one we lived in and created.   We owe them this.  
4.  #DemExit.   Forget the Democratic Party as an organization.   Support Democratic politicians only if their progressive words match with their progressive actions (sorry Cory Booker).   Contribute only to those politicians, not to the DNC, the DCCC, or any of their other alphabet soup money clatches.   
As always, more later. 

If The News Fits Print It

There is something Orwellian about the term "fake news".   The term, of course, implies judgment as to what constitutes "fake" and "real", and who makes that judgment - an ugly place for any society that calls itself a republic or a democracy of any kind.   Thomas Jefferson spoke of the critical role of education in a society where the people decide who represents them - and it speaks to the colossal failure of America's educational system that some people in high positions of power have determined that the American people no longer possess the critical thinking skills necessary to determine the difference between ice cream and BS.   Given, in the Wild Wild West of the Internet, anybody can post anything, and if it goes viral, it can shape a narrative - true or not.   This phenomenon is most acutely expressed on social networks like Facebook, who recently enlisted the help of the "fact filter" service Snopes in helping it determine what is real and what is not.  These issues have always been with us, ever since the advent of the printing press, and exploding exponentially with the advent of electronic media and the Internet.   But, why the interest in "fake news" now, at this point in the history of the American experiment?

Many of us who followed the 2016 Presidential Election, from the beginnings of the primaries through November 8th,  saw how the Democratic Primary was increasingly, and obviously, being slanted, gamed, and ultimately, rigged to favor Hillary Clinton.   We saw how Wall Street loved her, how many of the worst neocons loved her, and many mainstream Republicans (such as the Bushes) voiced open support for her, in chorus with the establishment of the Democratic Party.   She had the Mainstream Media (especially CNN and MSN-BS), as well as the other apparatuses of the political establishment, on her side.  She, in short, was virtually anointed the next President. 

But as we all know, things did not go according to the establishment script - a script written and drafted by the DNC and the Clintons, polished by the MSM and the donors, and executed by the candidate and her surrogates.  But one set of actors in the ensemble did not follow the script: the swing state voters in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere.   They defied the "directors" in this play - the donors and monetary backers of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.  While Hillary won the popular vote by almost three million, she did not win the swing states she needed to carry the Electoral College.    The swing state voters delivered what Michael Moore called the "biggest F$#% You" in history, to the political establishment and to its perceived representative, Hillary Clinton.   In any other election year, Trump and his ilk would have been destroyed in the polls, and it would not have taken a politician with the talents of Obama or Bill Clinton to do it. 

But this was not an ordinary election year - a fact painfully overlooked by the Democratic establishment, the DNC, and their purveyors of "big data" campaigning. 

What happened?  Why did the voters deviate from the script?

The writers of the script, and their supporters, realized that they lost control of the narrative surrounding their chosen candidate.   The Wikileaks dispatches, the exposed rigging of the 2016 Democratic Primary, and a host of other accusations - most of which the DNC was not able to control or manage adequately - were outside of the script and thus, outside of the control of the DNC.

So, how does the establishment try to regain control of the mechanisms that spin their narratives?

Enter "fake news" -  a combination of McCarthyite labeling of undesirable opinions and Orwellian gaslighting of those who don't conform.   A new-ish website, www.propornot.com, declares itself a "freindly neighborhood propaganda identification service" in the service of identifying those websites who publish what they deem to be "propaganda" favorable to the Kremlin.   I will agree that the sites they list can be of varying quality as far as the information they disseminate.  I find, however, that several questions are begged by the exercise of looking through the site:

1. Does the team at propornot have evidence that the purveyors of these sites take their orders from the Kremlin?
2. Who exactly runs propornot?  What are their credentials?

The first place I looked in trying to address these questions is the "about us" section of the website.   I find this section, however, wanting for specifics: it describes the site's proprietors as:

          "an independent team of concerned American citizens with a wide range of backgrounds and expertise, including professional experience in computer science, statistics, public policy, and national security affairs."

Note the lack of specifics as to exactly who and what.

It's mission is described as:

          "We formed PropOrNot as an effort to prevent propaganda from distorting U.S. political and policy discussions. We hope to strengthen our cultural immune systems against hostile influence and improve public discourse generally. However, our immediate aim at this point is to empower the American voter and decrease the ability of Russia to influence the ensuing American election."

Again, who is "we"?  Where are they getting the information that somehow, Russia is hacking our elections and influencing the discourse?    The CIA seems certain, but is not revealing how or who - we are just expected to "trust them" (as if they never had any reason to lie.).  But the Russians themselves, as well as Julian Assange, assert that the source of the Wikileaks dispatches was not Russian hacking, but a leak from the DNC - also quite plausible considering the state of the Clinton campaign.

In short - who do you believe?

Much more on this later.