2016 | XLV-4

For Fairness, Balance and Accuracy in News Reporting

The two candidates running for the Democratic presi-dential nomination are trying to have it both ways: they want the support of the Barack Obama coalition that

got him elected to the presidency twice, but at the same time they are making the case that his policies have failed, and they know better how to fix them.

But the mainstream media have cast the latest Democratic debate as serving neither Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) nor Hillary Clinton, but instead bolstering the reputation of Presi-dent Obama. While many in the media claim that Mrs. Clinton has embraced President Obama’s legacy more than the socialist Sanders has, a closer examination of her words reveals implicit criticism of Obama’s policies and progress.

While Mrs. Clinton’s words at times did embrace and praise Obama’s policy, both she and Sanders are, in effect, treating Obama’s policies as failures. This is not because, as some argue, they would like to push the hope and change agenda on to greater victories. It is, instead, because there is no way of getting around the fact that Obama’s policies have largely been disastrous for this country.

“In ways sizable and subtle, Clinton sought on Thursday [February 11] to show she was the faithful heir of the President’s legacy, repeating his name more than 15 times throughout the debate,” reported Sam Frizell for Time magazine. Similarly, Politico’s Edward-Isaac Dovere noted that “On the debate stage Thursday, she [Mrs. Clinton] invoked Obama’s name 21 times along with phrases like ‘I fully endorse,’ ‘I am a staunch sup-porter,’ and ‘I think President Obama has set a great example.’”

Hillary Clinton must carefully weigh the benefits of appealing to Obama’s remaining base of support while not losing dissatisfied Democrat voters to Sanders. While Mrs. Clinton did, as these media organizations report, continuously appeal to the President’s popularity and policies, both candidates’ words, in reality, serve as an ongoing indictment of President Obama’s legacy.

“I know a lot of Americans are angry about the economy,” said Mrs. Clinton at the February 11 debate. “And for good cause. Americans haven’t had a raise in 15 years. There aren’t enough good-paying jobs, especially for young people. And yes, the

economy is rigged in favor of those at the top.”As we have reported, one of President Obama’s signature false-

hoods has been to argue that the economy is doing very well and has recovered. “Back in January, the labor force participation rate was the lowest since 1978,” we wrote. “It has since increased by a mere 0.2%.” Last year The Wall Street Journal called this recovery “the worst expansion since World War II.”

Sanders challenged the claims and accomplishments of the Obama administration in a series of questions he raised during the debate: “Who in America denies that we have an infrastruc-ture that is crumbling? Roads, bridges, water systems, wastewater plants, who denies that? Who denies that real unemployment today, including those who have given up looking for work and are working part-time, is close to 10 percent? Who denies that African-American youth unemployment, real, is over 50 percent?”

Charles Krauthammer described it this way: “Bernie Sanders is careful never to blame President Obama directly, but his de-scription of the America Obama leaves behind is devastating—a wasteland of stagnant wages, rising inequality, a sinking middle class, young people crushed by debt, the American Dream dying.”

Another part of Hillary’s plan, to show she is just as tough on Wall Street as Bernie, is to impose a four percent “wealth tax” on people making more than $5 million per year, which she says would raise $150 billion over 10 years. That’s $15 billion a year. This serves to highlight another aspect of the Obama presidency.

AIM in the News

page 2

Nearly 11,000 Sign Petition Demanding

MSNBC Suspend Chris Matthews for “Shilling for Hillary Clinton”

page 6

Fox News Grovels to

Bernie Sanders

page 5

continued on page 3

By Roger Aronoff

Democratic Candidates Embrace and Reject the Obama Legacy

2 June-B 2011

Editor’s Message

in the News

A twice-monthly newsletter published by Accuracy in Media, Inc.

Editor: Roger Aronoff

4350 East West Highway #555Bethesda, MD 20814202-364-4401 | www.aim.orgPlease remember AIM in your will.

Your LettersTo the Editor: Apparently, about half of the country is wise to how the Media (supposed to be the “cop on the beat”) is in the tank for the Left, while Fox News is almost completely in the tank for the Establishment Right. A fair and balanced press would have landed HRC in the Big House long ago. Sid

Please send Letters to the Editor to:Accuracy in MediaAttn: Letters to the Editor4350 East West Highway #555Bethesda, MD 20814or email to info@aim.org

Please keep your submissions to 50 wordsor less. Letters may be edited for length.

One of our favorite authors and journalists is Frank De Varona. A historian, journalist, and veteran of the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, De Varona has written 21 books. In the past, he has written extensively about the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi and AIM Editor Rog-er Aronoff.

Now he has written a near-ly 10,000 word article entitled, “Trump and his Advisors are Pro-Russia and Naïve about Putin.” It is largely based on the writing of AIM’s veteran journalist and Direc-tor of the AIM Center for Investi-gative Journalism, Cliff Kincaid. In fact, Kincaid’s name is men-tioned 45 times in the article.

Here’s one example: “Kincaid pointed out that those politicians who have endorsed Trump have an obligation to understand how Trump’s deference to Russian ag-gression in the Middle East will only increase the �ow of immigrants into Europe and the United States.”

De Varona’s website is Bear Witness Central. Check it out. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison after being captured during the Bay of Pigs invasion, but was re-leased after serving a couple years of that sentence, in the most cruel and inhumane conditions under Fidel Castro’s communist tyranny.

Dear Fellow Media Watchdogs: Super Tuesday is finally behind us, and we’re off to the races. While the picture appears to be coming into focus, looks can be deceiving. I believe there are many shoes to drop before we know the two major party candidates for the November presidential election. The obvious favorites at this point are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, but there are forces at work that could easily derail that scenario. The media are clearly pushing for a Hillary victory. You can see the signs

everywhere. Whether on the news shows, the late-night talk shows, the comedy shows—even the prime time network shows and the Academy Awards—we are being encouraged to join in the ridicule, laughter and contempt for the Republican candidates. If we’re “enlightened,” we join in a standing ovation for Joe Biden at the Academy Awards, and cheer our hipster President, Barack Obama. Even Hillary gets the “You’re so wonder-ful,” treatment from the late night and daytime talk show hosts. Donald Trump or Ted Cruz? When they are mentioned you hear terms like fascist, Klansman and Nazi, and plans to leave the country if they are elected, especially about Trump. Behind the scenes, there is serious drama in each case. The Republican establish-ment, in an effort at self-preservation, is considering all of the ways they can “Stop Trump.” There is the Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan plan. They want to somehow get past the first ballot at the Republican convention in Cleveland in July, and get to a brokered convention in which they can crown a “more acceptable” candidate. The concern among conservatives is that the GOP is in the midst of destroying its chances to win the White House in 2016. The vitriol among the leading candidates could be so toxic that there will little unity at the end of the day. Mitt Romney has made a blistering attack on Donald Trump, and appears to represent a large number of Republicans and conservatives who claim they will never support Trump, mean-ing, in effect, that they are willing to see a Hillary Clinton presidency before a Trump presidency. And while Romney claims he has no plans to try to get the nomination, he refuses to rule out accepting it if he is called upon at a brokered convention. If it turns out that Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio becomes the candidate, the con-cern is that Trump could become vindictive, and effectively take a torch to the GOP candidate, rather than get behind him in an effort to defeat Hillary. And lurking in the background is Governor John Kasich. Kasich has been a solid conservative, a fis-cal hawk, and an effective governor. But most conservatives find him insufficiently conservative. He plans to stay in until at least March 15, which is the Ohio primary. For the Democrats, Hillary is starting to appear inevitable. But don’t forget all those investigations. The media don’t want to seriously examine them, and the Obama administration doesn’t appear to be planning an indictment. And don’t forget Bernie.•

For Accuracy in Media Roger Aronoff

2016 | XLV-4

June-B 2011 3

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the so-called “democratic social-ist” running for president as a

Democrat, made a surprise appearance on “Fox News Sunday” with Chris Wal-lace. But there was no discussion of what

“democratic socialism” is or how it may differ from the socialism, say, of the old Soviet Union. It was a blown opportunity to educate the American people about the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the largest socialist organization in the United States and the principal U.S. af-filiate of the Socialist International. Wal-

lace also didn’t question Sanders about his volunteer work on a pro-Stalin Israeli kibbutz.

“For the first time since he announced his candidacy, Bernie Sanders will join Chris Wallace on ‘Fox News Sunday,’” Fox announced. But viewers were to be disappointed. Wallace went soft on the so-

While campaigning for the presidency in 2008, Obama said that President George W. Bush had added $4 trillion to the na-tional debt in 8 years, which Obama called “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic.” Since President Obama took office in 2009, the U.S. has added approximately $9 trillion to the debt. Irresponsible? Unpatriotic? In that context, the idea that $15 billion a year will do anything significant while the federal government is spending $4 trillion a year is absurd. It is just class warfare, to show that she is down with the people, just like Bernie.

And Mrs. Clinton can scarcely com-plain about Wall Street “wreck[ing]” Main Street. She has refused to release transcripts of her paid Goldman Sachs speeches, ac-cording to The Daily Caller.

“She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis,” writes Ben White for Politico. He cites a person fa-miliar with her 2013 speech as saying, “It’s so far from what she sounds like as a can-didate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”

Mrs. Clinton also defended her own Wall Street support by pointing to Obama’s big money from Wall Street when he ran in 2008.

One of the President’s biggest failures has been ObamaCare, which has resulted in higher premiums and less care overall. Sanders criticized the many failures of Obama’s signature achievement, decrying how, “Twenty-nine million people have no health insurance today in America.”

Six years after the passage of Obam-aCare, the media tout that just 29 mil-lion remain uninsured. But that’s about the same number as when ObamaCare became law.

“About 4 million new people signed up for ObamaCare this year, which could be a sign that uninsured number is coming down,” reported The Hill last week. “It remains to be seen, though, how many

of the 4 million were previously unin-sured.” In other words, enrollees may be simply part of a shell game switching the previously insured across different types of insurance.

In addition, how many people have lost their full-time jobs as a result of the per-verse ObamaCare incentives that result in employers hiring fewer full-time employ-ees, and limiting the hours of part-time workers?

“Millions of people have high deduct-

ibles and co-payments,” Sanders said at the debate.

According to The Heritage Founda-tion’s Daily Signal, “All states, with the exception of Mississippi, saw the cost of health insurance premiums increase for 2016” with most states seeing “premium costs rise by double digits.” Remember Obama’s promise that ObamaCare would reduce premiums for the average family by $2,500 per year?

Even the co-moderator of the debate, Judy Woodruff, implicitly lambasted President Obama’s record on race rela-tions. “Secretary Clinton, I was talking recently with a 23-year-old black woman who voted for President Obama because she said she thought relations between the races would get better under his leader-ship, and his example,” said Woodruff. “Hardly anyone believes that they have. Why do you think race relations would be better under a Clinton presidency?”

The implicit assertion is, of course, that race relations have deteriorated under the leadership of America’s first black presi-dent.

Mrs. Clinton also proclaimed during the debate the need to guarantee “that women’s work finally gets the pay, the

equal pay that we deserve.” Why hasn’t that happened after seven years of the Obama administration, including the first two years in which the Democrats had majorities in both houses of Congress to push through whatever they wanted, such as ObamaCare?

A Washington Free Beacon analysis con-ducted last February found that while Mrs. Clinton was a U.S. senator from New York, her female staffers were dispropor-tionately paid 72 cents on the dollar when compared to her male staffers.

Clinton must realize that her words marginalize President Obama’s first piece of signed legislation, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. This law was sup-posed to bolster pay equality by giving workers greater capability to challenge discriminatory pay practices. Arguing, seven years later, as Clinton does, that equal pay has a long way to go shines a light on President Obama’s efforts on this issue, and highlights her own hypocrisy.

What the debate demonstrated wasn’t, as the media have claimed, how Mrs. Clinton has married herself to President Obama’s policies. Instead, it has exposed Obama’s policies as abject failures that even Democratic candidates cannot de-fend.

At the same time, this debate was an-other clear example of how the media rarely ever put the Democrats on the de-fensive. Amazingly, not a single question was asked about any of the investigations looking into Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in Benghazi, into her handling of classified emails on her private server, or regard-ing the recently revealed subpoena issued by the State Department to the Clinton Foundation for possible conflicts of inter-est when Clinton was secretary of state. Some things never change.•

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Com-mission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at roger.aronoff@aim.org.

2016 | XLV-4continued on page 4

continued from page 1

Clinton must realize that her words marginalize President Obama’s first piece of signed legislation, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.

Fox News Grovels to Bernie SandersBy Cliff Kincaid

4 June-B 2011 2016 | XLV-4continued on page 5

continued from page 3

cialist because he wanted Sanders and Hillary Clinton to agree to debate on the Fox News Channel. Sanders did not commit. Sanders said, “…if I could have a guarantee and knew who the questioners were and if the framework for the debate was fair, I would have no objection.”

Wallace was more than “fair” in this interview, referring to Sanders only as “senator” and ignoring his commitment to so-called “democratic so-cialism,” whatever that may mean.

The assumption seems to be that “dem-ocratic socialism” has nothing to do with communism. But researcher Trevor Loud-on notes that the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is a Marxist organization that draws heavily from the ideas of the late Italian Communist Party theoretician Antonio Gramsci. DSA has wished Karl Marx a “Happy Birthday” and offers “In-troduction to Marxism” courses.

President Obama’s DSA support goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch for an Illinois state senate seat. A video shows Obama campaigning for Senator Sanders.

Sanders is a collaborator, if not a mem-ber, of the DSA. He has spoken to the group, and the DSA backs him for presi-dent. Yet, the group has advised its mem-bers, “No one should organize a fundraiser [for Sanders] as DSA. You should not have DSA literature. You should not introduce yourself as a DSAer if you give remarks. You should not use a DSA list to invite people.”

The cover-ups don’t end there.Sanders spent time on an Israeli kibbutz,

or commune. “Sanders and his campaign staff have repeatedly—and somewhat inex-plicably—declined to say which kibbutz” in Israel he volunteered on, The Washing-ton Post said.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz disclosed that the kibbutz was called Shaar Haa-makim. The Times of Israel followed up, noting that the commune belonged to an Israeli political party that had been a “communist, Soviet-affiliated faction” and that members “admired Joseph Stalin until his death” and celebrated May Day with “red flags.” Drawing upon these disclo-sures, Seth Lipsky wrote, “…for a man who wants to be the first Jewish presi-dent, Sanders certainly seems to be bent on avoiding the subject of the time he spent in Israel. Time for him to explain himself.”

Chris Wallace could have asked Sanders to explain himself. But that might have blown the chance to get Sanders and Hill-ary in a Fox News debate.

Wallace also did not ask Sanders about his atrocious handling of the Veterans Af-fairs (VA) scandal.

Another question that might be ap-propriate for Sanders is what he thinks about the more than 100 million people murdered by socialist governments.

We have previously noted that Sanders went on his honeymoon to the former USSR, supported the communist Sand-inista regime in Nicaragua, and was a col-laborator with the U.S. Peace Council—a Communist Party front—against the Reagan military build-up. Sanders also worked with the Venezuelan regime of Hugo Chavez to distribute Venezuelan oil in the U.S.

Alasdair Denvil of The Blaze asks, “Why Won’t the Media Ask Bernie Sand-ers About Venezuela?” He notes that the country has one of the worst economies on the planet. The inflation rate could hit 720 percent this year and the country could default on its debt.

Sanders has called for a tax on Wall Street, known as a financial transaction tax (FTT), to pay for the free college educa-tion he’s proposing for students. But such a tax would affect the more than 90 million Americans who invest in mutual funds.

Paul Schott Stevens, president and CEO of the Investment Company Insti-tute (ICI)—the national association of U.S. investment companies—says that an FTT would harm all investors, especially American workers saving for retirement.

Ironically, Sanders himself owns stocks and mutual funds, and a close analysis of his financial disclosure report and assets reveals that he is a millionaire.

Wallace, of “Fox News Sunday,” did question Sanders about the true cost of his “Medicare for All” single-payer health care plan. He noted that Kenneth E. Thorpe

of Emory University says the Sand-ers plan is underfinanced by nearly $1.1 trillion per year. Hillary Clinton had cited Thorpe’s study to attack Sanders’ proposal in the February 4 Democratic debate. Sanders told Wallace that he rejected Thorpe’s analysis.

When Wallace noted that “the problems with your plan are exactly the reason that your own state of

Vermont had to drop single payer,” Sand-ers had no specific response and attacked Thorpe again. But the liberal Boston Globe reported that the plan failed because it cost too much. The paper noted, “[Ver-mont] Governor Peter Shumlin released a financial report that showed the cost of the program would nearly double the size of the state’s budget in the first year alone and require large tax increases for residents and businesses. Shumlin, a Democrat and long-time single-payer advocate, said he would not seek funding for the law, ef-fectively tabling the program called Green Mountain Care.”

Wallace moved on to his plea for a Sanders-Clinton Fox News debate, say-ing, “Finally, sir, the Republicans have held debates on all the networks, but the Democrats, so far, have refused to hold a debate on Fox. You are coming on here to-night. We’re very grateful. I hope you feel that you haven’t been mistreated. Would you be willing to participate in a Demo-cratic debate on Fox News?”

That is really embarrassing. “I hope you feel that you haven’t been mistreated” is not the mark of a journalist willing to ask tough questions.

Sanders seemed pleased with his treat-ment, but said, “Well, I have seen this in-terview—Chris, I have seen this interview, but I have also seen other interviews.” This is when he added his qualifications: “So if I could have a guarantee and knew who the questioners were and if the framework for the debate was fair, I would have no objection.”

This is one “democratic socialist” who is clearly afraid of the truth coming out. Fox News should stop groveling, and start grilling the socialist.•

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org

June-B 2011 5

David Brooks, The New York Times’ resident “conservative,” has once again gone all out to

support President Obama, claiming that the misconduct of the current presidential campaigns has already made him “miss” the President’s “superior integrity” and poise. Brooks’ “strange sensation” that he is feeling seems reminiscent of the thrill up his leg for the President that MSNBC’s Chris Matthews once spoke of experienc-ing.

Brooks has been with the Times for over 12 years, and is also a political analyst for PBS. That would be more than enough left-wing influence to severely cloud any-one’s judgment, and clearly Brooks has not been immune.

The mainstream media refuse to throw away their rose-colored glasses when judg-ing Obama because the reality of this President’s corruption and dishonesty contradicts the liberal narrative. To the contrary, if Brooks were to be believed, President Obama has demonstrated “basic care and respect for the dignity of others,” sound decision-making, “grace under pres-sure,” and “optimism.” And yes, just like former senior Obama advisor David Axel-rod, Brooks argues that President Obama has been “remarkably scandal-free” when compared with prior presidencies.

The question of presidential legacy, however, revolves not around a president’s demeanor but rather his policy successes and failures, as well as his character. From the IRS scandal, to Fast & Furious, to Benghazi, and the mistreatment of veter-ans, there have, in reality, been a multi-tude of scandals under President Obama’s leadership. These scandals, and the en-suing cover-ups, have stained Obama’s reputation less publicly than in previous administrations not because of their mi-nor importance, but rather because a cor-rupt media is willing to overlook massive amounts of evidence of malfeasance to benefit their allies in the Democratic Party.

“Perhaps, for the Obama administra-tion, it’s proven easier to deny the media’s access to information that might reveal further scandals than to admit the truth about its own deep-seated corruption,” we wrote in 2015, when Brooks made a similar outrageous claim. The mainstream media continue to be more than content to

leave stones unturned when-ever it becomes clear that new evidence might harm Obama.

“If the Obama Administra-tion is willfully giving guns to Mexican drug gangs, al-lows veterans to die waiting for health care, makes a con-certed effort to stifle free speech while refusing to help the four Americans under assault from terrorists doesn’t merit the word scandal in David Brooks’ book then he demonstrates no capacity for reason,” argues Aaron Goldstein for The American Spectator, who also took note of this latest Brooks column.

During his ongoing war against jour-nalists, President Obama has abused the Espionage Act while investigating admin-istration leaks. “This is the most closed, control-freak administration I’ve ever cov-ered,” argued David Sanger of the Times. Maybe Brooks should consult with Sanger, or another Times colleague, James Risen, who said that the Obama administration has been “the greatest enemy of press free-dom that we have encountered in at least a generation.”

But for Brooks there can only be kind, wistful words about the end of an Obama presidency. “No, Obama has not been temperamentally perfect,” Brooks writes. “Too often he’s been disdainful, aloof, resentful and insular. But there is a tone of ugliness creeping across the world, as democracies retreat, as tribalism mounts, as suspiciousness and authoritarianism take center stage.”

By ugliness, Brooks obviously meant to snipe at Republican presidential can-didates such as Donald Trump or Senator Ted Cruz (TX). In contrast to Trump, Brooks argues, President Obama combat-ted Islamophobia by making a “wonderful speech” at the Islamic Society of Baltimore.

“President Obama, meanwhile, went to a mosque, looked into people’s eyes and gave a wonderful speech reasserting their [Muslim’s] place as Americans,” writes Brooks.

Brooks writes opinion pieces, and he’s certainly entitled to his opinions, but he clearly didn’t do any background research on the mosque that Obama visited, nor the speech itself. “[Islamic Society of Bal-timore] leaders have amassed a record of support for radical Islamic causes over the

years, including endorsing the Chechen jihad and Palestinian suicide bombings,” reports the Investigative Project on Terror-ism (IPT). “Its former imam was active in a charity later linked to terror financing including Hamas, the Taliban, and for providing ‘hundreds of thousands of dol-lars’ to Osama bin Laden.”

Daniel Pipes, writing for IPT, accuses President Obama of excess optimism when it comes to Islamic terror. “…but what about the dark side, the unique and repeat-ed role of mosques in parlaying totalitarian ideas and fomenting violence?” Pipes asks. “That goes unsaid in the president’s rose-colored presentation.”

In another interpretation of Obama’s mosque speech, Dennis Prager points to how the President championed the fact that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams each owned a copy of the Koran. What the President failed to mention, Prager points out, was that these founders owned Korans in order to understand why Muslims were using their religion to justify enslaving Americans.

Clare Lopez pointed out numerous fac-tual errors in Obama’s comments at the mosque, including the meaning of the word “Islam.”

In one instance, Brooks seeks to favor-ably compare Obama to Mrs. Clinton, alluding to her email scandal as a “vaguely shady shortcut” rather than the serious scandal with criminal implications at its heart.

Recent news reports, including from the Times, confirm that Mrs. Clinton sent or received over 1,300 emails containing classified information using her private server. One cannot also overlook that Mrs. Clinton was serving in the Obama administration at the time. EmailGate is, therefore, also an Obama scandal. Ac-cording to the Times, there are “18 emails exchanged between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama” that the administra-tion is refusing to make public.

For Brooks, Obama’s only missteps in

continued from page 4

2016 | XLV-4continued on page 6

The Times’ David Brooks Misses Obama—and a Few FactsBy Roger Aronoff

6 June-B 2011

terms of foreign policy have been because he has been “too cautious.” But according to another of Brooks’ colleagues at the times, Roger Cohen, Obama’s “caution” has been instrumental in a Syrian civil war that has resulted in 250,000 deaths, 4.5 million refugees, and 6.5 million people internally displaced. Speaking of Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, currently under siege by the Assad government, Cohen writes that the situation “is a result of the feck-lessness and purposelessness over almost

five years of the Obama administration.” A Washington Post editorial, entitled

“Mr. Obama stands by silently as Russia continues its onslaught in Syria,” argues that “the United States has paved the way for the ongoing military debacle.”

Obama has thrown caution to the wind with yet another debacle—the phony nu-clear deal—one which will empower Iran to gain the bomb while ensuring that this totalitarian regime receives enough fund-ing to continue to spread terror abroad.

Yet MSNBC’s Steve Benen, while reflect-ing on Brooks’ “compelling case,” argues that “quite a few folks are likely to miss the president once he’s left the stage, for more reasons than one.”

The mainstream media continue to de-lude themselves into thinking that Presi-dent Obama’s legacy will inspire admira-tion from both sides of the aisle once he leaves office. If enough journalists remain as detached from reality as Brooks, they might be proven right.•

MSNBC’s Hardball host Chris Matthews has never hidden the fact that he’s all in for Hill-

ary Clinton. But now his unwavering sup-port for the former secretary of state has enraged the far left enough for them to start a petition demanding that MSNBC suspend the anchor for “his constant shil-ling” for her.

The petition, started by the far-left MoveOn.org, wants Matthews removed from the air for the duration of the 2016 presidential campaign or be required to give its favored candidate Bernie Sanders equal time:

“MSNBC should suspend Chris Mat-thews, host of Hardball, because of his constant shilling for Hillary Clinton. In every episode of Hardball, in every ‘exclu-sive’ interview with Clinton, he gives her endless time to make her case, repeats her talking points, gives her softball questions, denigrates Bernie Sanders and his people powered movement and reinforces the narrative that she will be the Democratic nominee. Matthews should be removed from the air for the duration of the cam-paign or he should be required to give Bernie equal time.”

Matthews has bent over backwards for Clinton during the campaign, asking her softball questions, as the petition states, and largely avoiding talking about her scandals unless it was to excoriate conser-vatives and Republicans for having the gall to pursue the truth about them.

MSNBC hasn’t commented on the peti-tion and is unlikely to—given Matthews star status at the network—plus the fact that they have given him tacit approval to support Hillary by not reining him in earlier.•

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasser-man Schultz, who is under fire

for her ineffective leadership of the party, struggled to explain why the party’s presi-dential nominating process isn’t rigged against the insurgent campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

Wasserman Schultz appeared on CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper, and was asked to explain how Hillary Clinton, who lost to Sanders in New Hampshire by 22 points, could receive as many delegates as the winner:

Tapper: Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire by 22 percent-age points, the biggest victory in a contested Democratic primary there since John F. Kennedy. But it looks as though Clinton and Sanders are leaving the Granite State with the same number of delegates in their pockets because Clinton has the support of New Hampshire’s superdelegates, these party insiders.

What do you tell voters who are new to the process, who says this makes them feel like it’s all rigged?”

Wasserman Schultz: Well, let me just make sure that I can clarify exactly what was available during the primaries in Iowa and in New Hampshire. The unpledged del-egates are a separate category. The only thing available on the ballot in a primary and a caucus is the pledged delegates. Those that are tied to the candidates that they are pledged to support and they receive a proportional number of delegates going into, going into our convention.

Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists. We as a Democratic Party really highlight and emphasize inclusiveness and diversity at our convention and so we want to give every opportunity to grass roots activists and di-verse, committed Democrats to be able to participate, attend, and be a delegate at the convention.

Tapper: I’m not sure that that answer would satisfy an anxious young voter.

The Associated Press calculates that Clinton currently has 361 superdele-gates—elected Democrats and other party pooh-bahs committed to her as of Jan. 30—and Sanders has eight. There are 712 superdelegates in total, but unless Sanders wins the remaining primaries by a substan-tial margin—which isn’t very likely—they will undoubtedly play a crucial role in giving the nomination to Clinton, even if Democratic voters felt otherwise.•

What You Can DoPlease send the enclosed postcards to:• Chris Matthews of MSNBC for his

comments upon the death of Scalia; • Fareed Zakaria of CNN for his com-

ments suggesting racism toward Obama; • Jake Tapper of CNN for attempting

to improve journalistic standards.

2016 | XLV-4

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Struggles to Explain Why Nominating Process Isn’t Rigged Against Sanders

continued from page 5

Nearly 11,000 Sign Petition Demanding

MSNBC Suspend Chris Matthews for “Shilling for

Hillary Clinton”

By Don Irvine

By Don Irvine