Brexit Redux

Dem elites and Clinton shills are already taking aim at Sanders people or Greens, blaming Trump's victory on them.

As usual with the elites and their functionaries, they miss the truth.

This is Brexit Redux:

It's not a "stunning upset," as NYT says. It's elites' continued failure to understand the trauma people experienced during and after 2008.

— Nicole Gelinas (@nicolegelinas) November 9, 2016

And just so we can get the "The Greens did this!" bullshit out of the way:

Take Jill Stein out of the equation, Trump still wins. Hillary get's MI and WI, but not PA, FL, OH. Anyone telling you others is uninformed pic.twitter.com/Xj1jY9tXX5

— Benjamin Dixon (@TheBpDShow) November 9, 2016

And anyone saying Gary Johnson voters would have ever voted for Clinton has never met libertarians. Run from their commentary. Run quickly

— Benjamin Dixon (@TheBpDShow) November 9, 2016

Clinton shills did a lot of mocking this year, first the Sanders people during the primary, then the Trump supporters during the general.

One thing Clinton and her shills never did - try and understand the real pain and terror many in this country feel over their economic futures.

A lot of those people sent a big "Fuck You!" to the elites last night, though I think that will come back to bite them in the end.

A Republican president with a Republican Senate and a Republican House is going to do a lot of damage in the short term.

Add in all the crazies Trump is sure to bring along - Rudy, Christie, maybe Palin - and it's even worse.

As for the Supreme Court, that strategy Obama pursued doesn't look so hot now either - the chance to transform the Supreme Court is now lost to Dems.

Remember that union case that ended up 4-4 after Scalia died?

You can bet another case like that one is going to rear sooner rather than later and those automatic dues the union elites lap up will go out the window with Clinton's electoral map to victory.

It's going to be a very tough few years.

The "Fuck you!" sent last night, as with the one the British sent with Brexit, is going to be a costly one in the end.

But I blame Dem elites for this mess - this loss is squarely on HRC and her neoliberal cohorts.

This ought to be a wake-up call to Dem elites that neoliberalism must go and the party needs to embrace a true populist agenda.

But I'm under no illusions that Dem elites will learn the correct lessons from this.

They'll continue with the elite circle jerk and furiously blame "Bernie Bros" or Greens or "deplorables" instead of looking into the mirror and saying "Why have we embraced neo-liberalism, bringing about the de-industrialization of the country, the financialization of the economy and Trump to the White House?"

How Many Clinton Cronies Under Investigation?

Let's see, Hillary herself is the subject of an investigation into her use of a private email account when she was secretary of state, her two New York buddies, Bill de Blasio and Andrew Cuomo, are undergoing various investigations and now this:

Washington (CNN)Virginia Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the FBI and prosecutors from the Justice Department's public integrity unit, U.S. officials briefed on the probe say.

The investigation dates to at least last year and has focused, at least in part, on whether donations to his gubernatorial campaign violated the law, the officials said.

 

McAuliffe wasn't notified by investigators that he is a target of the probe, according to the officials. 

"The Governor will certainly cooperate with the government if he is contacted about it," said Marc Elias, attorney for McAuliffe campaign, in a statement to CNN.

 

As part of the probe, the officials said, investigators have scrutinized McAuliffe's time as a board member of the Clinton Global Initiative, a vehicle of the charitable foundation set up by former President Bill Clinton. 

 

 There's no allegation that the foundation did anything improper; the probe has focused on McAuliffe and the electoral campaign donations, the officials said.

Another day, another investigation into a Clintonista.

What The Clinton Shills Don't Get: Few Trust Hillary Clinton

Had some fun on Twitter with a Clinton shill calling me a liar for this post here entitled "Hillary Clinton Vows To Close Every Public School In The Country."

His message was basically the same one that I've seen elsewhere on the Internet as the "Clinton Wants To Destroy Public Education" meme has rolled along and Clinton shills have begun to push back on it - Clinton doesn't want to close all the schools that are rated "below average," as she said wanted to in the Iowa clip, she simply misspoke.

But the thing that Clinton shills and apologists don't get here is this - given Clinton's elasticity with truth and honesty, given her past fondness for school closures, DFER, charter schools, and the Common Core, given the fondness her pals at the Center for American Progress (basically a Clinton administration in exile ready to roll into power as soon as she's elected) have for this same stuff, given her shillery for Walmart in the past and given the fact that she's a Clinton and no one believes a word these people say, it doesn't matter what she really meant.

See, couple the Clinton administration's ed deform policies in the past with the betrayal that many felt when Barack Obama doubled down on the Bush ed deform policies of NCLB with his Race to the Top program and you have an entire generation of teachers out there not going to cut these lying politicians any slack when they "misspeak" or say stuff that sounds kooky (as Clinton did.)

The larger issue here for me, and why I even blogged the thing in the first place (if you notice, it's almost all Cuomo/NY all the time here at Perdido Street School blog these days, so I'm not doing much 2016 presidential race stuff) is that it was the perfect crystallization of the mistrust many teachers have for Democratic politicians in general and Clinton in particular.

That people didn't give her the benefit of the doubt over this "misspeak," that even now she needs the shills to go around defending her, goes to show you just how little trust or affection she has among many rank and file educators these days.

How do you know when a Clinton's lying?

You don't have to try and figure it out because they're ALWAYS lying.

Hillary Clinton Vows To Close Every Public School In The Country

I know, seems like crazy talk - and yet, here it is, in plain English:



The Federalist, a conservative Internet outlet, puts the Clinton comment in perspective: 

According to U.S. Department of Education statistics, there were just over 98,000 public schools in the U.S. as of the 2011-2012 school year, the most recent year for which complete data are available. Under Hillary Clinton’s proposed education plan to shutter all average and below average schools, that would mean that nearly 50,000 schools would have to be shut down, assuming that the median and average national school performance were roughly equal. Nearly two-thirds of those schools targeted by Clinton’s proposal–over 30,000–would be elementary schools.

Well, that's how the plan would play out initially.

But then, after you've closed half the schools in the country, you'd have to re-calculate the whole thing, as Mercedes Schneider points out:

A numeric average is a relative statistic. If I have a set of numeric values and I calculate an average using the set, by definition, some individual values will fall below average, and likely, some will be right on the average. If I remove these below-average and average values, the original average does not remain fixed– and if I average the remaining originally-above-average values, some will newly be below average, and likely, some exactly average.

...


Of course, closing “below average” and “average” schools only leads to a recalculated average among remaining schools– some of which would be “below average” upon recalculation– and some of which would likely be exactly average.

In short, by the end of the evaluation process, if we keep closing schools that are "less than average" we will end up with just one school left.

But even then, that school wouldn't be above average, since it would be the only one left.

As Schneider notes, under the Clinton education plan for closing schools, that one would have to go too.

An entire school closure plan for the country -  that, it seems, is what Hillary Clinton intends.

That would be the Obama administration's Race to the Top policies on super steroids.

Now perhaps she misspoke, perhaps she's tired from all the time and energy spent on the campaign trail, perhaps she doesn't understand what the word "average" means in the way that she used it.

Perhaps.

Or perhaps she is the same pro-charter, pro-privatization shill who sat on the board of Walmart for all those years getting set to do to the country's public school system what George W. Bush and Barack Obama could only dream of doing.

I'll say this:

I don't trust her, I don't like her and I wouldn't vote for her for any reason.

After this latest Clinton mess, I am so glad my union, the American Federation of Teachers, already endorsed her during this summer, a full year+ before the election.

One final point:

Since her pal, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has said multiple times he wants to "break" the public school "monopoly" and called for the "death penalty" for "failing" schools, perhaps Clinton can hire him as secretary of education to carry out her closure policies?

Given the destruction Clinton plans for the public school system, Cuomo sounds like he would be perfect for the job of Head School Closer.

Assuming Cuomo's not in prison, that is...or Hillary isn't, for that matter...

Anybody Buying Hillary Clinton's Charter School Comments?

Finally! @HillaryClinton: Most charter schools don’t take hardest-to-teach kids or if they do they don’t keep them https://t.co/bdig2DJgeZ

— leonie haimson (@leoniehaimson) November 8, 2015

Don't see too many people on social media buying Clinton's comments about charter schools as anything other than expediency.

My take:

@Jeff_Bernstein Shows just how much has changed about charter narrative that she felt the need to say this.

— rbe (@perdidostschool) November 8, 2015

Make no mistake, the charter scandals from around the country, the "Got To Go" list pushout stories from NYC, the stories of abuse at charter chains like Success and Achievement First - these are doing serious damage to the charter narrative.

That Clinton's saying what she's saying doesn't mean she'll change the pro-charter policies from the Obama and Clinton administrations, of course.

Just that it's no longer a slam dunk talking point to declare charters the swellest thing ever.

Michael Mulgrew "Bitching" About Working Families Party Discussion Of Bernie Sanders Endorsement

Ken Lovett at the Daily News:

The head of the powerful city teachers union is trying to quell talk by some in the labor-backed Working Families Party about backing Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton in the presidential primary, insiders say.

United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew has been contacting heads of the building trade unions who help make up the Working Families Party, a source said. He’s “complaining and bitching” about the party and the discussions on whether to endorse Sanders, the self-proclaimed socialist US senator from Vermont, the source said.

Mulgrew, who declined comment through a spokeswoman, is also a vice president of the American Federation of Teachers, which already has endorsed Clinton.

While the state Working Families Party does not have a presidential primary and does not have to set its ballot until September of 2016, its leaders have not ruled out publicly backing Sanders during the primary season to send a message to Clinton that she needs to go farther to the left.

Considering the damage Governor Cuomo has done to teachers and UFT rank and file, the end of the Lovett column is quite interesting:

The WFP, which was already feuding with Gov. Cuomo, isn’t doing its doing itself any favors alienating a major party player like Mulgrew and the potential Democratic nominee in Clinton, one source said.

In the analysis of this "source," we have Working Families Party and Sanders on one side of the political equation and Mulgrew, Clinton and Cuomo on the other.

That would seem odd, given how Cuomo has declared he wants to "break" teachers and public schools, until you remember that Mulgrew was said to have threatened WFP with financial dissolution if the party endorsed challenger Zephyr Teachout over Cuomo in 2014.

Just another sign that the "fight" between Cuomo and the UFT/AFT/Mulgrew/Weingarten crew is as "real" as something from professional wrestling.

That said, I don't particularly care whether WFP endorses Sanders or not.

Quite frankly, I don't "feel the Bern" after Sanders voted to continue the Endless Testing regime in NCLB Jr.

From my vantage point, Sanders is as full of shit as every other Democratic politician when it comes to the issue that matters most to me - education.

I will be voting Green come 2016 because I cannot and will not support a candidate who supports Endless Testing as a "civil right."

NEA Endorses Hillary Clinton

As many others jump off the Clinton bandwagon, the NEA jumps on:

The National Education Association, the nation’s largest labor union, endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

“We recommended Hillary Clinton on the incredible and lengthy track record she has, that is just wrapped around children, working families and education, from preschool to graduate school,” NEA president Lily Eskelsen García said.

Seventy-five percent of the union’s 170-member board backed Clinton.

The nod from the NEA gives Clinton a much-needed boost, after the International Association of Firefighters earlier this week backed away from plans to endorse her.

Not unexpected, of course, but nonetheless inexplicable.

As Clinton sinks in polls and under the weight of an email controversy she still hasn't shown she can put to rest, concurrent to another union pulling back from an endorsement announcement, the NEA endorses Clinton.

Makes little sense politically at this point - but that didn't stop the leadership from doing what it wanted to do anyway.

Hillary Clinton Touts Her Education Reformer Credentials In Ads In Iowa, New Hampshire

Tell me again why the American Federation of Teachers endorsed Hillary Clinton 16 months before the 2016 presidential election?

Hillary Clinton’s first set of campaign ads will begin airing Tuesday in Iowa and New Hampshire as her campaign tries to get ahead of an anticipated onslaught of Republican attacks come the fall.

...

The ads will air in Des Moines and Cedar Rapids, Iowa's two largest markets, and in the Boston/Manchester and Burlington, Vt., markets, which together reach all of New Hampshire.

Some content of the ads:

In HRC's 1st ads, narrator says she "fought 4 school reform" in AR & she describes teacher who brought food 4 her mom http://t.co/Gjxt406s2i

— Josh Eidelson (@josheidelson) August 3, 2015

This is Classic Clinton triangulation - "there was this great teacher who brought food for my mom when she was hungry...but I also fought for school reforms that, in large part, blame teachers for the problems in public education."

There's a sketchy PAC out there that appears to be linked to Clinton that is calling itself "Americas Teachers" that bills itself as "pro-union, pro-reform."

Clinton's first campaign ads appear to be following the same script - pro-teacher/union and pro-reform.

To which I say:

@mma718 @KingsParkAE @americateachers @rweingarten @TeacherArthurG @leoniehaimson Pro-union, pro-reform? Pro-jive.

— rbe (@perdidostschool) August 3, 2015

Feel The Bern NYC Meet-Up

That's right! We are the People for Bernie Sanders. He is the only presidential candidate that is truly a champion for the people. We are tired of talking puppets reading from a script. We are ready for a political revolution. We are ready for Bernie and boy do we #FeelTheBern! Join us to be a part of it to! At this momentous event, us Bernie supporters will be meeting with each other and sharing our stories, and then we will watch and listen to Bernie's live message about what is coming next. By the end of the night, we will all have had the chance to take the next steps to help elect Bernie Sanders as our next president. 


July 29

The Royal NYC

127 4th Ave, New York, New York 10003

Details here.

If you're angry about the top-down AFT leaders decision to endorse Hillary Clinton 16 months out from the election, this is a great opportunity to show the AFT leadership that there is plenty of rank and file member support for other candidates.

Randi Weingarten On The Defense, But She's Pretty Sure It'll All Die Down

You can see from Randi Weingarten's Twitter feed and Facebook page that she's feeling some of the heat after the AFT announced it had endorsed Hillary Clinton for president 16 months out from the election.

The AFT is the first major labor organization to announce an endorsement for 2016.

There is a lot of talk on the Internet that this could really be the watershed moment when AFT members finally realize Randi Weingarten and the AFT leadership doesn't care about them , that they see the union only as a vehicle for their own benefit, advancement and aggrandizement.

A commenter here at Perdido Street School says - nahh:

Stop. RANDI WILL CONTINUE TO BE THE LEADER OF THE AFT, WILL CONTINUE TO BE FOISTED ABOUT AS THE FACE AND VOICE OF ORGANIZED TEACHERS AND WILL CONTINUE TO SELL US OUT. Why? Because she knows that teachers don't have what it takes to remove her. And we don't. She has F'd us soooooo many times and what did we do (besides complain)? Yup. Nothing. Same goes for NYSUT. We had an RA this year. Not a peep. Turns out teachers were only a strong and formidable political force when it was easy...when leadership was loud and we weren't so removed from the labor movement's origins....and when we didn't face existential threats. We are going to lose it all. Period. Full stop. We cant even get our unions on our side. We don't have what it takes
Sorry folks. We kind of suck. We don't even know what a rampart is, let alone know how to storm one. This is what it looks like when a generation or two don't meet the challenge of their time.

What say you out there - watershed moment for many in the AFT or just another one of those moments when people get angry for a while, then it all dies down?

How Rigged Was The AFT Endorsement Process?

Gadfly on the Wall:

The manner in which this endorsement was reached is somewhat mysterious.

This much seems certain:

1) The AFT executive board invited all of the candidates to meet with them and submit to an interview. No Republican candidates responded.

2) Democrats including Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley and Clinton were interviewed in private.

3) The executive committee voted to endorse Clinton.

4) NOW the interviews are scheduled to be released to the public.

This is a perplexing timetable. Why would the AFT endorse BEFORE releasing the interviews? Ostensibly, the executive council used these interviews to help make its decision. Shouldn’t that same information have been available to rank and file members of the union before an endorsement was made?

Nahh - because given Randi Weingarten's relationship with Bonnie and Clyde, er, Bill and Hillary, the endorsement was always going to be Hillary Clinton.

The interviews were a sham, the polling the AFT claims to have conducted around the endorsement was a sham, the timetable was a sham and the endorsement was a sham.

AFT leaders just happened to make it even more of a sham by announcing the endorsement so far out.

More from Gadfly:

Which polls produced which results? The press release says AFT members prefer Clinton 3-1. But even if Clinton came out on top consistently, surely the results weren’t identical on every poll. Maybe she got 75% on one and 65% on another.

The AFT hasn’t released everything, but the organization’s website gives us a memo about ONE of these phone surveys. This national survey of membership planning to vote in Democratic primaries found 67% picked Clinton. However, only 1,150 members participated! That’s a far cry from the more than 1 million cited in the press release.

...

But that’s only one survey. Where is the rest of the data? Where is the raw information from this survey? Where is the data from all these other outreach attempts and on-line activities? How many took phone surveys? How many took on-line surveys? And what were the results in each case?

If union members really did endorse Clinton, that’s fine. But many of us would like to see the proof.

There is no other data - the union conducted one poll, geared the questions to an outcome they had already decided upon, and used this as "proof" that 1.6 million AFT members wanted Hillary Clinton endorsed.

The process was rigged for an outcome Weingarten wanted.

The Hillary Clinton endorsement 16 months out from the actual election is just the latest example of how the AFT is a sham union run by sham union leaders who see the union as a vehicle for their own ambitions, aggrandizement, and financial benefit.

This Member Of The AFT Does Not Endorse Hillary Clinton For President

@lapham_katie @TeacherArthurG @sullio @perdidostschool @StevenSinger3 @teka21bat @Stoptesting15 @fraublucher606 pic.twitter.com/Bc3Qbuu7HC

— Bianca Tanis (@BiancaTanis) July 12, 2015
Starting the movement, to take back the union, to take back political power, to expose the AFT/UFT/NYSUT leadership as the political functionaries and expedients they are.

Say NO to Hillary Clinton.

Union Leaders Work To "Quell Pro-Sanders Revolt"

Some of that vaunted union democracy in action:

Richard Trumka has a message for state and local AFL-CIO leaders tempted to endorse Bernie Sanders: Don’t.

In a memo this week to state, central and area divisions of the labor federation, and obtained by POLITICO, the AFL-CIO chief reminded the groups that its bylaws don’t permit them to “endorse a presidential candidate” or “introduce, consider, debate, or pass resolutions or statements that indicate a preference for one candidate over another.” Even “‘personal’ statements” of candidate preference are verboten, Trumka said.

The memo comes amid signs of a growing split between national union leaders — mindful of the fact that Clinton remains the undisputed favorite for the nomination — and local officials and rank and file, who are increasingly drawn to the Democratic Party’s growing progressive wing, for whom Sanders is the latest standard-bearer.

The fix is in for Clinton, whether the unions endorse her in the primary or not, because union leaders will do as much as they can to undercut the surging Bernie Sanders.

It's kinda like how the unions helped out Cuomo in 2014, not by endorsing him, but by making sure Working Families Party did not endorse Zephyr Teachout.

Teachers Union Leader Easily Satisfied With Hillary Clinton Response

Lyndsey Layton in the Washington Post:

Hillary Rodham Clinton told the president of the National Education Association that she would listen to teachers if elected president, a simple promise Monday that impressed the president of the nation’s largest labor union.

“She used the most important word that I was personally looking for, the word ‘listen’,” said Lily Eskelsen Garcia, president of the NEA, which represents mostly K-12 teachers and paraprofessionals and has 3 million members.

Sure, she'll "listen."

Then she'll do what her wealthy education reformer donors want her to do and keep the Obama education reform policies going.

Hillary Clinton "Absoluely Embraces" Common Core In Iowa Comments

Some people thought Clinton wouldn't take a stand on Common Core because it's so controversial these days, but her Wall Street/hedge fundie donors wanted to hear where she stands on the issue and she obliged today:

In Iowa, Hillary Clinton strongly defends the Common Core, despite strong opposition in some states like NY.
— Michael Gormley (@GormleyAlbany) April 14, 2015

Next up: Common Core under attack. @HillaryClinton "absolutely embraces" it, calls argument around CC "really painful," says was bipartisan.
— Taylor J. Wofford (@taylorjwofford) April 14, 2015

Asked about Common Core, @HillaryClinton says current debate has been "painful" to watch. "Common Core started off as a bipartisan effort."
— Ruby Cramer (@rubycramer) April 14, 2015

.@HillaryClinton says Iowa may be more understanding of Common Core b/c Iowa has had its own standards and assessments for years. #iacaucus
— Kathie Obradovich (@KObradovich) April 14, 2015

"How did we wind up at a point where we are so negative about... how our kids our educated?" -Hillary @HillaryClinton on Common Core
— Ashton E. Pittman (@ashtonpittman) April 14, 2015

Not a surprise - Big Money supports Common Core, so of course Hillary Clinton does too.

Still, glad to have her on the record.

Now I have one more reason not to support her.

If Jeb Bush becomes the GOP nominee and Clinton is the Democratic nominee, both major party candidates will be Common Core supporters.

The country is moving against Common Core but the political establishment (backed by Big Money) still "absolutely embraces" it.

Will A Populist Run In 2016?

Here's some rhetoric you rarely hear out of major candidates in the Democratic Party:

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s (D) “biggest applause line during a speech here this week came as he listed ways the U.S. could pay for a higher minimum wage, an expansion of Social Security and more spending on infrastructure and education,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

Said O’Malley: “We do it by asking the wealthiest among us to believe enough in their country to actually make the sort of investments we made in other generations instead of offshoring their profits and offshoring their wealth.”

Let's compare O'Malley to another governor:

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo , whose center-right policies have alienated him from much of his party’s progressive base, attacks the “extreme left of the Democratic Party” in his new memoir, according to a report in the New York Times.

...

According to the Times – which got its hands on a copy of his new memoir, All Things Possible: Setbacks and Success in Politics and Life – Cuomo rips the “extreme left” in the book, particularly for what he depicts as its hostility to the rich. Leftists, Cuomo writes, “speak of punitively raising taxes on the rich and transferring the money to the poor” and seek to “demonize those who are very wealthy.”

I don't think O'Malley's a populist or even a liberal any more than Hillary Clinton is.

Strategically though, this is the only place for him to run in 2016, especially if no other "progressive" candidate jumps into the race.

Not sure it matters, since Clinton is expected to run away with the primary (barring a scandal of some sort, which is always possible with the Clintons), but it would be nice to have somebody run from the left in the Democratic Primary and talk about the need to make the wealthiest among us (who get wealthier by the year) pay their fair share in taxes as the wealthy did in previous generations before Regan/Clinton/Bush got through with slashing taxes to cut rates.

Maybe Randi Weingarten Should Just Endorse Hillary Clinton Now?

Politico has a piece reporting that many unions leaders are "wary" of Hillary Clinton and are looking for more than just lip service from her when it comes to taking care of union members and working people:

Frustrated by President Barack Obama and wary of Hillary Clinton’s perceived closeness to Wall Street, several leading figures in organized labor are resisting falling in line early behind the former secretary of state as the inevitable Democratic presidential nominee.

Top officials at AFL-CIO are pressing its affiliates to hold off on an endorsement and make the eventual nominee earn their support and spell out a clear agenda. The strategy is designed to maximize labor’s strength after years of waning clout and ensure a focus on strengthening the middle class, but it could provide an opening for a candidate running to Clinton’s left to make a play for union support.

“We do have a process in place, which says before anybody endorses, we’ll talk to the candidates,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in an interview. That could postpone an endorsement until the second half of 2015, he said.

 “The big question we want to know is, ‘What’s the agenda?’” added Trumka. “We don’t want to hear that people have a message about correcting the economy — we want to know that they have an agenda for correcting the economy. If we get the same economic [plan] no matter who the president is, you get the same results.

But there's no wariness from Randi Weingarten - she's on board the Clinton Express already:

"There’s a sense that people — the members who have talked to me about it — they feel very close to her,” said Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, an AFL-CIO member and a longtime supporter of Clinton.

“They feel like she’s their colleague, that she’s their champion, that she is someone who worked doggedly in 2008 or worked doggedly as their senator,” said Weingarten, who used to helm the teachers union in New York City. She added that her own union has an endorsement process that she will adhere to.

Weingarten is also on the board of the reconstituted super PAC Priorities USA, which plans to support Clinton in a primary if necessary, according to people familiar with its plans.

No surprise that Randi is already supporting Hillary Clinton, of course - Weingarten has been close to the Clintons for a long, long time.

It's just interesting to note that many other union heads are saying we want a pro-working agenda out of her while Weingarten doesn't care a whit about even the appearance of that.

She says her union has a "process" for endorsements that she'll adhere to - but she controls that "process."

Thi is classic Weingarten, classic AFT/UFT.

Why not dispense with the sham and just endorse Hillary Clinton now?

Will A Hillary Clinton Administration Limit Federal Madates On Testing?

Buried at the bottom of an Alyson Klein piece on the movement to cut back federal madates on testing in schools is this:

Recently, former President Bill Clinton said he would be in favor of fewer tests—perhaps once in elementary school, once in middle school, and once in high school. That testing regime is "quite enough if you do it right," Mr. Clinton said, according to the Huffington Post.

Mr. Clinton's remarks pack a political punch: His wife, Hillary Clinton, is considered a likely candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016.

I'm skeptical that any Dem or Repub is going to reduce the number of testing mandates from Washington.

My sense is, they'll say they're going to do that while not actually doing it.

Kinda the way Barack Obama talks about the dangers of teachers teaching to the test while pushing through ever more insane mandates like teacher evaluations tied to test scores that force teachers to teach to tests.

But we'll see - the anti-testing movement is certainly gaining momentum and is becoming a force to be reckoned with.

Still, the pro-reform "non-profits," the testing companies, and the edu-entrepreneurs and Wall Streeters who want the Endless Testing regime to continue are a force to be reckoned with too and they have a lot more money to throw around.

And let's be honest - is there anything in this world Bill and Hillary Clinton hold above the almighty dollar?

Cuomo Goes To Afghanistan

I know, I know, you think I'm pulling your leg - but I'm not:

According to public schedule just released @NYGovCuomo is in Afghanistan. No advance notice given.
— Capital Tonight (@CapitalTonight) September 27, 2014

While in Afghanistan, @NYGovCuomo will meet with NY troops, get security briefings, counterterrorism updates his office says.
— Capital Tonight (@CapitalTonight) September 27, 2014

After barely leaving New York State in his first term, he's now made two oversea trips in the past month or so - one to Israel, one to Afghanistan.

He's also held two press conferences with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to discuss the "unprecedented" cooperation and collaboration  he and Christie are engaging in over anti-terrorism security in their respective states.

Dunno exactly when he decided to pivot from "The public workers unions are the biggest enemy facing the State of New York!" to "Must fight terrorism!", but it's pretty clear he's made that transition.

Given his falling job performance numbers (just 42% approve of his performance in the latest Siena poll, 56% disapprove), I'm not sure that pivoting to national security and foreign policy is the way to go for him, but clearly Cuomo thinks it is.

I wonder if he knows something about Hillary Clinton's decision on a 2016 run that the rest of us don't know.

Because given the frenzy with which he's tried to burnish his national security and foreign policy credentials in the last month or so, it's starting to look like he thinks he's running for president.

Meritocracy American Style Redux: Chelsea Clinton Edition

I've already covered the absurdity of Chelsea Clinton getting paid $600,000 a year by NBC to work as a special correspondent and the even bigger absurdity of Clinton saying publicly that she deserved that compensation because she works hard.

The absurdity grew to new heights yesterday when it was disclosed that Chelsea gets paid $75,000 every time she gives a speech:

There is a new Clinton paid to deliver speeches — Chelsea, the former first daughter — and she is commanding as much as $75,000 per appearance.

Aides emphasized that while Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton often address trade groups and Wall Street bankers, Ms. Clinton, now 34, focuses on organizations whose goals are in line with the work of the family’s philanthropic organization, the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Organizers said her star power helped sell tickets and raise money.

And unlike her parents’ talks, Ms. Clinton’s speeches “are on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, and 100 percent of the fees are remitted directly to the foundation,” said her spokesman, Kamyl Bazbaz, adding that “the majority of Chelsea’s speeches are unpaid.” The Harry Walker Agency, the firm that represents her parents’ engagements, handles Ms. Clinton’s talks on behalf of the family foundation.

The family speechmaking business is a lucrative one and has generated more than $100 million for her parents over the past decade as they hopscotched the globe. Their fees range from $200,000 to $700,000 per appearance, and Mr. Clinton alone earned $17 million last year giving speeches.

Her parents' connections got her a well-paid job at McKinsey.

Her parents' connections got her a well-paid job at NBC.

That's what she's done with her life so far.

What could she possibly share in a speech that anybody would want to pay $75,000 to hear it?

Here's what the Times says she shares:

Ms. Clinton’s speeches focus on causes like eradicating waterborne diseases. (“I’m obsessed with diarrhea” is a favorite line.) And she dispenses lessons picked up from her family. (“Life’s not about what happens to you, it’s about what you do with what happens to you,” she likes to say.)

I said in my last Chelsea Clinton post that she had risen above Jenna Bush on my list of Presidential Offspring Deserving Of Derision.

The news that she's getting paid $75,000 a speech puts her even higher on that list.

Just another example of how the elite take care of their own.