HomeUncategorized9/11 News Roundup & Open Thread

Leave a Reply

Photo and Image Files
Audio and Video Files
Other File Types
40 Comment threads
63 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
wi61WindDancer13Tyrannocasterevepolarbear4 Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Hi Birdies,

Unless someone else wants to do it, I would like to start the debate thread tomorrow night. Probably won’t get it posted though until 6 CT. Debate is at 7 CT.


Sounds great to me!


Sounds good. I will be checking in as I have a football game I’ll be following around 8ish. 🙂


Being a football fan I’ll “flip” during the craprate media breaks to the game. But will be here for the duration. Saw an article that’s speculating that the debate will be Biden v Warren but are really want Bernie V Warren.


Yay!! Yes please, you’re the best at it as far as I’m concerned. And I begin a Spanish class tomorrow evening after work so won’t get home until 7:30 EST. Thank you!


fun!!!! always wanted to. you inspire.


Another favorable Bernie piece in The NY Times, which lately has been better to Bernie than WaPo. In fact, Warren has the most to complain about them this week with the article they published about her fundraising from wealthy donors before announcing her presidential run.

How unions cannot back him is beyond me.


You may have missed it, but late last month, Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign released the senator’s proposal for revitalizing the American labor movement. If passed into law, his Workplace Democracy Plan would end “at will” employment (employers could no longer dismiss employees for any reason without warning), institute industrywide “sectional” bargaining (versus organizing at individual companies) and curtail “right to work” laws.

Those measures alone would give unions a little room to breathe in an otherwise anti-labor atmosphere. More than half of Americans have a favorable view of unions, but in 2018 only 10.5 percent of workers were unionized. And nearly three years into his presidency, Donald Trump has been unabashedly hostile toward labor, even after selling himself as a tribune of the “forgotten man.”

But the most important parts of Sanders’s plan have to do with striking and other powerful levers. He would give federal employees the right to strike and ban the permanent replacement of any striking workers. He would also end the prohibition on secondary boycotts, which keeps workers from pressuring “neutral” employers — like suppliers and other service providers — in the course of an action against their “primary” employer. This prohibition closes an important avenue for collaboration among workers. Lifting the restriction would open new paths for collective action.


But then there’s this article which acts like there will be nobody else on the debate stage other than these two. Not one mention of Bernie (or any other debater). Could be a good thing because all the pressure will be on Biden/Warren.


It’s a highly anticipated matchup between the early front-runner, Mr. Biden, and a liberal standard-bearer, Ms. Warren, who has steadily climbed in the polls to challenge him. Mr. Biden is eager to stress his experience. And his advisers and allies suggested in interviews that, whether obliquely or overtly, he is prepared to seize on one of Ms. Warren’s perceived strengths — her extensive and boldly progressive policy plans — and use that to accentuate his own record of liberal achievements despite the sometimes-challenging political realities in Washington.

“You have to have plans, but you have to be able to execute those plans,” he said at a fund-raiser last week in Manhattan, a message he is expected to reiterate.

Ms. Warren is unlikely to pursue the kind of personal, premeditated broadside that Senator Kamala Harris launched against Mr. Biden in the first debate. But she has emerged onstage as a skilled advocate for her message of “big, structural change,” and showed that she is capable of crisply defending her far-reaching proposals.


Oops missed this one above. I wish we were given more than a limited time to edit. Also to correct spelling grammar etc. mistakes


Do not give the NYT too much credit. It is an opinion piece and so not of their doing. Yes, they printed it, but they have to throw bread crumbs to progressives once in awhile so they can look to be fair and balanced.


Lots of polls out on debate eve. Highlights here are Bernie’s popularity overall and with independents and Trump’s massive problems now that he is not going against unpopular Clinton.


Current standings are similar among registered voters. Biden and Sanders lead Trump by 15 and 9 points, respectively, compared with +10 for Biden and essentially a dead heat for Sanders in July. Warren and Harris have slight 7-point leads among registered voters, improved from even splits two months ago. Buttigieg’s +4 is not statistically significant.

Democratic front-runner Biden leads Trump among independents, often swing voters, by 17 points, 52%-35% – almost entirely because of a wide Biden lead, 63%-26%, among independent women, vs. 45%-43% among independent men. Sanders performs as well among independents, +18 points, with a smaller gender gap. Independents are +12 points for Harris, a slight +10 points for Warren and a non-significant +7 points for Buttigieg.

Biden and Sanders also are aided by comparative personal popularity; a 53%-37% favorable-unfavorable rating for Biden (+16 points) and 51%-39% for Sanders (+12). Trump, by contrast, is 17 points under water, 40%-57%, about the same as when he took office.

The favorable-unfavorable ratio is weaker for the other Democratic contenders tested, who also are less well known. Positive views barely outpace negative ones for Warren, 44%-38%, with 18% having no opinion. It’s an essentially even 38%-35% for Harris (a quarter hold no opinion of her) and 34%-28% for Buttigieg, with about four in 10 expressing no opinion.

Notably, four years ago Hillary Clinton was in a weaker position in terms of favorability than any of these Democrats. Her favorability rating was 8 points under water, 45%-53%, at this time in 2015.


But this one (of Dems and Dem Indies) claims that Warren is the most favorable


On favorability, Warren, D-Mass., led the pack with 75 percent of likely Democrat and Democratic-leaning independent voters saying they had a favorable impression of her. Former Vice President Joe Biden trailed close behind her with 71 percent favorability, followed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., with 66 percent. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., had 56 percent favorability, while Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Mayor Pete Buttegieg, both had 52 percent.


i have a terrible sinking feeling about her that i’m trying to ignore.


Don’t. Her 2-face will become more and more apparent. And…we still don’t go to the polls for several months.


Since last poll Biden down 1, Bernie up 2, and Warren up 1 ( no real change. This is one of those polls that use a preselected panel that remains the same, so who knows how they were chosen and whether tat ideology stuff is remotely true.


Currently, Biden leads the field, as he has in all three USC/L.A. Times polls this year. He has the backing of 28% of Democratic voters, the poll indicates. Sanders, with 13%, and Warren, with 11%, come next.

Democratic voters overall view California Sen. Harris as nearest to their own position ideologically, the poll found, but she has returned to single digits, at 8%. The poll showed Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., at 4%, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas at 3%, and both Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and New York entrepreneur Andrew Yang at 2%. No other candidates get more than 1%.

To measure ideology, the poll asked respondents to rate themselves, Trump and the top Democratic candidates on a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 as the most liberal and 100 the most conservative.

On average, those who said they expected to vote in a Democratic primary rated themselves as somewhat left of center, at 40. They rated Biden a bit to their right, at 46, and Warren roughly the same distance to their left, at 34. Sanders was rated at 28 — the farthest to the left of the four candidates tested — and Harris was at 37.

Regardless of which candidate they supported, Democrats perceived Sanders as being to their left. Backers of Biden and Harris, as well as undecided voters, all saw Sanders as the candidate farthest from their own ideology.


Two Texas polls with very similar results, but not so great for Bernie.

In the first poll, Biden is +3, Warren +4, Beto -1, and Bernie unchanged


Former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke has slipped to third place among Democratic voters in his home state’s presidential primary, behind former Vice President Joe Biden and U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, according to the latest University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll.

On the eve of the third round of presidential debates to be held on Thursday in Houston, Biden had the support of 26% of voters, followed by Warren at 18%, O’Rourke at 14% and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont at 12%. In the June 2019 UT/TT Poll, Biden had 23%, O’Rourke had 15%, Warren was at 14% and Sanders had 12%.

In this poll Biden is -2, Warren is +7, Bernie is -3, and Beto is -4


One day before the next Democratic debate is held in Houston, former Vice President Joe Biden tops the field in the Texas Democratic primary with 28 percent of Democratic voters and independent voters who lean Democratic. Sen. Elizabeth Warren follows with 18 percent, while both Sen. Bernie Sanders and former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke are at 12 percent. This compares to an early June Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea-ack) University Poll, in which Biden had 30 percent, O’Rourke had 16 percent, Sanders had 15 percent, and Warren had 11 percent



Biden 22/Bernie 16/Warren 11


The Sept. 9-10 poll found that 11% of Democrats and independents said they would vote for Warren in their state’s nominating contests, up 3 percentage points from a similar poll that ran Aug. 1 to 5.

Twenty-two percent said they backed Biden, the former vice president who has been the Democratic front-runner since he entered the race this year, and 16% said they would vote for Sanders, a U.S. senator.

Biden’s support was unchanged from the previous Reuters/Ipsos poll, while Sanders dropped 2 percentage points.



A survey released this week by the Commonwealth Fund found that, faced with soaring costs under the for-profit status quo, 58 percent of U.S. small business owners support replacing America’s dysfunctional healthcare system with Medicare for All.

Progressives celebrated the finding as evidence that a key argument in favor of Medicare for All—that the plan would reduce costs for small employers as well as millions of workers—is resonating.

As the Commonwealth Fund pointed out in an overview of its survey, small businesses lack the advantages of large corporations when it comes to negotiating with the private insurance industry.

“Small-business owners are often left with little recourse and few options when a health insurance carrier hikes costs,” the organization noted.

According to the new poll, 61 percent of small business owners believe the pharmaceutical industry is “very responsible” for soaring healthcare costs, and 60 percent feel the same about the insurance industry.




This pairing came about more naturally than it might look. In 2016, Cardi encouraged fans to “vote for Daddy Bernie”; she and Sanders have spent the last few years complimenting each other online. She is young enough to fit into Sanders’s base, and in many ways their brands align: Both appeal to their audiences by speaking with a certain blunt authenticity. That quality is clearly refreshing for younger audiences.

It’s also, of course, the premise of Sanders’s campaigns for the presidency — that it’s possible, even necessary, to circumvent the usual routes to power by connecting with new masses of voters, and transforming a party in the bargain. And if that’s the goal, why not approach a sit-down with Cardi B with approximately the same aims as an appearance on “Meet the Press”? There’s celebrity cheerleading, troop-rallying and youth-pandering, and then there’s using the tools available to speak to audiences often deemed too unreliable to depend on for votes. The limits of that second approach are an open question, but the world, and the internet, offer more and more opportunities for trying it out: countless figures, from the mainstream to online niches, with immense followings to address.



Krystal Ball and Sagaar Enjeti on Hill.TV Rising
discuss Warren’s outreach to Hillary

if this was posted already -sorry
It’s critical enough to make sure people have a chance to see this proof of what some of us have been worried about.



My personal experience is that conservatives are far more open to leftwing arguments when they come from people who are honest about their politics, and don’t pretend not to have a point of view. I run a small magazine called Current Affairs, which operates from an unabashedly leftwing perspective. The letters we get from conservative readers indicate that many of them find the honesty refreshing, and it makes them more likely to hear us out.

One reason conservatives hate the “mainstream media” is that it pretends to be something it isn’t. Conservatives think the press has a “liberal” bias; I tend to agree with Herman and Chomsky that it would be better described as a “corporate” bias reflecting the elitist centrism that has come to dominate the Democratic party. But few at MSNBC or CNN would admit that they’re partisan networks.

That’s what they do in Great Britain, though – the major newspapers are open about having a political leaning. The Guardian, for example, is an explicitly left-leaning paper and everybody knows it. By contrast, the New York Times is clearly inclined toward Democratic centrism, but it won’t admit it. The editor of the op-ed page says that they strive for “viewpoint diversity”, but it’s clear that he doesn’t mean it. After all, they don’t have columnists from the far right, and they don’t have Marxist columnists. At least Fox News has been honest enough drop its old “Fair and Balanced” motto. If your paper is liberal, just embrace it – and then you can fire “viewpoint diversity” conservatives like Bret Stephens.

Paradoxically, rebuilding trust requires embracing bias. Not embracing untruthfulness, but admitting your politics so that both writer and audience can be critical. I think the hope for media is in outlets like the Intercept, Jacobin and my own little magazine, because readers like transparency. (This is also one reason why people respect Bernie Sanders even when they disagree with him: they don’t think he’s trying to appear to be something he isn’t.) The salesman who tells you what he wants you to buy is more trustworthy than the one who insists he isn’t trying to sell you anything at all.


Your daily dose of Tervdom:


Awwwwww, precious!


🙂 Now, are those 2 your latest additions to your Tervuren (sp?) pack?


No, Coulaine is my current (and only, now that Jacquou is gone) Terv. Strider belongs to a friend of ours. The first time I saw a Tervuren, I thought “Those dogs are made out of triangles”, LOL. But it’s true. You could draw a recognizable Terv using only triangles, especially their heads.

The puppies, like all puppies, are adorable, but Terv puppies are like carnivorous lambs! I will post another picture of Strider later; be ready for nuclear adorability.


I can totally see them drawn using triangles, lol. I love the body language on the two of them. I hope you get to see a lot of Strider (and take lots of pics), am such a sucker for dogs. Yours are particularly handsome.



Read an update that Nadler and his committee are quietly doing their homework in impeaching the orange imbecile. They are lining up witnesses, etc. The goal is to initiate the process by the beginning of next year. Pelosi and her cabal have backed off for now.



fun—krystal on Bernie winning in Texas.



I was, and still am, happy about this, but:

Uber claims new California law still won’t force it to classify drivers as employees

A top Uber (UBER) executive attempted to defuse concerns about a potential existential threat to its business shortly after lawmakers in California approved a new bill that will make it more difficult for employers in the state to classify workers as independent contractors.

Tony West, Uber’s chief legal officer, said Wednesday that the company believed a new test imposed by the bill, known as AB-5, would not require it to classify its fleet of drivers in the state as employees. The bill, which is expected to be signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in short order, would require a business like Uber to prove its contract workers are free from company control, perform work that is outside the usual course of business for the company and have independently established businesses providing similar work in order to be classified as such.

“We continue to believe drivers are properly classified as independent,” West said in a lengthy statement Wednesday. “And because we’ll continue to be responsive to what the vast majority of drivers tell us they want most — flexibility — drivers will not be automatically reclassified as employees, even after January of next year,” when the bill would take effect.

In a tweet about West’s statement, AB-5 bill author Lorena Gonzalez touted that the law has an enforcement mechanism to prevent companies from continuing to misclassify workers as independent contractors instead of employees.



LOL. Yesterday’s Emerson NH poll was completely different. This one has a much better result for Bernie to put it mildly. Actually this one seems more likely with results in line with other polls for Buttigieg, Gabbard, and Delaney.


Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) leads the Democratic presidential field among New Hampshire primary voters in a Franklin Pierce University-Boston Herald poll released Wednesday.

Sanders leads among likely Granite State primary voters with 29 percent, according to the survey, followed by former Vice President Joe Biden with 21 percent and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) with 17 percent.

The poll shows a wide gap between the three leading candidates and the rest of the field, with Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) in fourth place with 6 percent, followed by businessman Andrew Yang with 5 percent and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg with 4 percent.


More polls. In the CNN poll, Biden is down 5, Warren up 4, and Bernie up 2. In the Economist poll, Biden is the same, Warren up 4, and Bernie up 2. The Economist is a YouGuv online poll, which have been very favorable to Warren

The upshot of all these national polls recently is that Biden is falling, and the Bernie/Warren combined number is way ahead of Biden’s number.


Joe Biden leads the Democratic presidential primary but a tight race for second place has formed behind him as Sen. Elizabeth Warren leads Sen. Bernie Sanders by one point, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS.

The former vice president is at 24%, Warren at 18% and Sanders at 17% are once again the only candidates to reach double-digit support. Three other candidates have 5% or support or more in the poll: Sen. Kamala Harris (8%), South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (6%) and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (5%). The remaining candidates all score 2% or less in the poll.

In another of the frequent Economist poll, Biden is 26, Warren is 26, and Bernie is 16


And another. Yang rising I can see. Harris I’m dubious.


Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and former tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang have been climbing in the Democratic presidential race, while the three front-runners – former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) – have seen a slight dip though they remain ahead, according to a Hill-HarrisX poll released on Wednesday.

Top-tier candidates, including Biden, Sanders and Warren, all saw a slight dip. Biden slipped three percentage points to 27 percent, while Sanders dropped 2 points to 15 percent. Warren, meanwhile, dipped to 12 percent, which marked a 2-point decrease.



Sanders lost the Iowa caucus in 2016, to Hillary Clinton, by a few tenths of a per cent, despite carrying a seventy-point lead among young voters. Since then, as the Democratic field has expanded, he has maintained a significant fund-raising advantage among college students in the state. According to the campaign, Iowans under the age of twenty-five have donated more to Sanders than to Biden, Warren, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, and Andrew Yang combined. In August, a Change Research poll found Sanders holding a double-digit lead, at thirty-five per cent, among eighteen to thirty-four-year-olds in Iowa. At this point, the most pressing question for the Sanders camp is not whether students in the first nominating state will caucus for a dishevelled, hectoring septuagenarian over his younger opponents but whether enough students will caucus at all. In the last primary election, the turnout of Iowan Democrats older than sixty-five was more than five times that of voters younger than twenty-four.

This year, Sanders’s campaign has launched a Web-based boot camp to equip students at universities and community colleges across the country with staff-level resources and organizing skills. The program, known as Bernie Sanders Summer School, combines homework assignments with a series of hour-long webinar classes, which participants must complete before their induction into the official organizing effort. Students record their progress in a mobile app called Bern and, upon completing the curriculum, receive a swag pack filled with Sanders paraphernalia. “I don’t think it was a very difficult course at all,” Derian Lance, a sophomore at the University of Iowa, told me, adding that he had enrolled to “brush up” on his organizing skills. At each campus on the tailgate tour, Sanders praised students for representing the most progressive generation, but he also reminded them that ideology didn’t matter unless they actually turned out on caucus night—and convinced their friends to join them. “Young people do not in any way vote in the numbers that they should be voting,” Sanders told a few hundred people at Iowa State University, who had gathered on the dirt floor of an agricultural building on campus. “If your generation voted at the same percentage as people over sixty-five, we could transform this country.”

The strength of Sanders’s appeal, more than a few students told me, is that he addresses young crowds not as children or underlings but as co-organizers in a communal process. “Bernie’s the only candidate who has shown that he’s building a political organization that doesn’t stop the first day he’d be in the White House,” Cade Olmstead, who introduced Sanders at U.N.I., told me. “And he’s said this himself—he’ll be not just commander-in-chief but organizer-in-chief.” That may be why Sanders has maintained a dominant hold on young voters, even as other, younger candidates have adopted equally progressive positions. “He doesn’t know what the fuck TikTok is,” a Sanders staffer told me, “but he sure knows the issues they’re facing.”


The other younger candidates have not adopted equally progressive positions.

They just slide that stuff right in there.




For orl especially:

Pramila Jayapal’s Vision of Power

Can the progressive congresswoman transform the left’s unruly energy into legislative victories?

“unruly”? What they talkin’ ’bout?! haha
Yes, we are not as compliant as some others perhaps.

In July, in the midst of messy negotiations to send billions in emergency funding to the border, a fight over the future of the Democratic Party bubbled into view. For months, Democrats had been demanding more robust protections for the children in overcrowded detention centers, but, cornered by moderate Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suddenly backed down. Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, including the four freshman congresswomen who make up the Squad, were outraged. Mark Pocan called moderates the “Child Abuse Caucus,” and House leadership fired back, tweeting an insult at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff.

By the following week, the fight had largely subsided. Behind the scenes, Pramila Jayapal of Washington state, who, along with Pocan, chairs the Progressive Caucus, had reached out to Ocasio-Cortez and House Democratic Caucus chair Hakeem Jeffries. The tweets were deleted, and an uneasy truce was called.

Jayapal often works to balance the needs and demands of House leadership with those of her own caucus. Unlike some members of the CPC, Jayapal doesn’t want to dismantle the system; she wants to reconstruct it to work for the people left out of the political process. That transformation might require compromise; it might not. She spends her time figuring out when to fight and when to hold her fire.

She didn’t put it to me this way, however, when we spoke in July. Instead, she talked about “power maps,” a term she learned from her years as an activist. “I’m very methodical about what I take on and what I do,” she told me. “I work really hard at a strategy.” Determining where power is, how to build it, and how to spread it around has been the work of her life.

“For me, it’s always trying to think down the road a little bit,” she told me. “What am I going to get out of this? What is the endgame here?” To begin, she engineered a way to put such rising stars as California’s Katie Porter on key committees. “Political power is built,” Jayapal said. “It’s built through discipline and procedures, but it’s also built through structures.” She has raised the dues members pay to belong in the caucus, added staff, and built a stronger whip operation to better inform her members, forcing them to act as one. (The whip operation, she acknowledged, still isn’t operating as it should.)

“When I came in here, I was kind of stunned at the lack of institutionalized support for progressive ideas and policies,” she said

she still believes “you really need to organize on the inside as well as the outside.”



I like her MFA bill better than Bernie’s. She is very smart, pragmatic and patient. It would not surprise me if she is the Speaker one day.


Wanted to share this story. They sound really cool, and I love the way they identify as “two-spirit”.

Indigenous, 2-spirit couple from Alberta wins The Amazing Race Canada

Anthony Johnson and James Makokis hoped being the first Indigenous, two-spirit couple to compete on The Amazing Race Canada would give them a national platform to highlight issues close to their hearts.

Over weeks of intense challenges that saw them crisscross the country, the pair donned outfits meant to call attention to specific topics: handmade red skirts and a bandana for missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, blue shirts emblazoned with “Water Is Life” to show the cultural and ceremonial importance of water.

Now that they’ve been crowned the winners, the married couple — who identify as two-spirit, a term used by some Indigenous people to describe their gender, sexual and spiritual identity — said they want to use their fame to continue fundraising for a cultural healing centre in Alberta’s Kehewin Cree Nation.

Makokis, a family physician originally from the Saddle Lake Cree Nation in Alberta, and Johnson, a project consultant born in Arizona’s Navajo Nation, said it was important for them to use the spotlight to raise awareness.

“Representing missing and murdered Indigenous women was important because it happens; it happens, and people don’t talk about it,” Johnson said.

Many Indigenous communities were matriarchal before colonization and the couple felt it was important to show support for the women leaders in their community, Makokis added.

They also wanted to show two-spirit and transgender youth “that it’s OK to be different,” he said.

“If there’s two guys wearing a dress, they want to express their identity differently than the norm, then why does that matter? How is it hurting somebody else?” Makokis said.

The couple has faced some criticism for their advocacy on the show, however, with some accusing them of making the program too political.

The fact is, who they are is political by nature, Johnson said. “By being a queer person, by being a person of colour, by being an American-Canadian couple ….”

“By being Indigenous born with an Indian status number,” Makokis added.

“By default your existence is political and so we’re not doing anything different than what we do in our lives on a daily basis,” Johnson continued.

“So any naysayers, I’m happy, because that means they’re being educated, that means they’re being exposed, that means they’re listening to something that we have to say and whether or not they agree with it is not my concern.”



Makokis, left, and Johnson explain the meaning behind each of the clothing items on the mannequins, which they wore on Amazing Race Canada.
(Craig Ryan/CBC)

two spirts.jpg

I made a little remembrance thread for 9/11. I focused on the need to end the ‘never-ending’ wars. Feel free post anything you like on it. But anything peace related is especially A-OK with me!




On the eve of the debate, Biden supporter Rendell amplifies his attack on “hypocritical” Warren’s fundraising in WaPo. Of course, he can’t attack Bernie in the same way. Get out the popcorn Bernie fans for this one


I like Elizabeth Warren. I like her a lot. Too bad she’s a hypocrite.

Are there some people who give or raise money in presidential campaigns with ulterior motives? Sure, but I’m confident that the crowd at the Biden fundraiser gave money to him for the same reason I did. We believe that he will be the best person to lead the country, to restore the United States’ moral leadership in the world, to get things done in Washington, to create opportunity for all Americans and to protect the nation’s most vulnerable citizens.

Skip to toolbar