If you followed the Democratic primary at all, odds are you’ve seen at least one article written by a person named H.A. Goodman. Over the last year, Goodman has spammed the Internet with around 156 articles (I actually went through his archives and counted them) and several videos, either “in support” of Sanders or bashing Clinton. That averages out to 13 a month, every single month — on one subject.
And by one subject, I mean one subject. Looking through his archives from June 2015-June 2016, I saw maybe 4 or 5 (if that) articles where he wrote about something that didn’t pertain to Sanders or Clinton.
As a writer myself, I find that absolutely ridiculous. Especially from someone who considers himself a “liberal” or a “progressive” who didn’t seem to find the need to cover Donald Trump much at all. One would think that, even as “pro-Bernie” as Goodman claims he is, he might have found it important to call out Trump’s belittling of veterans; sexism; racism; bigotry; calls to ban all Muslims; or to address anything one of the most vile candidates in modern U.S. history has said and done over that same 12-month timespan.
Either way, I do think it’s valid to question the true “pro-Sanders” roots of H.A. Goodman.
You see, I also looked at the archives of everything else he’s written and not one time prior to April 29, 2015 did Mr. Goodman write an article about Bernie Sanders.
Most people who followed politics knew for weeks (if not months) before Bernie Sanders officially announced, that he was probably going to run for president. Meanwhile, H.A. Goodman was promoting practically everyone but Bernie Sanders as an effective challenger to Clinton.
Here are a few of the headlines he wrote before April 29, 2015:
Why Martin O’Malley and Elizabeth Warren Can Beat Any Republican, Including Walker, Bush, Paul and Cruz (March 25, 2015)
The Answer to Hillary Clinton’s ‘Emailgate’: Vote Senator Elizabeth Warren in 2016 (March 6, 2015)
Why Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire Should Choose Jim Webb Over Hillary Clinton (April 21, 2015)
How O’Malley, Warren and Webb can save Democrats from Clinton (April 16, 2015)
Why Americans should consider O’Malley for President (April 1, 2015)
5 Reasons Liberals Tired of War Should Vote for Rand Paul Over Hillary Clinton (November 21, 2014)
I’m a Liberal Democrat. I’m Voting for Rand Paul in 2016. Here is Why. (November 17, 2014)
Why President Rand Paul Will Keep America Safer Than Bush, Obama and Hillary Clinton (November 13, 2014)
Now, maybe it’s just me, but I find it a little peculiar that this Bernie superfan, of sorts, somehow seemed to want a whole lot of other people to challenge Hillary Clinton — but Sanders. I mean, Jim Webb? Rand Paul? Before he ever mentioned Sanders’ name once, he pushed for an actual Republican to be our next president and a former Republican as well — yet not a whisper of Bernie Sanders’ was anywhere to be found.
That seems rather odd.
How does someone who supposedly follows politics, and who feels confident enough to make as many asinine (and wrong) predictions as H.A. Goodman often does (more on that in a bit), promote for president individuals like Rand Paul and Jim Webb before Bernie Sanders? In fact, how does someone who claims to be a huge supporter of Sanders never once even write about him until just over a year ago? Even when he wrote his first pro-Sanders article on April 29, 2016, he didn’t write anything else about the senator from Vermont until nearly two months later.
By the way, April 29th just happens to be the day after Sanders actually announced. So, H.A. Goodman never wrote about Sanders as a potential president until after he had already launched his campaign.
To be honest, if you look at when this sudden “support” for Sanders began, it really didn’t start until it became clear that the senator was going to be Hillary Clinton’s biggest threat. Personally, this seems like a classic case of someone “jumping on the bandwagon” just as soon as they felt it benefited their personal agenda in some way. Not to say that true support for Sanders couldn’t have been birthed from recognizing that, however, I do believe the timing raises legitimate questions about the authenticity of H.A. Goodman’s support for Sanders. How much is it him wanting to keep Clinton from becoming president by recognizing that Sanders was his best shot at hoping to prevent that? Also keep in mind, in several of his articles, he’s encouraged people to write-in Sanders’ name and has stated he thinks a Trump presidency would be good for the DNC — two things that contradict comments Bernie Sanders has made throughout his campaign.
After all, if Sanders wanted to be represented as a true third-party candidate, he would have ran as one. He didn’t, and he’s repeatedly said that his main goal is to keep Republicans out of the White House this November. Clearly, that’s not H.A. Goodman’s main goal. So, is this really about admiring and respecting Bernie Sanders (or even Elizabeth Warren), or is it just about “anyone but Clinton” because he simply doesn’t like her?
I’m not going to tell anyone what to think, but the evidence does seem to be pretty obvious.
My issue here isn’t that someone became a Sanders supporter fairly recently. There are millions of people all across the country who didn’t know much about Sanders until this past year. The issue here is, H.A. Goodman is a writer who’s covered political topics for a few years and made several presidential “predictions” just prior to Bernie Sanders launching his campaign. It would stand to reason that he would have heard of Sanders prior to the day after he officially launched his presidential campaign. Here we have someone who clearly follows politics and felt confident enough to make some bold presidential predictions, who never really pushed for the person he now claims is this nation’s only hope. At least not until it became popular to do so and seemed to help his anti-Clinton agenda.
Furthermore, when you read H.A. Goodman’s articles, there’s some questionable journalistic integrity found within a few.
I wrote this article a few months ago after I busted him using months-old polling data to attack Hillary Clinton when there were much newer polls he could have used. Unfortunately for him, that newer data didn’t support the agenda he was trying to push.
For example, he wrote an article attacking Clinton on December 2, 2015 where he cited polling numbers from September, October and even as far back as June when CBS (the source he used from his older polling data) had released new polling stats on November 11, 2015. This particular article was made even more ridiculous by his claim that, because the outdated polling data he used showed 14 percent of Democrats wouldn’t vote for Clinton, she was unelectable. However, in the CBS poll from 11/10, that number had dropped to 9 points while Sanders’ number was 12 percent. At the time he wrote this article declaring that Clinton was “unelectable,” the newer poll said more Democrats claimed they wouldn’t vote for Sanders. At 12 percent, Sanders’ numbers in that CBS poll from 11/10 were just about the same as the 14 percent he used to claim Clinton was “unelectable.”
If Clinton was “unelectable” at 14 percent, why didn’t he declare Sanders “unelectable” at 12 percent? Oh yeah, it’s because he completely ignored the newer poll. That’s what you call unethically cherry picking data and being a hypocrite to push an agenda.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg with this guy.
Over the last few months it’s been difficult to keep track of how many predictions he made that were comically wrong, such as:
3 Reasons Bernie Sanders is now the Democratic front-runner (Never was.)
If the Pope Could Endorse a Candidate, He’d Pick Bernie Sanders (Now he knows what the pope would do?)
Polling Trajectory Shows Bernie Sanders Winning the Democratic Nomination. It’s Time for America to Notice (Nope, polling trajectory never showed that.)
In Late 2007, Obama Trailed Clinton by 26 Points. Bernie Sanders is 2016’s Barack Obama (Obama actually won nearly 6 million votes more, never had the lead Clinton did over Sanders, and Obama actually just endorsed Clinton for president — so, yeah.)
Bernie Sanders Won the Debate, Defeated the DNC and Became the Real Democratic Front Runner (Nope, nope and nope — though H.A. Goodman claimed Sanders won every debate.)
Wins in Iowa and New Hampshire Will Propel Bernie Sanders to the Presidency (Lost Iowa, won New Hampshire — didn’t win the nomination.)
Hillary Clinton Will Finish Third in Iowa, Behind Bernie Sanders and O’Malley. Here’s Why. (This one is just ridiculous. Not only did she win Iowa, but O’Malley performed so poorly he dropped out that night.)
5 Reasons Bernie Sanders Will Win the Presidency in a Landslide (Not just win it, but in a landslide.)
Bernie Sanders Will Dominate Super Tuesday and Defeat Clinton in Southern States (Oh, I’m sorry, I just fell on the floor laughing.)
Bernie Sanders Will Win Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Here’s Why (Actually, he lost 3 out of those 4.)
Bernie Sanders Will Win the Democratic Nomination and Presidency in a Landslide (Notice a theme? More on that in a bit.)
On January 20, 2017 Bernie Sanders Will Be Sworn In as America’s 45th President (This was written on January 4, 2016. That matters because….)
In 2016, Bernie Sanders Will Defeat Clinton and Dominate Trump to Become President (… it’s basically the exact same article as this one that he wrote 3 days earlier.)
Bernie Sanders Will Become the Democratic Nominee Even if Clinton Leads in Delegates (That’s ironic considering he wrote an article before this declaring that if superdelegates “stole” the election he’d write-in Sanders’ name [He’s threatened to write-in Sanders’ name numerous times so superdelegates don’t matter anyway because he’ll never vote for Clinton]. Yet, at this point, he seems okay with superdelegates overturning the will of the voters.)
Wisconsin Just Elected Bernie Sanders President (Who knew one fairly small, mostly white state had so much power?)
Yes, Bernie Sanders Will Win the Contested Democratic Convention (Again, nothing quite like whining about superdelegates “stealing” an election from the voters only to advocate that they do just that when that’s all you have left.)
At this point I have to ask those who might actually trust anything this guy says: How many times does someone have to be wrong about something before you stop trusting anything they say?
Now, to that “theme” I mentioned before. Maybe you’ve picked up on it already, but many of these articles are basically the same damn article — just worded differently.
Look at this list of Clinton email articles he’s written since February that all essentially say the exact same thing:
Bernie Sanders Will Become President. The FBI and 67 Percent of Americans Distrust Hillary Clinton (February 22, 2016)
The FBI’s Investigation of Clinton’s Emails Makes Bernie Sanders the True Democratic Front-Runner (February 29, 2016)
Obama’s Justice Department Just Gave Bryan Pagliano Immunity and Bernie Sanders the Presidency (March 3, 2016)
Why Did Hillary Clinton Need a Private Server? The Answer Makes Bernie Sanders President (March 7, 2016)
As Long as Hillary Clinton Risks FBI Indictment, Bernie Sanders is the Real Front-Runner (March 30, 2016)
The FBI’s Interview of Hillary Clinton Will Save Obama’s Legacy and Nominate Bernie Sanders (April 1, 2016)
10 Questions the FBI Could Ask Hillary Clinton That Would Benefit Bernie Sanders (April 4, 2016)
Yes, Bernie Sanders Will Become President. Hillary Clinton’s FBI Investigation Isn’t a ‘Nothingburger’ (April 19, 2016)
Bernie Sanders Will Remain the True Front-Runner Until the FBI Finishes Its Investigation (April 20, 2016)
Dear FBI, the Democratic Party’s Future Rests Upon Your Investigation of Clinton’s Emails (April 27, 2016)
Democrats Must Rally Around Bernie Sanders Before Clinton Faces Possible Espionage Act Indictments (May 2, 2016)
Hillary Clinton Should Concede to Bernie Sanders Before the FBI Reveals Its Findings (May 4, 2016)
State Department Report Justifies Indictments for Hillary Clinton. Democrats Need Bernie Sanders (May 27, 2016)
Nearly every single one of those articles basically has the same theme – “Clinton can’t be the nominee because of the FBI investigation” – written over and over and over. Not only that, but it’s kind of sad that someone would seemingly be hoping another human being is indicted. I don’t see what’s “progressive” about hoping that a mother (and grandmother) would face federal indictment simply because you don’t like her. I expect that sort of petty, small-minded nonsense from conservatives, not supposed “liberals.”
Even many of his “pro-Sanders” articles are just filled with Hillary Clinton bashing.
He wrote an article titled The Case for Writing-in Bernie Sanders if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Nominee that has almost nothing to do with Sanders. If you actually read the thing, it’s almost entirely “why Clinton is awful” and almost nothing really promoting Sanders’ ideas. That’s the common theme with most of what he writes. Sure, he phrases his headlines in a way where they come off as “pro-Sanders” to get “clicks” and “views” from Bernie supporters, but when you really look at these 156 articles, he just seems to be using Sanders’ popularity to wage an obsessive anti-Clinton campaign.
Again, he rarely bashes Donald Trump or Republicans. In fact, he seems quite fine with letting them win — just as long as Clinton loses.
But the truth is, H.A. Goodman is the type of person Sanders supporters should reject — and quite a lot have. I’ve met and talked with many Bernie Sanders supporters who can’t stand him because of how ridiculous his writing is. Here’s a post from Reddit where pro-Sanders people actually wanted his articles banned for being “optimistic to the point of delusion, everything he writes is worthless reposted fluff.”
All this guy seems to do to churn out one clickbait headline after another, often posting nearly the same exact article he’s written over and over, implying it’s “pro-Sanders” when he really just seems to be using Bernie’s popularity to bash Clinton. He’s seemingly done this in a calculated attempt to attack her favorability and undermine her credibility simply because he doesn’t like her. Instead of spending the last year promoting Sanders and why he would make a great president, he’s mostly just dedicated his time, as that Reddit user said, pumping out “worthless reposted fluff” with clickbait headlines meant to lure in Sanders supporters.
Now that I’m thinking about it, I recently found this article where somebody perfectly describes the exact tactics Republicans have been using to try to keep Hillary Clinton from becoming president:
From Benghazi to scandals of years past, Republicans for the next two years will work to chip away at Clinton’s favorability ratings. Their goal, of course, is to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming the first female president in 2016 by using any tactic necessary to undermine the former first lady’s political credibility.
The foundation of the Republican strategy against Hillary, like most political campaigns, revolves around negativity. Whether a message is true or false, as long as it produces a narrative that is disseminated (free of charge) through most media outlets, that’s all that matters to political strategists. As stated in a paper by John G. Geer of Vanderbilt University (published by Harvard University), negative media messages gain widespread attention, regardless of their accuracy.
So, if Karl Rove simply mentions the possibility of Hillary Clinton having brain damage from a concussion (even if he later recants such a statement), he’s achieved his goal by simply having news outlets publicize his accusation. Controlling and deciding a narrative is important.
There’s no doubt that negativity (without necessarily relevance or truth) is effective.
As a result, if they can continually evoke doubt as to Clinton’s ability at protecting Americans from terror, the Republican candidate stands a better chance at winning.
Republicans will no doubt utilize negative media attention to create controversy and attempt to control a narrative.
Ironically, many anti-Clinton “liberals” like Goodman have essentially utilized these same tactics against her.
H.A. Goodman and those like him have:
- Done whatever they can to chip away at Clinton’s favorability rating, often pushing the idea that she’s unethical even if the facts don’t actually support their opinions.
- They’ve used practically every tactic they seem able to come up with to undermine her credibility (even if that means comparing her to Trump and Dick Cheney).
- Nearly every single one of H.A. Goodman’s articles are nothing but a negative attack against her.
- As I pointed out earlier, he’s used outdated polling information to push a false agenda by cherry picking numbers while ignoring others.
- He’s used the Internet (the media), mostly The Huffington Post and Salon, to push (free of charge) his 13 articles a month.
- As that author quoted above pointed out, based on the words of John G. Geer of Vanderbilt University, “negative media messages gain widespread attention, regardless of their accuracy.”
All of that is exactly what H.A. Goodman and those like him have been doing this past year to Clinton. Only he’s used Sanders’ popularity as a means to help spread his anti-Clinton agenda, often trying to pass off his personal opinions as “facts,” even if that meant cherry picking polling data that he knew was outdated.
Oh, by the way, the author who wrote that article detailing the Republican strategy for trying to derail Hillary Clinton’s presidential hopes by slandering her reputation, creating a “narrative” based on negativity even if the facts aren’t there to support that narrative because they know it will spread through the media and damage her credibility regardless — was H.A. Goodman.