PredictWise stubbornly continues to hold Bernie Sanders with just enough regard to mandate his inclusion in our phony survey. (Gary Johnson still missing, though.)
And Hillary has surged to a lead over Donald Trump. How exciting!
|Query String||Hit Count||Change Since
|"Hillary Clinton" phony||621,000||+96,000|
|"Donald Trump" phony||584,000||-45,000|
|"Bernie Sanders" phony||442,000||-40,000|
Our Googling often takes us into LeftWorld, where Deep Thinkers
(in this case, someone named Alexander Reed Kelly) posit questions
Elizabeth Warren a Phony Progressive for Failing to Endorse Bernie
Now, if you're like me, you could have answered that question after its first five words.
Is Elizabeth Warren a phony?
Could you expand on that?
Um,… OK. Hell, yes.
But as it turns out, Alexander Reed Kelly doesn't seem to have any thoughts of his own on the issue. Instead he quotes another Deep Thinker, Cenk Uygur, who makes the Really Important Distinction:
I believe that she genuinely thought that the best way to keep progressive ideals alive was to make sure there was a voice for progressives in the very likely event that Hillary Clinton won. That is a calculation that she made. Now, you could say hey, I’m being overly generous to her or I’m being naive about it, and that is possible, but that’s my sincere belief.
Uygur knows that failing to endorse Bernie is a big red X on the 2016 American Progressive Purity Test, so how can we get Fauxcahontas at least partial credit? By imagining (without evidence) the Senator's inner motivations as those of "practical calculation" instead of those of (Kelly's words) "a self-interested traitor".
In related YouTubeness, it's lefty talking to lefty about how
corruptible Hillary is:
In Trump news, pundits fell all over themselves to (a) be outraged
about Trump's claims about the Hispanic ethnicity of the judge
overseeing the Trump University case while (b) maintaining
that Sonia Sotomayor's 2001
on the same theme ("Whether born from experience or inherent
physiological [!] or cultural differences, our gender and national origins
may and will make a difference in our judging.") are perfectly
[My view, in case you were wondering: both reprehensible.]
Your tweet of the week:
Hillary Clinton wore a $12,495 Armani jacket during a speech about inequality https://t.co/nVuydc7EDo— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) June 7, 2016
And your bonus
tweet of the week is one of my own. (Default embedding of
a GoComics cartoon, you may need to click for the whole thing.)