Uranium One: Hard Truths About The Radioactive Problem of #Hillary2016

Here are some hard truths for Hillary, the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign, Republicans, Jeb Bush, Big Media, Hillary Haters, and Hillary Supporters: (1) Hillary Clinton is lying; (2) Republicans are making a big mistake with their focus on Hillary; (3) the Hillary 2016 campaign deserves all the attacks against it; (4) the Hillary 2016 campaign does not deserve all the attacks against it; (5) the email and Clinton Foundation scandals devastate Hillary; (6) the email and Clinton Foundation “scandals” are meaningless. We’ll discuss these hard truths in no particular order below.

Let’s start with Jeb Bush because he is an object lesson. In December of last year Jeb Bush announced he was preparing to possibly run for president. We praised the shock timing of his announcement. We gave Jeb his due and called him “formidable”. We understood Jeb’s strategy. The sooner Jeb financially asphyxiates potential candidates the better for him we wrote. We also wrote:

It is very possible that today’s announcement pretty much ends the Romney return, the Christie bounce back, the Rubio resurgence, and any and all middle of the road Republican candidates such as Paul Ryan and Mike Pence. Or maybe not. But certainly any Republican “moderate” has to at the very least reassess.

Jeb Bush is formidable but has some real weaknesses. He’s a Bush in a country that might have Bush fatigue. He is a strong advocate for Common Core. He is a big “immigration reform” amnesty guy. He’s viewed with the same type of loathing from conservatives that Hillary gets from skunk eye leftist totalitarian kooks. Jeb is a “centrist” in a party that wants Tea.

Pretty much all we wrote has been confirmed. The only miss is the big one (Rubio) and therein is Jeb Bush’s strategic mistake. Hillary, take note.

Jeb Bush’s strategy was to financially asphyxiate the moderates then take on a conservative opposition and beat them with establishment money and establishment views and establishment operatives with establishment tactics. But Jeb Bush’s strategy has failed (read this strong article on just how much Jeb’s strategy has failed) because he did not realize we live in a post Citizens United world where it is difficult to financially asphyxiate opponents if you have just two or three billionaires or multimillionaires who are willing to provide financial oxygen.

Jeb Bush’s strategy has collapsed. He is still a candidate with formidable skills who might win both nomination and election but his strategy of financial asphyxiation has collapsed. Jeb blocked Romney and might have finished off Chris Christie but Scott Walker’s star still rises (he might be the Koch Brothers choice for financial largesse and political support) and Marco Rubio (the likely Sheldon Adelson beneficiary) lives to threaten Jeb in home state Florida, Ted Cruz has sufficient funds and multimillionaire support as well and Rand Paul still has daddies little helpers to survive. Hillary’s strategy is next in line at the emergency CPR unit.

Why is the Hillary 2016 strategy near death? First of all because Hillary is lying. Hillary is lying and it shows. Hillary is lying and it is eating her up inside.

Hillary 2008 supporters most of all can see Hillary is lying. Many, not most, Hillary 2008 supporters are disappointed if not utterly disgusted with Hillary 2016. We can’t blame the disappointed and disgusted. They see Hillary clearly lying.

What is Hillary lying about? Why is Hilary lying? This is the story of the Hillary 2016 strategic mistake.

Hillary is like a blind-deaf drunk lost and cut to pieces in the forest because she cannot see there is a smooth path just feet away. Why can’t Hillary see the path nor hear the traffic whizzing by? That too is the story of the Hillary 2016 strategic mistake.

Hillary is lying about who she is. That email and fundraising stuff is not the problem. Hillary is lying about who and what she is and few are fooled.

We’ll be writing a great deal about who Hillary is and what she stands for in the next several weeks. For now we’ll just write that Hillary has a great story to tell but she is not telling that story. Hillary is not telling that story because it conflicts with her flawed strategy for 2016.

Hillary 2016’s strategy is first to gull the crackpot left into not fighting her for the nomination. This first prong leads to yells of “entitlement” and “coronation” from the left and Big Media that wanted a coronation for Obama in 2008. This first prong is bound to fail because the left hates Hillary and all its efforts are aimed at raising up candidates against Hillary to destroy her so that the left can control the once great, now debased Democratic Party.

The second prong of Hillary 2016 is an identity politics appeal based on gender. Again, this is a massive fail. Why? Because misogyny and hatred of women is very much acceptable whereas racism or homophobia even when they do not exist are attacked and completely unacceptable. In Hillary 2016’s case the misogyny will be disguised by the left (Republicans have legitimate policy and political opposition to Hillary 2016) as “well, I want a woman president just not Hillary”. Remember in 2008 if you said you were not racist but that Obama was simply unprepared to be president? The response was “well, Obama is the first black man that has a real chance to be president so you must be a racist”. We’ll have a lot more on this in coming weeks as too.

The third prong of Hillary 2016 will be a pivot to the center based on experience and ability, This pivot will only come after the nominating convention in 2016. Only at that point will Hillary begin to tell some of the truth and begin to separate herself from the abominable Barack Obama and his policies. This too is a huge strategic fail. It will be too little too late.

In 2013 we made our views known as to what we believe the Hillary strategy should be in The Hillary Clinton 2016 Muddled Message Mess so we won’t beat a dead donkey on this.

We also opposed the much too early announcement of Hillary 2016:

Barack Obama and his protection squads want Hillary to announce early in order to take the heat of scrutiny off him and onto Hillary. Obama and his minions also know that the earlier Hillary announces the more she will have to attach herself to Obama’s disastrous policies.

The paycheck hungry also want Hillary to announce early. For them it’s not about her, it’s about their paychecks and plumping up their bank accounts.

Impatient Hillary supporters also want Hillary to announce early. That is an insufficient and injurious reason to announce.

We hear the extra foolish reason given that, well, Hillary needs to get a campaign in place in order to answer attacks on her. This is entirely wrong.

We haven’t seen the fruits of an effective Hillary 2016 campaign counterattack, have you? We have seen Lanny Davis, David Brock, and assorted others not associated nor paid by Hillary 2016 fight back but they are not the armada of direct response sold as the reason to crank up the campaign snowplow in spring. Why is this?

Earlier we referred to Hillary as a blind-deaf drunk caught in a forest. Hillary’s blindness and deafness are self-afflicted. The eyes and ears of a candidate and her campaign are based on polls. Hillary has chosen for her campaign the Obama pollster Joel Benenson. Benenson’s chief interest is Obama protection not Hillary election. Hillary cannot see nor hear what her pollster won’t show or tell her. Hillary is effectively blind and deaf which renders her dumb. If you thought Mark Penn was a problem in 2008, compared to Benenson pollster Penn is a treasure.

For all intents and purposes Hillary has become The Shield Maiden Of Chappaqua. Hillary is trapped in a strategic mess of her own making. It will take Bill Clinton level skill to get Hillary out of the mess she is in. Fortunately Hillary, like Bill, is a Perils of Pauline type character who is able to loosen her bonds before the train rolls over her. With President Bill Clinton half the fun was watching as the latter day Tom Sawyer got himself into trouble then get out of trouble and come out smiling. With Hillary… well we saw Hillary come to life in 2008 after the disaster of Iowa.

For Hillary her current problems of emails and Clinton Foundation fundraising are minor. When we addressed the “email scandal” we wrote that Hillary had effectively lanced the boil. Today, Stephen Hayes, the very smart journalist on Fox News, wondered about whether the latest Hillary “scandal” would continue in the headlines because, he noted, the email scandal died down after the Hillary press conference at the U.N. There are lessons on all this for Republicans.

We do not blame Republicans for their attacks on Hillary on any of these matters. They are the opposition party and they should with vigor and regularity attack their perceived political opponent which at this point they see as Hillary. We think that is a mistake. We think their opponent is Obama, but that is their decision and mistake to make.

In 2008 the Republican candidate was attacked in subtle and not so subtle ways as a doddering old man (we defended McCain because it was unfair and we saw this would come back to bite). Republicans did not attack Obama for this instead the Shield Maiden is the target of their ire. Republicans are attacking “old” Hillary the same way Obama attacked “old” McCain. Hillary is a friend of McCain as McCain is a friend of Hillary but Hillary will unfairly pay the price for Obama’s sins.

In 2012 the Republican candidate was attacked in subtle and not so subtle ways because of his wealth (we defended Romney on this score as well for the same reasons we defended McCain). Republicans did not attack Obama for this or for his ties to Rezko or Obama’s stock dealings or Michelle’s patient dumping job. Once again the Shield Maiden is the target of Republican ire. Once again Hillary will pay the price for Obama’s sins.

Obama and his thugs attacked Mitt Romney for his honorable ties to Bain Capital. Now the smart Powerline writes about Hillary Clinton’s bane:

We have already discussed one of the three cases Chozick highlights. It involves Frank Giustra, a major donor to the Foundation. As reported by the Times, Schweizer presents Giustra’s case as an instance in which large cash donations coincided with shifts in State Department that favored the donor — namely, a free trade agreement with Colombia that benefited Giustra’s investments in that nation. Previously, Clinton had opposed such an agreement.

Another example cited by Chozick involved more than $1 million in payments to Bill Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department. The third involves development projects apparently awarded to a donor in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010.

Let’s discuss Giustra and the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. The allegation is that Hillary was against the Colombian Free Trade Agreement then Frank Giustra gave a large donation to the Clinton Foundation and corrupt Hillary corruptly changed her position.

It is absolutely true that Hillary was a long term opponent of the Colombian Free Trade Agreement who changed her position in favor of it. [Note: today we scheduled for a discussion of the TPP but instead we wrote this article. We’ll publish our article on the TPP soon.]

So, as so many articles allege, or suspect, or hint, or insinuate, or wonder, did Hillary corruptly approve the Colombian Free Trade Agreement? Here’s Politico on Giustra and the Columbian Free Trade Agreement:

While stopping short of a direct accusation, the chapter, entitled “Rainforest Riches,” implies there was a blurred line between Bill Clinton’s charity work and Hillary Clinton’s work at the State Department — ultimately leading to her support of the trade deal. But Schweizer presents little evidence that Clinton’s support of the trade deal was directly linked to Guistra’s contributions or to his close relationship with Bill Clinton. [snip]

Her support for the deal came only after she joined the Obama administration, when key worker protections were added to the package,” spokesman Brian Fallon said. “By that point, the agreement was an administration-wide priority, and then-Secretary Clinton’s statements in support of the deal reflected the administration’s position.” [snip]

Giustra, who sits on the board of the Clinton Foundation, issued his own statement Thursday.

“Other media outlets have insinuated that I influenced the decision by the U.S. to sign a free trade agreement with Colombia. At one point, I was an investor in Pacific Rubiales, a Colombian energy company. I sold my shares in Pacific Rubiales several years before the U.S.?Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which, I will note, was approved by several U.S. agencies and the White House. To theorize that I had anything to do with that is sheer conjecture.”

We’ll translate the above for you: the Shield Maiden gets fu*ked again. Hillary was not the one who approved the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. The State Department was one of many executive branch departments and agencies that did Obama’s bidding. Obama lied in 2008, again, when he said,

The Illinois senator said he would oppose the Colombia Free Trade Agreement “because the violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted be included in these kinds of agreements.

Obama, as president broke the promise that he made in 2008 then forced Hillary to break her promise. Obama lied and Hillary is his Shield Maiden. Obama gets away with his lies and Hillary gets fu*ked, and not in a good way. Are you beginning to see a pattern?

What’s ironic in all this is that the defense from all sides is that it is “nuts” to think that Obama would do Hillary any favors. Here’s Axelrod:

“Haven’t read book attacking Clintons,” he tweeted Monday, “But if, as reported it charges that Obama Admin moved Colombia FTA to reward CGI donor, that’s nuts!

It’s nuts because everyone knows Obama hates Hillary and Hillary hates Obama. So Obama doing something to help Hillary and Bill raise Foundation money is nuts indeed. They hate each other.

We think Republicans make a big mistake in getting themselves ensnared in all this nonsense. Republicans think they have a destroy Hillary strategy that will work, finally, this time. But as we have written before and will write again the best Republican strategy against Hillary is to attach Hillary to Obama. For Hillary the best strategy is to distance herself from Obama. Both Republicans and Hillary are mindless:

Hwc, “For now, it may make sense to just drive her negatives through the roof, preparing the battlefield, so to speak.”

We view that as wasting ammunition against a hardened fortress.

It’s not only that the Republicans waste their ammunition on emails and CGI funding chases and other “scandals” but consider the cost. Republicans paint themselves as the same old bunch who just attack and the “drive up negatives” party. The problem for them is they drive up negatives about themselves as well. While they try to “define” Hillary they also define themselves.

Again, consider the cost. As you point out, Hillary made some policy statements this week that are very useful to Republicans. But what are they talking about? We’re hearing about funding and emails and precious little on policy. Are they preparing the battlefield on economic policy for the general election? No. They’re chasing wild geese.

Republican strategy should be to use policy to force Hillary closer and closer to Obama and the DailyKooks. Obama goons will not want any deviation from Obama by Hillary. Then Republicans can use this video evidence against Hillary when she is forced to pivot against Obama in the general election.

Republicans should talk about the policy statements Hillary makes and let the New York Times and Washington Post waste digital ink on emails and funding. The New York Times (read that pig Frank Bruni and garbage scow Dowd) hates Hillary more than any Republican or any conservative. Anyone who does not understand that has no clue about 2016.

Hillary’s problem is with the Obama left and Big Media. Fox News and Republicans are not her problem. That’s the lesson of 2008 Hillary has not digested nor devised a strategy against other than appeasement of the left. Again, it is why we suggested Hillary wait much much longer to announce, until it was too late for the left to mount a challenge.

We don’t think much of this Clinton Funding “scandal” nor the email “scandal”. Why? Because we’ve seen it all before and it always ends up the same way.



For those inclined to give credit or have apprehension about the latest scandal filled book about the Clintons let’s explain how we think it was written. For those that have done opposition research the methodology was simple. First, get a list of big Clinton Foundation donors. Second, take those names and find out what business deals they have engaged in or any trouble they have ever gotten themselves into. Third, connect dots no matter how distant. Fourth, publish a smear that “raises questions” or “alleges” or “raises eyebrows or suspicions”. Hey, we saw that done to Mitt Romney. Now we see it done to the Shield Maiden who does not learn.

John Podhoretz is now attacking Hillary as the 1% the way that Obama attacked Romney. Mitt Romney is also attacking the Shield Maiden in a way he never had the guts to attack lying scumbag Obama. On the UraniumOne deal Romney alleges “bribery”. That it was a company that represented companies that eventually were brought up by a Russian company is missed by the once business savvy Romney.

Instead of discussing Obama practically giving Iran nuclear weapons we are discussing this nonsense. We don’t blame Romney nor Republicans for beating up on the Shield Maiden while they have lacked the stuff to fight Obama. They’re the opposition political party and they are doing what they should be doing albeit stupidly. The big problem for Hillary remains the left.

The Kook left that hates Hillary and movement conservatives and activist Republicans are now explaining that the author of the anti-Hillary book is a good guy because after all his next book will go after Jeb Bush. That’s hardly a selling point for anyone with brains. So the book’s author hates Bush and Clinton just like the left and a lot of the right, so we are not impressed with that argument.

The left is also citing the New Yorker‘s Jonathan Chait and his nasty article as indicative that the latest book against Hillary has merit heretofore never seen before. But let’s get real about Chait and the Kook left that hates Hillary. Chait does not want Hillary. Chait’s article is just the left with their lies lying in wait. Chait himself somewhat admits it:

In the eyes of my Democratic strategist, this damning critique “gives a VERY strong retort to the argument that the New Yorker said they were going to push… which is that this is a Fox News/Koch brothers-pushed story.”

“Now one of the biggest liberal voices at a big liberal mag is calling them out in the harshest terms possible makes that argument nul and void,” he wrote.

Chait is more modest: “It’s really overestimating my influence to suggest something I wrote changes things,” he said Thursday. “Look, reporters are going to ask about this, I doubt the campaign’s response will be shaped by my piece in any way.”

However, he later added: “I’m sure they don’t like having a liberal criticize them. It might, in some very marginal way, help open up more space for a Democratic challenger.”

Those last nine words.

For the ObamaRoids there is no running away from Preparation H. They want a kook challenger against Hillary but whether Hillary wins or loses they will lose. The best they can do is take themselves down with the party they have destroyed. In every scenario they will lose whether they know it or not. The day of the Obama cult is coming to an end.

For Hillary 2008 supporters who are disappointed and disgusted with Hillary for her association with the corrupt Obama we remind them that the fight right now is for the heart and soul of both parties. The Republicans have to decide whether to nominate an establishment Republican or someone they and the country can trust. For what once was the Democratic Party the question is whether to resurrect the sane Democratic Party of FDR/Kennedy/Clinton or to let the Kooks keep control.

We need two honest and functioning political parties with their various views of government (and yes it is two parties if you read and fully understand court decisions such as Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party) so that the people can decide which governing philosophy is best for them. When the governing party fails the people can turn to the opposition party. In 2016 both political parties must stand for change because the American people can’t stand any more of the mess we are in because of Obama.

For Hillary the email and funding “scandals” are devastating because they highlight a degree of dishonesty at the heart of the Hillary Clinton campaign. But the dishonesty is not one of corruption.

The dishonesty of Hillary Clinton 2016 is that she is entirely different from Barack Obama in character and experience – but she is trying to hide that glaring fact. If Hilary wants to win – LET HILLARY BE HILLARY. Cast off the Shield Maiden‘s cloak.

Share

148 thoughts on “Uranium One: Hard Truths About The Radioactive Problem of #Hillary2016

  1. It was genuinely shocking to see this play out live today:

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dog-the-bounty-hunter-shocks-fox-hosts-by-defending-hillary/

    Whatever Fox News thought they were getting when they invited Dog the Bounty Hunter (a.k.a., Duane Chapman) to serve as the #OneLuckyGuy on Friday’s Outnumbered, he managed to surprise the show’s co-hosts by unexpectedly backing Hillary Clinton during a discussion about the current 2016 presidential field.

    In Dog’s words, he doesn’t think anyone on the Republican side right now could “beat the dynamic duo,” by which he means the Clintons. “Oh no!” the women on the panel said in response.

    “I want someone in there with experience. We’re at war,” he explained. “I am a Republican, but I have faith in the dynamic duo.”

    “That makes me so sad,” Kennedy said in response. “I love everything about you. I think you are powerful and heroic, but the fact you are endorsing Hillary Clinton, it makes me sadder than The Notebook.”

    Dog insisted that he is not “endorsing” Clinton yet, but would not deny that he could support her. “I don’t know, I mean who’s going to run against her?” he asked.

    Before they followed this path any further, Andrea Tantaros quickly transitioned to the latest allegations against the Clinton Foundation.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slWmQ6TLBgA

  2. Hillary locked in her 2016 messaging problem the day she accepted the SecState job in an Obama administration. Now, that US foreign policy is in shambles, what record is she going to run on? Signing off on handing over US uranium reserves to Putin to ship to Iran?

    Her campaign says that she never got involved in that. Why not?

  3. Reagan lost a debate to Mondale because he let his handlers control him. The next debate he crushed Mondale with his unique blend of patriotism, character and humor. Moral to the story: let Reagan be Reagan.

    Same thing here. The Obama handlers are involved in her campaign. Inevitably, they urge her to adopt the same strategy he did, and to defend Obama. Instead of race, they are promoting gender–bludgeoning people with it. It won’t work. That numb nutz Cokehead Roberts got that ball started. There is far more to Hillary than that. Also, she has trapped herself by attempting to defend an indefensible position which earns her the emnity of swing voters, and no credit with the hard core left.

  4. HWC, exactly what are you talking about when you write “Signing off on handing over US uranium reserves to Putin to ship to Iran?” When did that happen? You must know your description distorts the facts. Your description of what happened is entirely inaccurate.

    As to what record Hillary has to run on, Hillary has a great story to tell but she won’t tell it. We have told the story these past years and will tell it again in the coming weeks to refresh memories.

  5. http://cookpolitical.com/story/8384

    Almost every hour, it seems, someone is either announcing for President or announcing they are thinking about running for President. There are dozens of stories a day about new hires at SuperPAC’s, “Scooby Van” road trips, horse race polls in battleground states, and GOP cattle calls in New Hampshire and Iowa. So much is happening in the race for the White House. And, yet nothing is happening at all.

    It is in times like these, when reputable news organizations are showing surveillance video of Hillary Clinton at a Chipotle, that we all need to take a deep breath, turn off the TV and Twitter and focus on the fundamentals.

    The Political Environment: Elections aren’t rocket science. Every one of them – from city council to President of the United States – is about the same thing: do voters want to change direction or stay-the-course. When voters are happy, they want to stay the course. When they are unhappy, they want to see change.

  6. http://time.com/3831794/clinton-allies-knock-down-donor-allegations-new-questions-pop-up/

    The new book, Clinton Cash: the Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, says that Hillary Clinton failed in 2010 to block the purchase of American uranium mines by a Russian-backed company while people with financial and strategic interests in the sale were making millions of dollars of donations to the Clinton Foundation, a philanthropy run by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

    The suggestion of outside influence over U.S. decisionmaking is based on little evidence — the allegations are presented as questions rather than proof. The deal’s approval was the result of an extensive interagency process that required the assent of at least nine different officials and agencies. A former State Department official who participated in the deal’s approval told TIME that Clinton did not weigh in on the uranium sale one way or the other, and her campaign calls the allegations in the book “absurd conspiracy theories.” [snip]

    One chapter of the book, written by conservative author Peter Schweizer and obtained by TIME, focuses on an obscure deal that had been years in the making. Schweizer says Secretary Clinton failed to block the Russian State Atomic Nuclear Agency (Rosatom), a Kremlin-controlled nuclear agency, from purchasing a controlling stake in an American Uranium mining concern, Uranium One. The company’s chairman, Ian Telfer, was a major donor to the Clinton Foundation. Several other Clinton Foundation donors stood to gain from the agreement as well.

    Because the proposed sale involved the transfer of potentially strategic U.S. assets, the Uranium One transaction was subject to approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an interagency panel that comprises powerful federal agencies. In prior years, Clinton had urged the committee to take a hawkish view of deals involving U.S. strategic assets, and Schweizer says that should have inclined her against the Rosatom purchase. “Despite a long record of publicly opposing such deals Hillary didn’t object,” Schweizer writes in the version of the chapter obtained by TIME. “Why the apparent reversal? Could it be because shareholders involved in the transaction had transferred approximately $145 million to the Clinton Foundation or its initiatives? Or because her husband had profited from lucrative speaking deals arranged by companies associated with those who stood to profit from the deal?”

    The State Department’s role in approving the deal was part of an extensive bureaucratic process, and the chapter offers no indication of Hillary Clinton’s personal involvement in, or even knowledge of, the deliberations. State has just one vote on the nine-member committee, which also includes the departments of Defense, Treasury and Energy. Disagreements are traditionally handled at the staff level, and if they are not resolved, they are escalated to deputies at the relevant agencies. If the deputies can’t resolve the dispute, the issues can be elevated to the Cabinet Secretary level and, if needed, to the President for a decision. The official chairman of CFIUS is the Treasury Secretary, not the Secretary of State.

    Before purchasing a controlling stake in Uranium One, the Russian conglomerate also had to get approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an independent agency outside of the State Department’s purview, as well as Utah’s nuclear regulator. It also received the sign-off of Canada’s foreign investment review agency. The deal itself was the outgrowth of a diplomatic initiative launched by the Administration of George W. Bush to expand trade opportunities between Russia and the U.S., including in the area of nuclear power.

    One official involved in the process said Clinton had nothing to do with the decision in the Uranium One case. Jose Hernandez, who as former Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs was the State Department’s principal representative on the committee, rejected the notion that Clinton’s foundation ties had any bearing on the deal. “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter,” he told TIME. A spokesperson for Hillary for America, Josh Schwerin, also attacked the suggestions made in the book. The transaction “went through the usual process and the official responsible for managing CFIUS reviews has stated that the Secretary did not intervene with him,” Schwerin says, “This book is twisting previously known facts into absurd conspiracy theories.”

  7. admin:

    Because Uranium One owned US uranium mining rights of strategic interest, the Obama administration, including a committee made up of related cabinet secretaries, had to approve the acquisition of Uranium One by the ROSATOM, the Russian State Atomic Energy Commission.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html

    The US government approval was given by October 2010, when Rosatom acquired a 51% state in Uranium One. Rosatom acquired a 100% stake in Jan 2013.

    Russia (ROSATOM) supplies uranium to Iran.

    Hillary claims that she delegated her responsibility for signing off on the deal to underlings. She was either uninterested or unconcerned about the strategic implications of selling US uranium reserve mining right to a the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation. I think, that as a Presidential candidate, she should expect to answer questions about what led to her being uninterested or unconcerned about such a deal, in light of current US/Russian relations and Russia’s long term concerns about their lack of uranium supply channels.

    ——————-

    When objections were raised at the time, the Obama administration assured Congressional critics that Uranium One would not be able to export US uranium because they would not be given an export license. However, Uranium One did export US uranium, shipping it to Canada, using an export license already granted to the shipping company.

    The US uranium reserves are actually a small part of this story. The big reserves are the Kazakhstan reserves that were acquired by Frank Giustra in 2005 when Bill got a $500,000 speaking fee from the Russian investment bank that later did the Rosadom deal to deliver a speech in Kazakhstan lauding human rights efforts of the Kazakhstan dictator, Clinton Foundation got a couple million from Giustra and associates, and Giustra got the uranium deal.

  8. Hillary needs her own “coming out party”

    …this is who I am…and this is what I intend to do and what you can expect from me…

    (remember her directness in that 60 minutes ‘I’m not Tammy Wynette’ interview…)
    she basically said this about Bill and told people they did not have to vote for him

    …but they did…twice…

    right now it feels like Hillary is in the shadows somewhere…

  9. Admin,

    You have nailed it again. Gee, Hillary 2016 sounds like Hillary 2008 and the failed Romney Campaign. I say it is early in the game, will Hillary wise up soon enough this time?

  10. BTW, Josh Earnest was asked at Thurs White House press briefing whether any of the nine cabinet secretaries objected to approving the Rosadom deal. He gave the talking point about Canada having to sign off, too, but promised to try to find out if there were US objections.

    Time Magazine is being a little disingenuous about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It’s a five member panel, appointed by the President, confirmed by Congress, serving five year terms. It has historically been the government advocate/promoter for the nuclear industry.

  11. Lu4PUMA, there is some minor hope. Hillary will learn in the school of hard knocks. Once the left has their kook announce, Hillary will have to make the decisions we want her to make or she will go the way of Henry Hewes. But as we wrote, there is some, some hope:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-aggressive-bid-to-get-noticed-omalley-hits-clinton-from-the-left/2015/04/24/1532160a-e93c-11e4-9a6a-c1ab95a0600b_story.html

    For Clinton — whose lack of significant opposition is off-putting to many progressives — O’Malley can be a useful foil, and her campaign is mindful not to be too heavyhanded with him. But if he continues to confront her, aides and advisers say, Clinton could be forced into open conflict with her party’s left flank far earlier in the race than she had hoped.

    She needs to confront the kook left as well as their tin-god Obama.

  12. hwc
    April 24, 2015 at 7:10 pm
    ——————————-
    Do you think we are so simple minded that we would not notice how you failed to connect the dots to Hillary, switch to Obama and then changed the subject?

    We are not susceptible to such childish manipulation

    Circumstances can be created.

    Documents and timeline.

    Put up or shut up.

    If they had them they would be in court, not hyping like ridiculous shills.

  13. There are no dots to connect. Hillary Clinton, as SecState, had to sign off on the purchase of Uranium One and its US uranium reserves to the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation.

    Given her rather visible involvement in the Obama admin “reset” with Putin and given how that has worked out and given the Russian involvement as a supplier to the Iranian nuclear program, I would like to hear her explanation of why she thinks that was a good deal. It’s a simple question. Why did she sign off on the deal (or not interfere with an undersecretary signing off for her)?

    What would be her policy toward Russia in a Clinton administration? Would she continue making concessions in hopes of a “reset”? What would be her policy towards the Iranian nuclear program?

    Maybe I’m being unreasonable with questions like these, but they seem like pretty fundamental questions to me. Again, the current state of US foreign policy appears to be in shambles.

  14. I just started reading and I love this paragraph Admin!

    “For all intents and purposes Hillary has become The Shield Maiden Of Chappaqua. Hillary is trapped in a strategic mess of her own making. It will take Bill Clinton level skill to get Hillary out of the mess she is in. Fortunately Hillary, like Bill, is a Perils of Pauline type character who is able to loosen her bonds before the train rolls over her. With President Bill Clinton half the fun was watching as the latter day Tom Sawyer got himself into trouble then get out of trouble and come out smiling. With Hillary… well we saw Hillary come to life in 2008 after the disaster of Iowa.

    Back to reading…

  15. For the ObamaRoids there is no running away from Preparation H. They want a kook challenger against Hillary but whether Hillary wins or loses they will lose. The best they can do is take themselves down with the party they have destroyed. In every scenario they will lose whether they know it or not. The day of the Obama cult is coming to an end.

    ———-
    Absolutely Admin!

  16. The dishonesty of Hillary Clinton 2016 is that she is entirely different from Barack Obama in character and experience – but she is trying to hide that glaring fact. If Hilary wants to win – LET HILLARY BE HILLARY. Cast off the Shield Maiden‘s cloak.

    ———
    Hell yes, ADMIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  17. moon, I do think you have a point.

    _____

    LET HILLARY BE HILLARY.

    Hell yes! I so hope we see the real Hillary before this is all over.

  18. Because misogyny and hatred of women is very much acceptable whereas racism or homophobia even when they do not exist are attacked and completely unacceptable.

    So true.

    And in terms of language, personally, I think people should have to say “the ‘c” word” rather than the word itself. IMO, it’s way worse than the n word.

  19. I don’t think it’s fair to imply someone is a troll because they have questions and are trying to understand. Things are different than in 2008 when Hillary was clear about her beliefs and all the accusations were from decades earlier. Things now are confusing, and Hillary isn’t helping. I don’t think it’s odd to choose to sort it out. I remember all too well the obamabots excusing everything O did by saying he was playing 17th dimensional chess. I don’t want to be that person. I want to understand.

    Questions help lead us to the answers, and when asked on a public forum, they help *everyone* reading hear both sides and the responses. I understand that there are real trolls on the internet, but I’ve also seen websites that use the accusation to shut someone down, just as obots used the race card. I think the troll word should be used sparingly and when certain.

    Just mho.

  20. Shadowfax
    April 24, 2015 at 10:05 pm
    —————————-
    Indeed. I’m waiting for Hillary to loudly and proudly distance herself from Obola. Until then, I’m not sending my check to her campaign.

  21. We all know Hillary is “scary smart”, and she HAS to know so much about politics, having been in so long. So WHY does she hire former o employees? It makes me so nervous. And why is she hiding who she is? For one thing, it’s giving the left and right a lot of room to be blasting her. And Fox is definitely in virtually full-time CDS now – which is a problem with Hillary not speaking, because that station always wins in ratings. Most people choose Fox, but that shows they’re not all republican viewers.

    There are plenty of nonrepublicans watching it, and hearing their negative spin. And sadly, I think most people vote based on signs they see (familiarity with name based on seeing the signs) and headlines for which they don’t do much more reading of the subject.

    But admin has a good point about the pollster Hillary hired. If he’s an Obot, he can be a gatekeeper of valuable info (either by hiding it or faking it, and lead Hillary astray.

  22. Hwc, we get it. You do not support Hillary and that is certainly your right and we respect that here at Hillary is 44. But it might enlighten us to hear which candidate you do admire and support and why.

  23. For anyone who likes to read, I’m reading the newest book (Heretic) by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and it’s very good. Well written and very informative. She is the Somalian born woman who left Islam and now is an American. She bravely calls Islam to task for its anti-woman (and other) underpinnings, and says other religions have evolved, and now Islam needs to.

    She calls out “liberals” (I think she means the western world not just leftists) for their hypocrisy in tolerating the intolerance of Islam. She says we can’t separate the religion from the bad acts, because the religion is integral, and you can’t reform it if you keep saying the terrorists are “not Muslim” (hear that, o?) Anyway, it’s an excellent book.

  24. Lorac, you’re right about it being legitimate to question Hillary. Indeed, I think most of us here have done so at one time or another. But questioning is very different from blatant accusations and what appears to be intentionally inflammatory and derogatory commentary. JMHO

  25. “I want someone in there with experience. We’re at war,” he explained. “I am a Republican, but I have faith in the dynamic duo.”

    ROFL The DOG is a PUMA! Country before party!

  26. lorac
    April 24, 2015 at 11:14 pm
    ——————————-
    It’s good to know that there are still people like that even on the GOP side.

  27. But it might enlighten us to hear which candidate you do admire and support and why.

    It’s tough. Both political parties do their best to drive centrists away from the voting booth.

    I haven’t seen enough of the candidates to support one, yet. There are several that I could not vote for — Huckabee, Santorum. Heck, I can’t even watch them on TV without changing the channel.

    I thought early on that Scott Walker would probably get the Republican nomination as the candidate who might best appeal to the many different Republican bases. I haven’t seen anything to make me change that hunch, but it’s so early…

    As a former centrist Democrat, I’d probably be fine with Jeb Bush, but, again, I haven’t really seen him action.

    I think Paul, Rubio, and Cruz all have significant shortcomings in my book (for very different reasons), but I think all will bring an energy and rhetorical focus to the Republican field that will be positive — and a nightmare for the Democrats.

    Probably not going to happen, but I could definitely get behind a dark horse:

  28. Tony Stark

    Shadowfax
    April 24, 2015 at 10:05 pm
    —————————-
    Indeed. I’m waiting for Hillary to loudly and proudly distance herself from Obola. Until then, I’m not sending my check to her campaign.

    ———
    I haven’t sent any money either TonyS, mainly because I am not sure if the $ is going to Hillary or not.

    Damn straight I will vote for her, I haven’t waited all these years for nothing, but she knows the fate of the party is make or break depending on how she handles it. I give her kudos for having the courage to run again, after being knifed in the back…but she knows when she draws a line in the sand…all Hell will break loose.

  29. BTW, I have never thought that Hillary would end up running in 2016. I’ve always thought that the hatred of the Clintons by the Obama Democrats would make her realize it would be not worth the aggravation just to get beat a second time. They are never going to support her. She’s in the wrong place at the wrong time. This can’t be much fun for her.

  30. “They” will never support her. ” They” didn’t support her in 2008. They threw her and the Centrist Dems, Indys and various others who supported her under the bus. But, she still won more votes than Obama. The Crazy Left has no one to hype as they did O. No one who has as compelling a fake history as O. Now, they can’t hype Bill de Bullshit or anyone else as the first AA president. Even media, which has always been and will continue to be biased against Hillary will still not be as enamored of anyone as they were their pop star Obama. The young voters will not be as into anyone as they were Obama. They’re suckers for cool, and O played them like a symphony of violins. That won’t happen again in 2016.

    Obama can through his trumped-up, made -up so called intelligent ass behind anyone of the contenders – Bill, Feather-head, Bernie Flintstone or anyone else, but the impact will be much weaker. Even if Obama were running in 2016, he wouldn’t garner the same level of support from the voters he deceived and bamboozled into voting for him in 2008.

    From that perspective, things don’t look so bleak. Assuming that every kook in America votes against Hillary, this number will still be less than those who voted against her in 2008. Plus, the number of no-so-Crazy-Left voters who voted for O just because of his race won’t necessarily be voting against Hillary this time.

    Granted, she has will face different obstacles this time, and only time will tell whether she can pull this off. But, my money’s on her.

    I have always believed that one reason Hillary has (pretty much, consistently) enjoyed popularity and high approval ratings since 2008 was because many, many people in this country knew she was cheated out of the nomination in 2008. They knew she won it. They saw how badly she was treated by MSM – if not, they were blind. I think there are many voters who view electing Hillary in 2016 as righting a wrong. I damn sure do.

    She deserves this win and this country need her. She will have to morph into an entirely different person before I will decide not to fight like hell for her.

  31. Free

    I have always believed that one reason Hillary has (pretty much, consistently) enjoyed popularity and high approval ratings since 2008 was because many, many people in this country knew she was cheated out of the nomination in 2008. They knew she won it. They saw how badly she was treated by MSM – if not, they were blind. I think there are many voters who view electing Hillary in 2016 as righting a wrong. I damn sure do.

    She deserves this win and this country need her. She will have to morph into an entirely different person before I will decide not to fight like hell for her.

    ———-
    Hell yes Free!

    Good song choice too.

  32. Well at work I had some surprising good news, for once. Like I said, I live in the land of Obots, plain and simple.

    I can’t say were I work, but let’s say there are thousands of people there. I got an email today with the exposed list of about 1500 other people it was sent to at work, (I can tell by their email address) and it was someone posting a party gathering for Hillary supporters. The person identifies from the Ready for Hillary group in the city where I work.

    That means that the way this person got all of our email addresses wasn’t random, it was from people that signed up to support Hillary (not the donations list) on Ready for Hillary.

    I was amazed, people of all ages and both male and female. It will be interesting to go and finally be around lots of Hillary supporters.

  33. If Hilary wants to win – LET HILLARY BE HILLARY. Cast off the Shield Maiden‘s cloak.
    —————————————————————

    The Hillary hate @ work and elsewhere is deafening.
    Hillary better heed your advice, Admin, or she is toast. She doesn’t have much time.

  34. Judicial Watch. The only organization worth contributing to IF you care about the future of this nation. To contribute to politicians is a colossal waste of money because it goes to their staffs, and they routinely break faith with their constitutents, and they do not get anything done for the people of this nation. They-just-talk. Judicial Watch has weighed in on this case, in order to reverse a mindless decision by a unamimous 10th circuit, headed up by an AA appointed by RINO Bush and another one by Obama. The thrust of the decision is to state that citizenship is the condition precedent to voting and then to deny states the tool they need–some proof of citizenship to enforce that requirement. That is, of course, a non-sequitur created by this court to advance the agenda of Obama, as the brief lays bare. The way they do it is to conflate two clauses of the Constitution one of which gives the federal government the right to ensure that elections are fairly administered and another independent clause that gives states the right—and the obligation to determine voter eligibility, meaning among other things like age and residence, citizenship, which is again the sine qua non. The effect of the 10th Circuit decision is to extinguish the latter premise on the narrow reed of logic that if it is enforced, meaning if states require proof of citizenship that may have an adverse impact on black people and on the elderly. It is as if black people and the elderly have no means of acquiring such proof–or that similar proof of identity is not required in their daily lives. Weigh this against the fact that with the influx with as many as 20 million illegals, and the proven outreach of democrats to lure these groups into widespread corruption of our election laws, the need to give these rights the tools these Obama clones in Judicial robes seek to prevent them from having will have to be remedied, if at all, at the Supreme Court level, which means, among other things, that Chief Justice Roberts is most likely blowing suppositories out of his sore asshole right now just thinking about the problem which is now in his lap. Poor John.
    —-
    Foreign Nationals Stealing Our Elections?

    We have little doubt that election integrity measures, especially in these days of open borders and mass illegal immigration, are essential to clean elections. That’s why we felt it important to join with the Allied Educational Foundation to file an amici curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court in support of Arizona’s and Kansas’ efforts to add proof-of-citizenship requirements to a federal voter registration form (Kris W. Kobach, et al., v. U. S. Election Assistance Commission, et al., (No. 14-1164)). This important brief argues that if a lower court ruling is permitted to stand, it will “undermine voter confidence in the integrity of elections:”

    If states cannot verify the citizenship of those registering to vote, citizens may have their votes cancelled out by unlawful ballots cast in the names of noncitizens. The mere threat of this outcome will undermine voters’ confidence that elections are being conducted fairly and honestly, discouraging those voters from voting at all and thereby burdening their right to vote. As this Court has explained, public confidence in the integrity of elections encourages citizen participation in the democratic process…Conversely, a lack of faith in electoral integrity undermines confidence in the system and discourages citizen participation in democracy.

    To break it down very simply – it has been evident for some time that Team Obama would like to recruit and register as many non-citizens as possible in an effort to swing upcoming elections. Once this is understood, the administration’s bizarre policy choices make much more sense. Our astute readers are familiar with the 76 pages of DHS documents showing that as of April 26, 2014, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, a division of DHS, had released 165,900 convicted criminal aliens into the United States at taxpayers’ expense, both in terms of money and security. This figure includes criminal aliens convicted of homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping, and aggravated assault. Yes, that’s a danger to the public safety, but safety comes in second to President Obama’s political agenda. Now the administration is working overtime to prevent states from enforcing their own laws that require voter registration applications provide proof of citizenship.

    In August 2013, Kansas and Arizona filed a complaint against the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas to force the agency to require proof of citizenship in the state-specific instructions on the National Mail Voter Registration Form (the federal form). The District Court ruled in favor of the states, but in November 2014, the Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the Obama administration could block state officials from upholding their own laws requiring proof of citizenship before voting. In March, the secretaries of state of Arizona and Kansas filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court asking it to review and overturn the Tenth Circuit ruling.

    There are important constitutional principles at stake here. States are permitted under the U.S. Constitution to set the qualifications for voters.

    The Supreme Court previously ruled (Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona) that “the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them … Since the power to establish voting requirements is of little value without the power to enforce those requirements, Arizona is correct that it would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a State from obtaining the information necessary to enforce its voter qualifications.”

    Your JW has been fighting this battle for some time now. In December 2012, we filed a Supreme Court amicus curiae brief in support of Arizona’s proof of citizenship voter registration law. Then, in January 2014 we supported Arizona’s and Kansas’ follow-up to that litigation in their efforts to gain approval from the Obama administration’s EAC to change the “federal” voter registration form to include a proof-of-citizenship requirement. We then joined with AEF to support the states’ challenge to the EAC with an amici brief before the Tenth Circuit in July 2014. The Obama Justice Department pressured states to register greater numbers of voters on public assistance, while ignoring federal law requiring states to clean up voter registration lists. And let’s not forget the Obama Justice Department has also opposed voter ID laws and other election integrity measures.

    In our brief we also point to U.S. Census Bureau data, which indicates that seven percent of the U.S. resident population lacks citizenship (approximately 22 million lawful and unlawfully present aliens). State efforts to ensure only eligible citizens vote, therefore, are presented with a real voter fraud problem. A study published in 2014 concluded that about 25 percent of U.S. non-citizens were registered to vote in 2010, and that 6.4 percent had voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent had voted in 2010. These illegal non-citizen voters, the study suggested, were decisive in President Obama’s 2008 election victory and in ensuring the Democratic super-majority could pass Obamacare into law. The researchers noted that many legal and illegal aliens had sufficient voter ID to vote in states that require some type of voter identification, which suggests that voter ID laws alone may not prevent non-citizens from voting.

    The amici brief emphasizes that efforts to ensure that only citizens vote in federal elections are essential to combatting fraud and reassuring Americans that elections are fair:

    The Tenth Circuit’s decision threatens to diminish Americans’ confidence in their own elections. The harm that results will be significant regardless of the frequency with which voter fraud occurs. A bipartisan panel convened to examine the existence and impact of voter fraud, the Carter-Baker Commission, had this to say [in 2005] about the frequency of voter fraud relative to its “significance”:

    While the Commission is divided on the magnitude of voter fraud – with some believing the problem is widespread and others believing that it is minor – there is no doubt that it occurs. The problem, however, is not the magnitude of the fraud. In close or disputed elections, and there are many, a small amount of fraud could make the margin of difference. And second, the perception of possible fraud contributes to low confidence in the system.

    Such “close elections” occur all the time. Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted released remarkable statistics showing that, in 2013, 35 local races and 8 local ballot issues were decided in his state either by one vote, or by the toss of a coin following an electoral tie.

    Illegal voting at any level can change the outcome of elections. And there is no acceptable amount of fraud.

    Once again, it falls to the states and independent groups such as Judicial Watch to fight the Obama administration in order to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. When a far-left president opposes citizenship verification and voter ID, we can only conclude that it’s because he wants non-citizens to turn elections. The Supreme Court should step in, follow the Constitution and recognize the constitutional power of the states to secure elections by ensuring that only citizens can vote.

    In the meantime, you might want to ask your state and local officials what they are doing to ensure the integrity of elections. Kansas and Arizona shouldn’t be alone in upholding the rule of law.

    Until next week …

    Tom Fitton
    President

  35. The statistical evidence presented by Judicial Watch shows that the majority of people in this country have no confidence in the election process, and this hyper partisan decision by the Tenth Circuit serves to reinforce that impression. I think these Judges are corrupt. Corruption can take many forms, and as the great San Francisco trial lawyer of the mid century Jake Erlich once noted, one man of out 100 can be bribed by gold, but a majority of the rest of them can be bribed with something else–wanted to be loved, and the pressures felt on this AA Judge are I am sure excruciating to the point that they corrupt his judgement. It makes no sense to say citizenship is sine qua non to vote, but there is no way to ensure it, so le bon temps roule. Either he is corrupt in one or another sense of the word, or else he has lost sight of the forest for the trees. A dumbed down electorate is the goal of every establishment politician because it gives them a free hand to fuck the country. And that is why your preference for Bush is, if I may say so HWC, absurd.

  36. I didn’t say that I had a preference for Jeb Bush. I don’t have a preference for anybody at the moment. I just said that he’s probably the closest thing to a centrist Democrat in the race…

    I don’t think he’s likely to survive the early primaries and I don’t think running another Bush sends a message of hope n’ change and a brighter tomorrow for the Republicans.

  37. hwc
    April 24, 2015 at 11:23 pm

    … Probably not going to happen, but I could definitely get behind a dark horse
    ————————————————–
    So when the Kooks bring out their next Manchurian candidate, you could get behind that.

    And you are here to enlighten us to why.

    And you just have questions for Hillary but you will not not asking who is backing your dark horse or how they will defeat a more competent and experienced candidate.

    I hope that Hillary Clinton is ready for the 2008/16 redo and tears your asses to shreds.

    Unless you can show me a receipt or deposit slip with Hillary’s signature for the mysterious Russian money that showed up through Canada, I suggest you suck it up and spew that swill elsewhere.

  38. My “dark horse” candidate was Condoleeza Rice. I wouldn’t view her as a Manchurian candidate. Or as less “competent” or “experienced” than anyone else in the race.

  39. My “dark horse” candidate was Condoleeza Rice.
    ——————
    My dark horse candidate is Henry Kissinger.

  40. wbboei, just to let you know, I just visited Fort Nisqually at Point Defiance yesterday and had a good time learning about the history of this region. I found it interesting to learn from our guide that Tacoma was the big cheese around here because of the transcontinental railroad and that Seattle was a relatively minor city compared to it until the Klondike gold rush changed all of that.

  41. hwc,

    You are not going to find Condoleeza here. That is probably a better discussion for a Republican blog.

    This one is called Hillaryis44 and my understanding of the interest here is the Democratic Party and candidate. The big deal is loyalty to our country and restoring the Democratic Party as the party of the populous instead of the totalitarian leftists Kooks that took control in 2008. Their failures will not deter them from perusing their destructive agenda.

    You can’t seriously think anyone here is going for Hopey Changey propaganda.

  42. Actually, this blog has largely been the voice of Clinton 2008 supporters who were given the boot by the Democrat party. Over the last 8 years, all of us have made our own political recalculations.

    Personally, I don’t think I could vote for what is now the mainstream Democrat agenda. Clinton would have to distance herself from key areas of the Obama administration policy to get my vote. I’m not interested in Obama’s third term.

  43. BBBBBbbbwwwwwwwahahahahaha!!!

    Oh Look, we have a Kook in sheoples clothing.

    You have FAILED. Get that, demonstrated FAILURE. Your ideology is dysfunction and distasteful to anyone decent who knows you. Obama is a grafter from Chicago and his followers are totalitarian thugs who have FAILED.

    Hopey Changey to you, too.

  44. Senate Squaw heap big forked tongue run for big chief. Ugh.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/elizabeth-warren-2016-new-hampshire-117332.html?hp=t2_r

    DOVER, N.H. — Kurt Ehrenberg spent three hours one day this week trying to convince people to try to convince Elizabeth Warren to run for president.

    Republicans in the Granite State, with its first-in-the-nation primary early next year, are telling their nearly 20-strong glut of candidates, will-be candidates and would-be candidates to not beat up on each other too bad. The Democrats, meanwhile, have the opposite problem. They just want Hillary Clinton to have to run hard against somebody other than herself.

    Hence the scene, sunny and breezy, outside the children’s museum here on Wednesday, up from the west bank of the brown water of the Cocheco River — Ehrenberg, 56, this state’s boss of the grassroots initiative called Run Warren Run, dressed in khaki pants and sensible shoes, approaching mothers carrying babies, mothers pushing strollers, mothers herding toddlers.

    “Would you like to sign a card to ask Elizabeth Warren to run for president?”

    “No, thank you.”

    “Would you like to sign a card to ask Elizabeth Warren to run for president?”

    “Not right now.”

    “Would you like to sign a card to ask Elizabeth Warren to run for president?”

    “Maybe on the way out.”

    “I know you have your hands full …”

    Still no. [snip]

    Run Warren Run, founded and funded by Democracy for America and MoveOn.org, launched in December. The group has nine paid staffers in Iowa and two paid staffers in New Hampshire. It is about to hire two more in New Hampshire. It has offices in Iowa in Des Moines and Cedar Rapids and in New Hampshire in Manchester, in a small, drab building catty-corner form a pizza place, the windows plastered with placards.

    So far, according to Chamberlain and Wikler, Run Warren Run has spent approximately $1.25 million, on staff, signs, shirts, cards, stickers and rent. The tally of names who have signed up on the cards or online asking her to run: 325,000. Next up? Maybe more staff in Iowa and New Hampshire, maybe staff in other states, maybe ads on TV.

  45. Shadowfax
    April 24, 2015 at 11:27 pm
    ————————————-
    Just got a phone call from her campaign worker in Boston asking for a $50 donation. I told him as politely as I could that while I would vote for her, until she publicly breaks away from Obama and his disastrous policies and stops protecting him, I’m not opening my wallet for them.

  46. We’ll start to focus on O’Malley soon.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/martin-omalley-forces-ramp-up-for-late-may-launch-117254.html

    Martin O’Malley forces ramp up for late May launch [snip]

    MANCHESTER, N.H. — Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s supporters are getting ready for a likely presidential campaign launch in Baltimore in late May, while the candidate meets with prospective donors in the San Francisco area this week. [snip]

    He is scheduled to appear at the South Carolina Democratic Party convention this weekend and will almost certainly stop in Iowa in the coming weeks, though details have not yet been finalized, according to aides. His stop in New Hampshire on May 13 for a state party fundraiser and house party will probably be one of his final pre-campaign trips.

    In late May, he will likely make his White House intentions official at an announcement in Baltimore, where he launched his political career and served eight years as mayor.

    As the consensus grows that progressive hero Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) won’t pursue the presidency, O’Malley’s appearances have been calibrated to position himself as the liberal alternative to Clinton with a record of proven accomplishments. He regularly talks about imposing tighter regulations on Wall Street banks, an issue closely associated with Warren, and he has also aligned himself with her wing of the party against the 12-nation Pacific trade deal that is supported by President Barack Obama.

    O’Malley’s allies assume that down the line much of the progressive infrastructure currently devoted to drafting and backing Warren in Washington and the early-voting states will turn to him as its most realistic hope.

    “There’s a base of progressives out there nationally looking for a voice, and they’ve been funding people for a while,” says O’Malley senior adviser Bill Hyers, who managed liberal darling Bill de Blasio’s New York mayoral campaign in 2013. “There’s definitely a group we can tap into that is looking for Gov. O’Malley.” [snip]

    “Hillary better be nice to him,” warned Dan Calegari, a longtime New Hampshire activist, who , like Cornwell, has known O’Malley since their days on the Hart campaign. “He’s going to need a good vice president. First woman vice president.”

  47. OMG, I just looked up Democracy for America. Howard Dean and his brother! Ga bag, himself. Boy, he just never got over not being nominated, did he. If I were Fauxahontas I would run… just as fast as I could away from them.

    Run! Lizzy, Run!

  48. Tony Stark
    April 25, 2015 at 12:56 pm

    wbboei, just to let you know, I just visited Fort Nisqually at Point Defiance yesterday and had a good time learning about the history of this region. I found it interesting to learn from our guide that Tacoma was the big cheese around here because of the transcontinental railroad and that Seattle was a relatively minor city compared to it until the Klondike gold rush changed all of that.
    ———
    I have roots in both towns and each has its separate character.

    Tacoma was the leading city when the Northern Pacific Railroad chose it as the terminus of its east to west line. initially.

    Consequently, the leading Seattle civil leader of that day, Judge Burke and others prevailed upon James Jay Hill, the so called Empire Builder to run his competing line, the Great Northern to Seattle. The Burke museum at University of Washington was named for him, and there is a statue of him at Volunteer Park on Capitol Hill which was, and still is the crown jewel of our Olmstead designed park system. Right next to it is the original cemetery where that generation is buried including the Denny family. But the main draw is the grave of the actor Bruce Lee, which attracts thousands of visitors each year.

    When the Gold Rush hit, the Northern Pacific followed suit, as Seattle became the point of debarkation for Alaska, as depicted in the John Wayne movie North to Alaska. My maternal grandfather went North to the gold rush, and left a wife and family behind. He returned with nothing to show for it, as did thousands of others. There were very few Sam McCords in that generation. The details of all this are sketchy to me, as family legends have been known to grow with the passage of time. My maternal grandfather was a case in point. He served in the trenches in World War I–that much we know. He would visit us every year when we were children and every year he would show us the scar in his abdomen which was produced by a German soldier with a spiked helmet. We later learned it was an operation scar.

  49. Tony Stark
    April 25, 2015 at 12:56 pm
    ———
    Another point of interest is the underground tour which has the remains of the Seattle that existed prior to the great fire of 1888.

  50. In my 4:08 post I meant to call Howard Dean a gas bag. Seriously, it looks like they put that website up in February and they have 48 likes on Facebook.

    Maybe Howard should take a run. Run Howard! Run!

    (Gas explosions following)

  51. Tony

    Just got a phone call from her campaign worker in Boston asking for a $50 donation. I told him as politely as I could that while I would vote for her, until she publicly breaks away from Obama and his disastrous policies and stops protecting him, I’m not opening my wallet for them.

    ——

    Perfect! I never get phone calls for anything political…especially how I will vote.

  52. California, here it comes, right back where it started from. Yeah, we’re talking ObamaCare:

    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/california-658869-covered-state.html

    After two previous extensions, the open enrollment period for Covered California ends April 30. That deadline just might prove to be the tipping point for the state’s two-year-old health insurance exchange.

    That’s because this is the year Covered California is supposed to become completely self-sustaining.

    Indeed, there’s no more money coming from Washington after the state exhausts the $1.1 billion it received from the federal government to get the Obamacare exchange up and running. And state law prohibits Sacramento from spending any money to keep the exchange afloat.

    That presents an existential crisis for Covered California, which is facing a nearly $80 budget deficit for its 2015-16 fiscal year. Although the exchange is setting aside $200 million to cover its near-term deficit, Covered California Executive Director Peter Lee acknowledged in December that there are questions about the “long-term sustainability of the organization.”

    Mr. Lee’s disquieting assessment actually jibed with a 2013 report by the state auditor, which stated that, until the state’s health insurance exchange actually started enrolling Californians in health plans, its “future solvency” was ”uncertain.” Thus, Covered California was listed as a “high-risk” issue for the state.

    The state auditor’s warning appeared prescient as of Feb. 15, which was supposed to be the close of open enrollment for 2015: Covered California had fallen 300,000 enrollees short of the goal set by Mr. Lee and the agency’s board of directors.

    Indeed, Covered California’s enrollment growth for 2015 was a mere 1 percent, according to a study this month by Avalere Health. That was worst than all but two other state exchanges. Meanwhile, California’s Obamacare exchange managed to retain only 65 percent of previous enrollees, the nation’s fourth-lowest re-enrollment rate.

    George W. Bush must be to blame. [Note: we suspect that $80 figure is more like $80 million. Typo.]

  53. I watched the WH Press Correspondents’ dinner also but was not amused. We did not find the comedian from Saturday Night live funny and many of her jokes fell flat. There seemed to be a lot of sucking up to Obama…the real truth about the media on display. They seemed to laugh louder and enjoy the jokes about Hillary the most.

  54. I have wondered at times who this Phillip Reines is, who is so close to Hillary. He was with her and State, and is still with her. Turns out he is a political fixer. I guess he is in the same role for her that James Carvalle was for Bill. But if that is correct, then he is far more, how shall I put it, camera shy. I think he is under subpoena now. All this noise about accountability in this scam we call a political system is just street theater. Just as horseracing was once thought to be the sport of kings, today that sport is politics, as competing groups of billionaire look for ways to make this nation their oyster. Ergo, nothwithstanding this perils of Pauline minidrama, whether or not Hillary used her position as SOS to solicit funds from middle east potentates becomes for all intents and purposes irrelevant. And for those who think that by reason of the fact that NYT is leading the charge for now, they too will fall in line, once it becomes obvious that O Malley and Warren are dull as paint, dumb as a rock, and most important of all, cannot command the wall of money Hillary can. The final tell? 2/3 of the Washington Press corps believes Hillary will be the next president, not because she is the best of all possible candidates, but because she alone can command that wall of money. The most important factor however is something Sir Richard says at the tale end of this article: Obama is the architect of the chaos we now see around the world, his most important role is to tell jokes on Saturday Night Live, or its contemporary version at the National Press Club, which is second only to the golf course, as the place where he can play and have lots of fun. And that is because he CANNOT CALL BACK THE AVALANCHE, meaning the implosion of the global order favoring the United States, which seismic event he and he alone initiated through the big media beloved policy of Arab Spring, which is tantamount to we apologize, we are washing our hands of managing world events, and going home. On a separate note I see that that CNN diva Dana Bash’s first husband is one of the founders of Beacon Strategies, and one of the other founders was–you guessed it Phillipe Raines. This is one of a hundred examples of the joinder of big media, politicians, lobbyists etc. that define Washington. And that is why Washington is a democrat city. Everyone in it, with a few exceptions, survives and prospers on big government which rakes in the hard earned cash of the American People and fancies that it knows how to spend their money more wisely than they do, lining their own pockets. In sum, big media is the tool of the Washington establishment and its goals are overtly hostile not only to the nation, but to the very concept of truth itself.
    ————

    President Wile E. Coyote
    by Richard Fernandez
    April 26, 2015 – 4:38 am

    “We’re sort of seeing the world order cracking around the edges,” says Robert Kagan, a conservative author and historian whose writing has caught the president’s attention. “The only thing Obama can hope is that it doesn’t completely collapse while he’s still president.”

    Him and everybody else. Michael Crowley in Politico writes, “Obama took office vowing to end America’s wars. Now we’re in at least five, and U.S. officials are unsure what to do about it.” In the meantime the public can listen to him tell jokes. That is probably the highest and best use of his time until Hillary Clinton becomes president — an event which the press believes is foregone. A survey of 70 journalists assigned to the White House revealed that 63% of White House correspondents think Hillary will be the next president. 21% think it will be Jeb Bush. Marco Rubio is given only at 4% of making it.

    Out among Obama’s wars regimes are struggling to survive. Yakub Halabi of Ynet believes that Saudi Arabia is fighting for its life in Yemen.

    Nor is it necessarily the case that if Assad falls, some new successor government will take its place in Syria. In the kind of cauldron that is developing, everything may just implode on itself. Mohammed Ayoob, author of the book Will the Middle East Implode argues that the Arab Spring snuffed out the credibility of democratic change while Islamism simultaneously resurrected itself as a political ideology and everyone began to seek the Atomic Bomb. (snip)

    Then the scenario from hell met the messiah from Chicago.

    If some kind of catastrophe happens and things go south, then Hillary might have a problem. If all out conflict and dislocation breaks out who knows but Rubio or Cruz might improve their chances to 5%. As CNN Money writes, one of Clinton’s chief worries is that the economic recovery might die before the election.

    This is perfectly rational in a manner of speaking. The administration can no longer call back the avalanche it has started. There is almost nothing left to do but hope for the best and tell jokes. Speaking of which, did you hear the story Obama told about Benjamin Netanyahu? John Boehner was looking for a guy to talk a funeral and …

    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/04/26/president-wile-e-coyote/#ixzz3YPttKx8s

  55. Correction: not Washington Press Corps—Washington Press Corpse, because they are as dead between the ears of Tom Brokaw.

  56. O nailed the namesake of his Presidency perfectly:

    “O, The Bucket Presidency”…says it all

    ***************************

    as for the Correspondent’s Dinner…did not find it funny, most of the jokes fell flat, usual opportunity for ‘bitter, strike back’ “jokes”

    just look at the face of the audience for most of feigned and forced laughter…especially after a ‘few’ drinks…

    imho…did not think the ‘fashion’ could outdo itself…proven wrong (going for the) “one hot shining mess” stood out

  57. James Clyburn and a song we’ve all heard before:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-sc-democrats-wait-on-hillary-clinton-likely-foes-plant-seeds/2015/04/25/453f5810-eb5f-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html

    Bernie Sanders, the socialist senator from Vermont toying with a primary challenge to Clinton, brought Democrats to their feet with a fiery sermon about the hollowed-out middle class and the rise of an “oligarchic form of society” controlled by billionaires.

    The reception Sanders received — several delegates called him “electric” — surprised Rep. James E. Clyburn, the state’s most powerful Democrat, who took it all in from the back of the hall.

    “I really did not anticipate that from Bernie,” Clyburn said. “It says something about people’s thirst and hunger for a real message.”

    And, just like in 2008, Clyburn vows to “remain neutral”:

    In 2008, Clinton’s ties to Clyburn were damaged when Bill Clinton made a series of anti-Obama comments on the campaign trail that many in this heavily African American state interpreted as race-baiting. This year, Hillary Clinton extended an olive branch when she hired a Clyburn protege, Clay Middleton, to run her South Carolina campaign.

    Clyburn, who recounted the painful 2008 episode in his memoir, said in an interview that he reserves “no venom” for the Clintons. “I have no problems with Bill or Hillary. I can be as enthusiastic about her candidacy as I have been for anybody. . . . [But] I will not endorse anybody before the Democratic primary in South Carolina.”

  58. And, I might add: It speaks volumes to the tattered ruins of the South Carolina Democrat party when Bernie Sanders gets them fired up. They’ve been gerrymandered into extinction….

  59. I don’t understand. What’s wrong with Ted Cruz using Twitter to collect names and e-mails of people who are against his Democratic opponent for his campaign mailing list? Shouldn’t Clinton be trying to collect an e-mail list of people who are against Ted Cruz?

  60. No, hwc, I do not understand how you can ask that question about a candidate you obviously know is being duplicitous about gathering your information.

    Howard Dean is a bloated gas bag whose elitism has detached him from reality. Democracy for America, my a$s. Can’t get anyone to come play with you at your website, huh.

  61. I try not to get on anybody’s political mailing list. I still get Hillary mail from donations eight years ago, but I’ve tried to unsubscribe from everything I can.

    I certainly won’t be typing my e-mail address into any Ted Cruz wesite pages.

  62. Admin, non question you should be running Hillary’s campaign.

    Hwc,
    While I wholeheartedly support your dismay at Hillary, I too am more than disillusioned with her,…Jeb Bush? He would be a disaster.He is Obama3…

  63. gonzotx

    Admin, non question you should be running Hillary’s campaign.

    ———-
    I totally agree, and would like to at least see Admin as one of her close advisers

  64. Hillary denounced for-profit colleges:

    Hillary Clinton denounced the predatory practices of for-profit colleges during her first campaign swing through Iowa.

    “We have to sort this out and we have to take on those interests that want to keep the system the way it is because it generates a lot of money and a lot of interest payments for them, and instead get back to basics,” she said earlier this month while speaking at a community college in Monticello, Iowa.

    Bill ends position with world’s largest for-profit college chain:

    Bill Clinton ended his role with a for-profit college system Friday, nearly two weeks after his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, began her second presidential campaign and singled out that industry for criticism.

    Bill Clinton’s role as honorary chancellor for the college system, Laureate International Universities, was part of a five-year deal that began April 24, 2010, an aide with his office said.

    No transparency on what he was paid:

    Neither Laureate nor Bill Clinton would say how much he was paid. Hillary Clinton’s financial disclosure forms in 2012 revealed only that her husband received nonemployee compensation of more than $1,000 from the company that year.

    Bill Clinton was hired at a time when the industry was facing pressure from the Obama administration and Tom Harkin, then a senator from Iowa.

    But, Laureate ponied up to the Clinton Foundation bar:

    The university system — part of Laureate Education Inc., which according to Bloomberg is the world’s largest for-profit college chain — has been a seven-figure donor to the Clinton Foundation, giving between $1 million and $5 million, according to the foundation’s website. Laureate also has made five commitments through the Clinton Global Initiative.

    http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2015/apr/26/after-wife-raps-for-profit-colleges-cli-1/?f=latest

  65. gonzo:

    I’m not endorsing or rooting for Jeb Bush. I honestly haven’t seen enough of any of the Republican candidates in the heat of battle to have a favorite. I have a short list I couldn’t vote for that includes Huckabee, Santorum, Trump, Palin. I haven’t seen any indication they are in any danger of getting nominated.

    To win an election, the Republican candidate will have to appeal to voters on a mindless Good Morning American Kardashian level and I simply haven’t seen enough to know which one(s) can do that. I am not inclined to think that running another Bush would be the best play against the Dems running another Clinton. From a “Kardashian Kandidate” standpoint, younger, fresher, newer would probably be better. The better candidates will probably emerge from a deep and strong primary field, keeping in mind that many of them are auditioning for both the Pres and the VP slots. You could end up with a Walker/Rubio ticket. Or a Walker/Cruz ticket. I just don’t have enough of a crystal ball.

  66. Manchester Union-Leader (Conservative paper in NH) is not impressed with the Scooby tour. Sounds a lot like admin:

    http://www.unionleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20150423/LOCALVOICES03/150429608#sthash.HcD6F5xO.dpuf

    In Keene on Monday, Clinton stopped at Kristin’s Bistro and Bakery. London’s Daily Mail newspaper reported that some of the kitchen staff — “everyday Americans” in Clinton’s campaign parlance — refused to come out and participate in the farce. The paper asked Clinton Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri if any of the patrons at the bistro had been brought there by the campaign. She replied, “I think maybe some of them, but I don’t know.”

    The props are only part of the fraud. The bigger deception is that Clinton is listening to ordinary (the synonym of “everyday”) Americans to get ideas on which she will then run. At furniture maker Whitney Brothers on Monday, Clinton sat for a “roundtable” conversation with the company president and select employees.

    The employees discussed government help for American manufacturers, college-bound students and retirees. Clinton nodded and pretended to listen.

    When she spoke, she acted as though she had no idea how to fix the problems to which she had just been exposed. On rebuilding the manufacturing sector and training workers, she said this:
    “I just think we got to be imagining outside the old box about what we’re going to do to get our skills up, how we are going to get more people of all ages to have the opportunity to improve those skills… maybe there could be some cooperative approach that would make a difference…. How do we fix that?”

    These are the words of the former co-chair of the U.S. Senate Manufacturing Caucus. In 2008, she issued a white paper called “Hillary Clinton’s Economic Blueprint for the 21st Century,” which included specific proposals to address the very issues for which she pretended to have no specific ideas.

    One section, titled “Restore a strong, vibrant manufacturing sector in America,” included expanding the Manufacturing Extension Partnership to retrain workers, a fix for precisely the problem she addressed above by asking, mystified, “How do we fix that?”

    And concluded with a Grateful Dead reference:

    It is as though she wants Americans to forget that her lifelong political career is strewn with detailed policy proposals. Her political record is longer than a box set of Grateful Dead live albums, and she expects Americans to believe she is driving about the country — or at least the first four presidential primary states — and avoiding reporters so she can diligently gather good ideas to take to Washington.

    It is a rather inauthentic thing to watch: Hillary Clinton without a list of policy bullet-points. That’s always been her strong-suit.

    I think these Scooby tours aren’t really campaign events. They are set pieces for campaign ads.

  67. hwc, even with your numerous negative post here about Hillary and Bill, I’m pretty sure you are not changing any minds, therefore………………

  68. Okay, gang, if hwc has convinced you to change your mind about Hillary and Bill and now you are supporting a Rep candidate because of the numerous negative posts, please speak up. I will certainly stand corrected if there is a ground swell of switching here at Hillary 44 to one of the flock of Rep candidates due to hwc’s comments.

  69. hwc has convinced me to order some yard signs and bumper stickers for Hillary.

    HIL-LAR-RY! HIL-LAR-RY! HIL-LAR-RY!

  70. Southern Born
    April 26, 2015 at 7:30 pm
    Okay, gang, if hwc has convinced you to change your mind about Hillary and Bill and now you are supporting a Rep candidate because of the numerous negative posts, please speak up. I will certainly stand corrected if there is a ground swell of switching here at Hillary 44 to one of the flock of Rep candidates due to hwc’s comments.

    ———-
    As far as i can tell, the only two people on Big Pink that might appreciate her endless negative posts, don’t end up cheering her on at all.

    HWC is just another Hannity to me, and I would turn the channel if I could. Hell no I am not changing my mind by HWC’s endless posts, and I try to ignore them as much as I can.

  71. hwc
    April 26, 2015 at 7:23 pm
    Convince me!

    ———-
    You were silent on Big Pink for a long time. And then Hillary tossed her hat in the ring and poof, you appeared.

    You should have been convinced over the last 6+ years that this Hillary blog still has a majority of Hillary supporters. Gonzotx and Wbb are not supporting Hillary any longer, but as far as I know, of the people that do blog here, you are pretty much the only one that appreciates your endless Hillary and Bill bashing comments.

  72. If Hillary survives the primary and becomes the Democratic Party nominee, then I will still vote for her. Otherwise, I may just skip the elections.

  73. Gonzotx and Wbb are not supporting Hillary any longer
    ———————–
    What we do not support is Obama III.

    Whether we support her or not depends on whether she is able to separate herself from his failed policies.

    In other words, it is policy driven.

    With you it is more personal.

    You have invested much time and emotional commitment in her candidacy.

    The policies are of secondary importance to you.

    And that is why you associate our condemnation of some of her policies as a condemnation of her.

    When some of it could just as easily be construed as constructive criticism.

  74. Emotional investment, possibly…but I am not blind to policies.

    ObamaHellCare is not the Health Care Hillary proposed in 2008, I don’t believe she would have crammed though something that supported Big Pharma and was not able to support itself.

    I have never liked the immigration plan that Hillary or all Dems seem to want, I would rather have closed borders and toss out the illegals without amnesty. The Repubs are no better.

    For all the rest, I don’t believe that Hillary is Fraud III, never have and never will.

    If you believe that Hillary is just another Obama, then I guess we are worlds apart in our views.

  75. I am reading an awesome book. Published in 2013. Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets

    http://www.amazon.com/Extortion-Politicians-Extract-Money-Pockets-ebook/dp/B00E9FYUQM

    The premise is that pay to play in Washington is not corporations bribing politicians, but just the opposite. Systematic extortion of corporations by politicians. The point of legislation is not to solve problems, but to provide shakedown opportunities on both sides of the aisle. He describes it as professional wrestling. All the fighting is staged with carefully choreographed moves, but everybody gets paid.

    Wonder why everything in Washington is tax extender bills for a year or two, only to be done again in a blink of the eye? Simple. If you passed a real permanent bill and solved the problem, you wouldn’t be able to go back for another round of shakedowns.

    Compare it to the mob, charging protection money. Same thing. I had always understood that both parties were in the same business, just serving different constituent groups. However, I had never seen Washington as an extortion racket. It explains everything. And, there is never an explicit quid pro quo.

    Start asking when a bill will go to the floor for a vote? You’ll get a fundraising request a few days later.

    Here’s an interview with the author:

  76. You were silent on Big Pink for a long time.

    It takes me about two years after each Obama election win to watch TV news or read anything about politics, let alone discuss it.

  77. hwc, no one gives a damn about convincing you. You provoke an argument in order to have a reason to post some out of context shit about the Clintons. Here’s an idea. Don’t vote for Hillary. If you’re seeking an alternative candidate as you said, you won’t likely find an answer here.

    Damn I used to get tired of jez’s arguments, but at least he was pro-Hillary. Better jes’s arguments about tedious points with someone who is actually in Hillary’s corner than your bullshit
    _________

    “Hillary better be nice to him,” warned Dan Calegari, a longtime New Hampshire activist, who , like Cornwell, has known O’Malley since their days on the Hart campaign. “He’s going to need a good vice president. First woman vice president.”

    _______

    That bastard. Woman vice president, my ass. If I could I would put a curse on Dan. It would be a doozie – one that would be impact generations of his no doubt pathetic family.

  78. hwc
    April 26, 2015 at 11:29 pm
    ———-
    Ben there. Done that. Former Senator Slade Gordon now lobbyist with Preston Gates introduced us to former Senator Trent Lott who introduced us to McConnell who introduced us to Ted Stevens who introduced us to Orin Hatch who introduced us to other members of the Senate Club. And the former chief of staff for Congressman Jennifer Dunn introduced us to John Boehner who introduced us to Lindsey Graham who was then a Congressman, who introduced us to Sam Johnson who introduced us to other committee heads all of whom were essential so they said. And that meant a dozen fundraisers because there were many palms to be greased. Having known both groups, i.e. the Mafia and our esteemed public officials, I can tell you for sure, the wise guys are pikers compared to the piranhas who inhabit congress.

  79. Shadowfax
    April 26, 2015 at 11:16 pm

    Emotional investment, possibly…but I am not blind to policies.
    —-
    The test for you will come when Hillary promotes a policy which you strongly disagree with.

    When that happens, you will have to choose between your loyalty to Hillary, and your opposition to a bad policy.

    Unless you say Hillary is incapable of supporting a bad policy, ergo it must be a good policy, only you do not see it.

    This is not a tough decision for me, because my loyalty runs to policies first and politicians a distant second.

  80. When someone was posting here awhile back I almost wore out the scroll bar on my computer. Hope it is in good working order now. I might need it again. I think it is fair to give everyone a chance but after that………….

  81. “Hillary better be nice to him,” warned Dan Calegari, a longtime New Hampshire activist, who , like Cornwell, has known O’Malley since their days on the Hart campaign
    ———–
    Bevis Cornwell and Butthead Calegari have kept a candle burning for Gary Hart.

    Harts (sic) with one purpose alone
    Through summer and winter seem
    Enchanted to a stone
    To trouble the living stream

    —-Easter 1916 by W.B. Yeats.

  82. wbb, I doubt it’s possible to find a candidate with whom you totally agree on every policy. I agreed with Hilary’s policies in 2008 for the most part, but at that time she was more centrist. Right now her posturing is to the left of that, and while I’m not in agreement with everything, I also know, as does everyone else here that Hillary can and will compromise and move to the right when necessary.

    When there’s something you dislike about every candidate’s policies, you just have to choose based on the remainder of the candidate’s policies or on other qualities you want in a president. Those will differ according to personal preferences.
    _______

    Daily Puma posted the following quote about the Clinton Foundation. Although there was no link, the quote attributed to the Washington Post:

    “The foundation has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support, with members of the George W. Bush administration often participating in its programs. Major donations have come from figures such as Christopher Ruddy, the chief executive of the conservative Web site Newsmax.com and a onetime critic of Bill Clinton”.

  83. Wbb

    The test for you will come when Hillary promotes a policy which you strongly disagree with.

    —–
    I’ve already been tested with Hillary, I told you that I do not agree with her immigration policy and yet, I don’t see anyone that I agree with every policy they believe in, and I agree with more of what Hillary has already stood for and will, then anyone else.

    I also think she is brilliant, smart, hardworking and cares deeply for our country…along with her experience…that’s good enough for me.

  84. wbboei

    I don’t know why I never conceptualized Washington as an extortion racket before. I also thought of it from the bribery angle.

    A quote from the terrific book, with the Mafia comparison:

    The great thing for the Permanent Political Class is that they get paid either way. They can get paid for doing something, or they can get paid for not doing something. As they propose legislation that will harm or help certain companies and industries, they are simultaneously calling those affected and soliciting donations, on both sides of the issue. This is a wealth strategy that is unavailable to anyone in America today outside of politics.

    At least in one respect, dealing with the Mafia is easier. With the Mafia, businesses can feel confident that if they pay the fee, no harm will come. Mobsters don’t like other mobsters extorting on their turf. But in Washington paying for protection only buys that peace for a little while, and only from certain politicians. A competing politician can always step up and demand more.

    And like the Mafia, political extortion can often involve a web of family members, who extract from the target on several levels: campaign contributions and favors for the politicians, jobs for the politicians’ children, and lobbying contracts for their spouses. The rampant extortion in Washington explains why government continues to grow, regardless of who is in power. And it also explains why government is getting meaner. It’s more lucrative for the Permanent Political Class that way. Just as the Mafia likes to expand its turf to seek more targets for extortion, an expanding government increases the number of targets for a shakedown. And the meaner government gets, the more often threats of extortion are successful.

    Schweizer, Peter (2013-10-22). Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets (Kindle Locations 295-306). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Kindle Edition.

  85. I’m not sure I know a politician whose supposedly stated policies I 100% agree with and I think that may be how it is with most of us. Other than just talk, I’m not seeing a great deal of difference in the two parties right now. Politicans “say” they are for this or that policy but then when it comes right down to it, they flip and flop. McConnell and Boehner are prime examples. How could I say I’m for a Repubilcan or a Democratic policy when I have no idea what twists those policies may end up taking.

  86. freespirit
    April 27, 2015 at 12:50 am
    —–
    My political philosophy centers around the constitution, and whether the politician we put under the microscope sees that fine document as the safeguard of liberty or as an encumbrance on unbridled political ambition.

  87. At this point, I think our government is so corrupt that I will tend to vote for whichever party/politician tries to make it smaller, even in some insignificant way. Repealing a tax. Getting rid of a few regulations.

    I am certainly not going to vote for politicians that use the IRS as a political weapon.

    Let them line their pockets, just don’t turn the entire Executive Branch into a Mob family.

  88. southernborn, well said.

    I’m not sure I know a politician whose supposedly stated policies I 100% agree with and I think that may be how it is with most of us.

    It bothers me that I know now that I don’t agree with Hillary about everything as I thought I did in 2008 (for ex, I believe in voter ID). It was eating away at me, but I realized (as I said once before here, I think) that the only way to have someone 100% like me, is for me to run for office myself. So, since I have no interest in that whatsoever, I have to find who *most* represents my interests.

    Other than just talk, I’m not seeing a great deal of difference in the two parties right now. Politicans “say” they are for this or that policy but then when it comes right down to it, they flip and flop. McConnell and Boehner are prime examples.

    Rubio was for amnesty before he decided to run and is now “against” it (although a recent interview in Spanish to a Spanish speaking audience showed him saying he is *for* amnesty). I think the best way to tell what someone is really about is to look at what they *have* done more than what they say (obviously, not a method that Obama voters used). Hillary stands to gain a lot from this method as she has done alot, except a lot of things she did while she worked for Obama will work against her. I doubt she’s going to tell the truth that she had to do what Obama told her to do, but maybe her surrogates will do that.

    How could I say I’m for a Repubilcan or a Democratic policy when I have no idea what twists those policies may end up taking.

    And they make those deals (senators and reps) where “I’ll vote for your bill (that I don’t agree with) if you’ll vote for my bill (that you don’t agree with)”. When that happens, the thing you counted on them to support could vanish into thin air. Or you think there is a good policy, but someone adds all kinds of stuff onto it that you don’t like.

    May 31, 2008 affected all of us. One of the results for me was that I can’t imagine belonging to a party anymore. I really think they now just exist to continue their own existence – they want us to think we all fit neatly into two parties – so that they can corral us into voting for them and letting them continue their grand lifestyles. I sincerely believe that on most issues, you can find people in each party who agree with X, and people who disagree with x. But if we’re in one party, and want to work with others in both parties on an issue we all agree on, that would screw the politicians. So they try to keep us convinced that we’re all apples vs oranges.

    Anyway, May 31 also led me to feel I need to learn about all the candidates to make my decision. (Well, not *all* – I won’t be investigating people like Santorum, Huckabee, Hiawatha, Rand, etc.) In this particular election I have someone way in the lead, but that won’t always be true. So I just want to be in the habit about learning about those on both sides. Plus, whose to say that President Hillary couldn’t put one or two of them in certain positions they would excel at – like maybe that Trey Gowdy as attorney general, he’s quite the bulldog and might be really good there, as opposed to the new and previous ones, who openly say they won’t enforce laws. Or maybe Ben Carson as surgeon general (as long as social issues aren’t a part of that job, he’s pretty backwards on some social issues).

    That reminds me – I really wish Hillary would put away the phrase “right wing conspiracy”. Everyone can see that there are people on both sides working against her, and there are millions of us who learned the hard way in 2008 that it’s not as simple as “republicans are bad and democrats are good”. Democrats can be plenty bad. So using that phrase just opens her up to ridicule from the right and the media, and makes those of us “older but wiser” just shake our heads and think, “c’mon, we’re not that dumb”.

    I guess I just really miss the Hillary who didn’t have to tiptoe around Obama and who could speak freely. I know she has to walk a tightrope, but I really wish she would put country before party. Not because I want to see Obama exposed (although that would be nice), but because everyone needs to see that she is not Obama. People on both sides are very concerned about the economy and the open borders and the world unrest, and these are all things Obama has royally screwed. I know Hillary loves America very much, and most people no longer believe that Obama does. She needs to unattach from him so people can see who she is.

    lol ok end rant!

  89. I am just going to try and ignore all the Debbie Downers on Big Pink, the best I can.

    I have waited for more than 6 shitty years to see if Hillary would run again, and now that she has, I am not going to let someone like hwc spoil it for me.

  90. This has been published:
    “…Regarding Hillary Clinton, Bush said it will be crucial how she plays her relationship with the president. She will eventually have to choose between running on the Obama administration’s policies or running against them. If she defends them, she’s admitting failure, he said, but if she doesn’t she’s blaming the president.

    For George W. Bush, the remarks in Vegas showed he has little respect for how the current president is running the world. He also revealed that he takes little responsibility for the policies that he put in place that contributed to the current state of affairs….”
    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-27/george-w-bush-bashes-obama-on-middle-east

  91. Shadowfax
    April 27, 2015 at 2:46 am
    I am just going to try and ignore all the Debbie Downers on Big Pink, the best I can.

    I have waited for more than 6 shitty years to see if Hillary would run again, and now that she has, I am not going to let someone like hwc spoil it for me.
    ____________

    I’m right there with ya, Shadow.

    Understanding and facing the reality of this situation is one thing, and for that Admin’s insights have proven correct time and time again. But, to accept and internalize opinions of people whose commentary appears to be driven by some hidden agenda is quite another. Best to shield oneself from those who appear less interested in actually contributing valid info, than in stirring shit.

    When hwc first “reappeared” right around the time Hillary announced – I don’t remember her/him from before, but others may – the attitude presented was quite different from the current attitude. Quite a rapid devolution I would say.

  92. Good article from Hillary Headquarters blog regarding the recent Hillary non-scandals. A link to video of FOX interview referenced in article is available.
    ______________

    They’re Gonna Need a Bigger Swiftboat

    What to call it? A lame “scandal” deserves an equally lame name, so let’s go with Donategate. And it sure looks like it’s already flaming out after about a week…not even as long as the similarly impotent Emailgate. So let’s take a quick look back at the brief sordid history of Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash before getting to some recent updates which further suggest that end is nigh for this nonsense before it’s even released to the public.

    On April 19th, the New York Times excitedly published a preview of a book that appeared to be big news because Rand Paul thought was “big news”. Yes, that was the exact quote from their opening paragraph. Terrifying, right? Not really, because it took just one day for Media Matters for America to annihilate the author as a right-wing hack writer with a highly-questionable past riddled with errors and retractions. Shortly thereafter, ABC News found errors in the new book.

    A few days later, on April 23rd, the NYT published their big “exclusive” story on Uranium One…but that was followed-up very quickly with a piece by the paper’s very own public editor expressing great concern about the “troubling” nature of their arrangement with Schweizer. Oh yeah, and they also managed to leave a few really important and relevant facts out of the story altogether. (Note: this sort of thing is unfortunately no longer surprising from this once-reputable purveyor of actual journalism.)

    In the midst of their otherwise long-winded insinuation salad about Donategate, here is the only area that seemed like a solid, fact-based accusation of…something.
    Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.

    Oversight? Reporting error? Bill and Hillary nefariously whispering into the ear of an accountant to ‘make this generous charitable donation go away’? The article provides no answer, adding that “the foundation did not provide a response.”

    Until now. On Sunday night, we got the answer directly from the Clinton Foundation. And that answer certainly sounds legit…if complicated.

    The Foundation has 11 different initiatives, some of which function in organizationally different ways. One of these 11 initiatives is the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP), which is focused on advancing innovative solutions to poverty alleviation on a global scale. CGEP has come under heightened scrutiny this past week and I want to explain how it operates.

    The Clinton Foundation executes all of the work that CGEP does. CGEP does receive financial backing for projects from an independent Canadian charity called the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada), which Frank Giustra established so that Canadians could support the initiative’s valuable work and receive a charitable tax credit. CGEP (Canada) provides funding on a project-by-project basis and this money goes exclusively to CGEP projects, not to the Foundation’s general operating fund.

    Like every contributor to the Foundation, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) is publicly listed as a donor on our website. But as it is a distinct Canadian organization, separate from the Clinton Foundation, its individual donors are not listed on the site. This is hardly an effort on our part to avoid transparency – unlike in the U.S., under Canadian law; all charities are prohibited from disclosing individual donors without prior permission from each donor.

    So, after about a week of heavy breathing in the news media, what exactly does Donategate have to show for itself? A ton of circumstantial innuendo by an unreliable right-wing hack that’s only managed to expose some vagueness about donations to a Canadian charity. Also, a popular ex-president sometimes gives paid speeches.

    How lame is it? So much so that when Chris Wallace confronted Schweizer on Fox News Sunday with the fact that he didn’t have “a single piece of evidence” of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton, the author kept nodding full agreement!a

    http://www.hillaryhq.com/2015/04/theyre-gonna-need-bigger-swiftboat.html

  93. Will Hillary Win website links an article regarding Benghazi investigation from LA Times:

    __________

    GOP’s latest Benghazi-related inquiry could benefit Hillary Clinton

    By EVAN HALPER

    Featured quote from Republican strategist, Katie Gage

    “Trying to turn this into a political issue and putting it all at her feet will allow her an opportunity to seem like she is being bullied,” Gage said of the Benghazi investigation.

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-clinton-benghazi-20150426-story.html

  94. Shadowfax
    April 27, 2015 at 1:00 am
    ———
    Well, you know we all put a different value on things even if it is only a matter of degree. That is even true with a market place transaction. To the seller the object being sold is less valuable than the price he sets for sale. And from the buyers perspective the cash he pays is less valuable to him than the object of his desire. If that is not true, then no bargained for exchange will occur. The same is true of money itself, for as any stock broker–or divorce lawyer will gladly, or not so gladly attest, people place different importance on money, depending on how much they need it, and how it might further their dreams and aspiration, no matter how trivial they might seem to an objective observer. I think it is true in politics as well. Those who manipulate the system understand this. Its why they create a false image of the candidate, offer a platform that touches every base, responds to the risks inherent in the electoral college, and pay off big media. To many people, the decision comes down to a gut feeling, and they grab at the straws cast off by the campaign–smart, hard working, means what they say, love America and when they get into office, they run an extortion racket. Take a good hard look at Marco Rubio and tell me that is not exactly what they are doing to him. All you hear from him is how much he loves America, and when if he wins the presidency, you will see Mr. Hyde where today all you see is Dr. Jeckle. He gave the game away when he broke his promise on immigration. He is a Trojan Horse for the corrupt Chamber of Commerce. 50 million “immigrants” in the last eight years, and still that it not enough, it is never enough until their money stops flowing into his coffers. Trust me: Rubio is cut from the same cloth as Obama, once you get past the smoke and mirrors. The tune changes from goddamned America to I love America, but from the standpoint of the middle class, the elites win, and the American People must always lose. That is the core problem that concerns me at this point. It would be a mistake to say that by reason of that I would not support Hillary, because if she can defeat big media, and that is admittedly a big if, I could become more enthusiastic.

  95. Correction: the handlers strive to create a COMPOSITE image of the candidate, so he or she will appeal to disparate elements in the electorate.

  96. One potentially significant factor which big media has not quite tapped its way to amid all their group think is the fact that two of the Republican candidates are Hispanic, and a third is the scion of a great family fortune who in his oblivious state of semi divine remove that somewhere in his pedigree past a bitch jumped over the wall such that he too is Hispanic–as evidenced by his mastery of different dialects of the Spanish language, from the Puerto Rican, to the Cuban, to the Mexican to the South American—no no no not Carmen Miranda–Jebediah the geek. Hey, J.E.B. take it away you cutie pie fucking dullard:

    Ai, ai, ai, ai
    Have you ever danced
    In the tropics?
    With that hazy lazy
    Like, kind of crazy
    Like South American Way

    Ai, ai, ai, ai
    Have you ever kissed
    In the moon light
    In the grand and Glorious
    Gay Notorious
    South American Way
    Ai, ai, ai, ai
    Ai, ai, ai, ai
    In South American

    Yup. Jebs Hispanic. He may even have a birth certificate to prove it. His real mom is Evita Peron. Don’t cry for me Jeb-i-di-ah, etc.

    But far more important than that—and here is the real kicker to which big media is oblivious. Two of the three are the sons of immigrants. With 50 million immigrants (I use the term loosely) that could become a factor in close elections. Yes? And, as I say, eventually the group think of big media, and its passionate interest in protecting the Washington elites will tap its way to this potentially outcome determinative fact. It will take the wisdom of the sainted David Ignatius, that wrong way Corrigan of political commentators to say it, and then the rest of the press corpse will be all over it like stink on shit.

  97. fwiw…and imho…

    Southern Born and Shadowfax mentioned scrolling past certain posters…for a long time I had suspicions about the ‘truthfullness’ about a certain poster…it seemed to me that poster had not presented themselves honestly and portrayed a ‘Walter Mitty’ persona and was “playing us”…i actually thought back then that this ‘poster’ might have changed their ‘name’ and was actually another poster who was here during the primaries (democrat something) and would literally “stalk” others for the use of a word here and there and try to take over the board with that stalking…very similar MO as the Walter Mitty type I refer to…a “pattern” so to speak…

    I am getting a similar intuitive feeling with our latest provocateur…one disappeared and another of a seemingly ‘evolved’ stronger, similar POV and ilk has appeared…

    difference of opinion is valuable…and I believe many of us have ‘variations on a theme’ when it comes to our opinions and some of us differ greatly…

    for example…perhaps the upcoming TPP debate…

    however for as long as I have been here I have been so impressed with the intelligence and respect between people and their ideas…

    this blog is a liberating place…

    …perhaps there is another hijacker who is here to force their POV and take down a legitimate discussion of the candidate most of us support or have supported or may support again…and in Hillary’s words cause a “distraction” and ‘rile us up emotionally’…and in doing so try to take over the discussion and mire the topics and the candidate in defeat..why? what would motivate those intentions…if you find that interesting…engage…if not, SB has the solution…scroll on…

  98. …in the words of Christopher Ruddy himself…front and center in Newsmax

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/clinton-foundation-cash-controversy/2015/04/27/id/640856/

    In Defense of the Clinton Foundation

    Monday, 27 Apr 2015 04:51 AM

    By Christopher Ruddy Newsmax

    When I heard that Bill Clinton was making as much as $500,000 per speech and made many more millions in his post-presidency, I thought to myself, God bless him. This is the American way.

    Former President Clinton’s speaker fees are probably in line with other former presidents who draw big fees, maybe bigger owing to his global popularity.

    But God bless them all.

    Business and organizations love to rub shoulders with iconic American leaders — though the money Clinton has earned is probably a fraction of what President George H.W. Bush made by signing up with The Carlyle Group, an international conglomerate that made most of its initial money from U.S. defense contracts and from foreign countries like Saudi Arabia.

    The elder Bush served his country admirably over a long period, starting in World War II as a heroic pilot, and later in several public offices, including the presidency. He later got his reward after leaving the White House.

    God bless George H.W. Bush.

    So, it is not every day that I defend Bill and Hillary Clinton, or the Clinton Foundation.

    In fact, it may come as a surprise to some. In the 1990s I was described by both James Carville and George Stephanopoulos as the Clinton White House’s No. 1 press enemy. But after Bill Clinton left the White House, I came to admire him and his post-presidential work.

    I was drawn to him largely for the very same reason he and his wife are being criticized today: the Clinton Foundation. Over time, I was impressed enough with its work that I even became a donor.

    This may be difficult for many of the Clinton critics to stomach, considering the miasma of allegations now being made about them, largely due to a new book entitled “Clinton Cash” (HarperCollins) by Peter Schweizer.

    A Fox News special that aired this past Friday detailed many of the allegations from the still-unreleased book. Fox said the book showed the “tangled” and “blurred” relationships between the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons’ private or political activities.

    After watching the Fox program, it became clear to me the only thing “tangled” and “blurred” are the numerous unsubstantiated, unconnected, and baseless allegations being made about them.

    John Cassidy, a columnist with The New Yorker, fair-minded and balanced, got it right when he wrote that “Clinton Cash” appears to contain “largely unsubstantiated allegations.”

    He notes that Schweizer admits he cannot prove the allegations, and that “with [Fox News’ Sean] Hannity and other conservative media figures piling on, the Clinton campaign will be able to portray questions about the Clinton Foundation and the family’s finances as a political witch-hunt rather than a legitimate exercise in vetting presidential candidates.”

    Even Bill O’Reilly, who has a penchant for telling the truth, told his Fox audience that the Clintons deserved the “presumption of innocence” and that “right now the evidence is circumstantial, not vetted, and the subject of wild speculation by anti-Clinton forces.”

    Don’t get me wrong, if there were any serious allegations here, I too would want to have them investigated. But I also don’t want to go back to the ’90s, either, when one allegation led to a daisy-chain effect, and the GOP ended up looking bad as the Democrats kept winning.

    But let’s get back to the matter of the Clintons and their foundation. I have been involved with the foundation for over seven years now. During that time, I have always found it nonpartisan. I have never felt the whiff of politics from either its staff or any of its activities.

    I recall attending my first Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) event and meeting Jack Kemp there. As you may remember, Kemp had run against Bill Clinton in the 1996 presidential race as the vice presidential candidate. At that meeting, Kemp had nothing but praise for what Bill Clinton was doing.

    So what was the former president doing?

    Rather than simply “cashing in,” the young former president wanted to devote a substantial amount of his time and energy to making the world a better place, improving the lives of poor people and, at the same time, demonstrating in a real way that Americans cared.

    Remember also the context of the time. America was globally criticized during its war on terror, especially after the invasion of Iraq. Few nations joined the “coalition of the willing.” Our nation was losing its stature as leader of the free world.

    It was Bill Clinton, using the platform of his foundation, who became the de facto goodwill ambassador of the United States.

    I know for a fact that then-President Bush was deeply appreciative of Bill Clinton’s help during this period. Let’s not forget that it was George W. Bush who had so much confidence in Bill Clinton that he asked him to co-chair with his dad, Bush 41, both the Tsunami and Katrina relief efforts. (Later, Obama personally asked Bill Clinton to co-chair the Haiti relief effort.)

    (me…not to mention, Bill Clinton had quadruple heart surgery)

    Compare for a second how Bill Clinton has continued to serve America’s best interests abroad with former President Jimmy Carter, who has not always done so.

    What about all that foundation money? Well, let’s peel the onion on the accusations.

    One of the things I liked about the Clinton Foundation is how little money actually goes to the foundation itself.

    Ingeniously, Bill Clinton set up his annual foundation conclave, CGI, as a clearinghouse between other foundations, wealthy donors, NGOs, governments and businesses — to meet face-to-face with charities working on the front lines of poverty alleviation, education and healthcare.

    At CGI, the Clinton Foundation doesn’t encourage donations to itself (though it easily could have), but instead seeks “commitments” from donors to other charitable organizations to improve global health and wellness, increase economic opportunities for women in less-developed nations, reduce childhood obesity, and spur economic growth in countries that desperately need the help.

    After those commitments are made, no money flows into the Clinton Foundation. Donors honor their pledges directly with the charities.

    Over 10 years, CGI meetings have resulted in more than 3,100 commitments to action, deploying more than $100 billion which has been used to improve the lives of more than 430 million people in 180 countries around the world.

    The effects of these commitments and the impact of the Clinton Foundation’s other initiatives have been enormous. For example, some 85,000 small farmers in Africa have increased their crop yields, creating economic vitality for themselves and their communities while helping to feed the continent.

    Of course, where the foundation sees a pressing need it seeks to address that need directly using foundation money, staff, and resources.

    Back in the ’90s AIDS reached epidemic levels in Africa, set to wipe out millions. Governments seemed indifferent, as were many in the medical and pharmaceutical establishment — until Bill Clinton got involved.

    He personally convinced the big pharmaceutical companies to greatly reduce their prices and disseminate their drugs widely to combat the crisis. But he didn’t stop there. His foundation set up its own clinics for HIV testing and prevention education.

    Probably because of this track record, no one is really questioning the actual work of the foundation. Instead, the accusations argue that the Clintons engaged in quid pro quo transactions — raising foundation money while Hillary allegedly gave favorable treatment to the donors through her position as chief of the State Department.

    One claim is that to help a major donor to the foundation, Hillary as secretary of state, changed her position and supported the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which was ratified in 2011.

    In another instance, again to help the same donor, the U.S. government agreed to give a Russian company ownership of Uranium One, a firm which controls approximately 20 percent of the uranium mines in the U.S.

    Knowing a bit how this administration works, it is preposterous to think that President Obama or his White House approved any deal to benefit the Clinton Foundation or one of its donors.

    In the case of Colombia, it had made tremendous strides in improving its human rights situation during the period Hillary Clinton changed her position. And, as it turned out, the Clinton donor had sold out his stake in Uranium One years before the Russians bought the company.

    Importantly, The New York Times reported that no less than nine federal agencies and officials including the Defense, Treasury and Energy Departments, as well as the White House, had to approve the Uranium One deal.

    Jose Fernandez, who held the position of the department’s principal representative on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which reviewed the sale, told The Wall Street Journal: “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”

    Well, if there’s smoke — there’s fire? Perhaps it’s better to say, Where there’s smear, there’s not always fact.

    I think the imperative for journalists is more appropriate: Follow the money. So let’s do that.

    The sister companies of News Corp and 21st Century Fox own HarperCollins, which published Peter Schweizer’s book; they own The Wall Street Journal, which first raised the issue of the foreign donations; they own the New York Post, which broke the details about the Schweizer book; and they own Fox News, which gave the story oxygen and legs.

    With so much media mojo from one company, there is no doubt they will be doing some pretty good “cashing in” from the many millions of dollars their new best-seller will generate.

    Nothing wrong with that, it’s the American way.

    And yes, God bless them too!

  99. Concerning David Ignatius, his nick name in Washington Press Corpse circles is “The Saint” which is why I deign to call him that. That is how media insiders refer to him, as I can attest from having spoken one of them. I trust he was not lying to me about this. He is the final arbiter of big media opinion, from his high and mighty station as Deputy Editor of WashPo and his much have I traveled in the realms of gold narrative. On those rare occasions when he deigns to dignify Sunday panel discussions, when he speaks–even if it is something mundane, archane or rather stupid, all heads snap to attention, nod in assent, and fight with each other for the honor of being first to agree with him, second the motion, etc. Its a flying circus. Not being an insider myself. Not have the awesome intellect, or the platform that those people do, he strikes me as something of a Baron von Muchausen, i.e.

    “The real-life Münchhausen became a minor celebrity for telling outrageous tall tales based on his military service in the Russo-Turkish War. After hearing some of Münchhausen’s stories, the writer Rudolf Erich Raspe adapted them into an anonymously published English-language volume about a fictional “Baron Munchausen”. The book was soon translated into German and expanded by the poet Gottfried August Bürger. The real-life Münchhausen was deeply upset at the development of a fictional character bearing his name.

    The fictional Baron’s exploits, narrated by himself, focus on his impossible achievements as a sportsman, soldier, and traveler, such as riding on a cannonball and traveling to the Moon.”

    He so epitomizes big media, that the comparison is scarcely avoidable. They have become so insular, so impervious to criticism, so lost to the real world, and how they are perceived that they should spend a moment reflecting on the words of Robert Burns:

    Oh would some power the giftie gee us
    To see ourselves as others see us
    It would fray mony a blunder free us
    And foolish notion

    But these are not introspective people. They are the sort of specie who chase the scoobie do van on foot. Not even paparastie (sp.)

  100. And they want to unload all their guilt on Brian William. Why? Because he got caught doing what they all do?? Bring back Lyn’Brian!

  101. however for as long as I have been here I have been so impressed with the intelligence and respect between people and their ideas…

    this blog is a liberating place…

    …perhaps there is another hijacker who is here to force their POV and take down a legitimate discussion of the candidate most of us support or have supported or may support again…and in Hillary’s words cause a “distraction” and ‘rile us up emotionally’…and in doing so try to take over the discussion and mire the topics and the candidate in defeat..why? what would motivate those intentions…if you find that interesting…engage…if not, SB has the solution…scroll on…

    _____

    Amen, S. Or to slightly modify the words of the Doobie Brothers, “Keep on Scrolling”.

  102. My son (or daughter is at Harvard)

    I am five years from retirement.

    I will be isolated.

    You cannot fight city hall, etc.

    The list of excuses proffered by big media for abandoning the standards of their profession in order to please the New York crowd who control the narrative is endless, everlasting and eternal.

    But in the end, they come down to the same thing: selling out.

  103. The current assault on Hillary by big media is hypocritical as hell.

    1. they never questioned Obama about his foreign contributors.

    2. they ignored compelling evidence that he ran a credit card scheme which failed to provide tracking information.

    3. they have long accepted the bribery/extortion schemes which are day rigeur in Congress

    Thus, the current assault is nothing more than a continuation of the media wars which characterized Bill’s second term.

    More people need to speak out on the good works of the Clinton Global initiative. Preferably Republicans like Ruddy.

    And someone needs to point out that there is no direct proof of any quid pro quo–and was done at the instigation of her boss.

  104. That said, two mistakes are obvious:

    1. Hillary’s decision to take a top position at CGI while this controversy is brewing.

    2. Hillary’s action in deleting the 30,000 emails which were subject to congressional subpoena.

    In a court of law, the prosecution would argue those actions show “knowledge of guilt”.

    But this is not a court room, this is the court of public opinion, where impressions not facts govern.

    Therefore, a vigorous campaign as suggested above is called for.

  105. Hillary Clinton OP-ED in Des Moines Register, laying out her vision:

    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/caucus/2015/04/27/clinton-iowans-great-ideas-better-future/26418849/

    The answer is: We can do a lot — if we do it together. We can build an economy for tomorrow, not yesterday, where being middle class means something again. We can strengthen families and communities, because when families get ahead, our country gets ahead, too. We can fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment. And we can protect our country from the threats that we see around the world and ones that are still over the horizon.

  106. I am thinking about writing a short story entitled The Saint and Me—a Sequel to Alice In Wonderland. A year ago on one of those Sunday shows, he told us we should buck up and be happy because under this great president of ours, who he supported, we have peace throughout the world and a healthy robust economy. I sat there in a state of shock, but that pronoucement was accepted without comment by his fellow panelists, who took heart in the fact that he reinforced their view of the proper order of things where Washington has become the New Versaille, and the country has 93 million of working age not working. You could see them holding their imaginary rosaries and saying under their collective breaths God bless the saint, and this time they were not meaning Obama. Oh yes, and in that short story, the saint would walk around in a commodores uniform and an invisible parrot on his shoulder which would tell him what to say.

  107. hwc
    April 27, 2015 at 11:54 am
    ——
    Great. My vision is for a chocolate ice cream cone–right now! I have a right to it. But because I have no chocolate ice cream in the refrigerator right now, the question becomes how am I going to get it and at what price. That vision is just about what Rubio would say. The first question is pivotal: is it realistic? The second question is what are the trade-offs and whose ox will be gored? For in the end, justice depends on exactly that: whose ox is being gored?

  108. The fundamental question is do you want more government or less government? If you want more government, you must accept the fact that it will result in a diminution in liberty–yours included. And it will reward the bureaucrat, with an agenda. Conversely, if you want less government, you must accept the fact that the rewards will not be construed equitably, and privatization will intrude on legitimate functions of government. The only way I know of the box the compass is through checks and balances. And the primary sources thereof are those set forth in the Constitution. Among those, the most important is an honest objective media, and that is where the battle is being lost by the American People to the elites.

  109. It is a remarkable challenge for the journalist–a twisted path you might say. It begins with the question of what does my gut tell me about this event. Then the question of what does my editor want me to say, to reinforce the narrative he is getting from his handlers in New York. The final question is what will The Saint say about this when he is ask–what will his drivel–strike that contribution to our collective understanding be when he deigns to speak. That is the final question because it is the final question—the one that ultimately decides whether I will be in the dog house, or accepted in the receiving line of those fabulous political parties—nevah evah underestimate the importance of social dynamics and seeing and being seen in that fair city. Why? Irving Berlin said it best:

    I’m the chosen party giver
    For the White House clientele
    And they know that I deliver
    What it takes to make ’em jell

    And in Washington I’m known by one and all
    As the hostess with the mostes’ on the ball
    They could go to Elsa Maxwell
    When they had an axe to grind

    They could always grind their axe well
    At the parties she designed
    Now the hatchet grinders all prefer to call
    On the hostess with the mostes’ on the ball

    I’ve a great big bar and good caviar
    Yes, the best that can be found
    And a large amount in my bank account
    When election time comes ’round

    If you’re feeling presidential
    You can make it, yes, indeed
    There are just three things essential
    Let me tell you all you need

    Is an ounce of wisdom and a pound of gall
    And the hostess with the mostes’ on the ball

    Entertaining vodka drinkers
    Is a job they give to me
    Making nice guys out of stinkers
    Seems to be my cup of tea

    What they really need behind the iron wall
    Is the hostess with the mostes’ on the ball
    There’s a book of regulations
    As to who sits next to who

    But there might be complications
    When the blue blood’s not so blue
    So the priestess with the leastes’ protocol
    Is the hostess with the mostes’ on the ball

    An Ambassador has just reached the shore
    He’s a man of many loves
    An important gent from the Orient
    To be handled with kid gloves

    He can come and let his hair down
    Have the best time of his life
    Even bring his new affair down
    Introduce her as his wife

    But she mustn’t leave her panties in the hall
    For the hostess who’s the hostess with the mostes’ on the ball

    I’ve been highly complimented
    And I thank you what is more
    You’ll be damned well represented
    By your new ambassador

    For my one ambition is to make them fall
    For the hostess with the mostes’ on the ball
    In the handbag that I’ll carry
    There’s a precious little note

    To their highnesses from Harry
    Introducing me he wrote:
    “I’ll appreciate a favor large or small
    For the hostess with the mostes’ on the ball”

    There’ll be no mistakes, I’ve got what it takes
    To make friends across the sea
    I’ll make being smart an important part
    Of my foreign policy

    I’ll cement our good relations
    When I give my first affair
    There’ll be special invitations
    To the Duke and Duchess there

    Who’s already written asking them to call
    Not the priestess with the leastes’
    But the hostess who’s the hostess with the mostes’ on the ball

  110. The bot goes to Washington, attends a gala event hosted by Mayflower Sally (Quinn)–the other Mayflower madam and calls her mother to tell her what it was like.

    Mom, oh my God, I went to this mansion near Embassy Row, with a date, and it was . . . heaven. A long receiving line with lobbyists and politician and the scions of big media. Caviar and other dishes a football field long, ten open bars, and chalk full of the most exciting people—who talked about politics and who is screwing whom. If they could see me now that little gang of mine etc. the kind of up town first rate chumps I attract. I even got to meet The Saint–that’s David Ignatius for those who too ignorant to know that. He looked me in the eye and he said hi. And I got tongue tied by did manage to tell him that my name was Stephanie Cutter–lord only knows what it will be tomorrow, my head is swimming in gin, I worked for the Obama campaign and was a proficient liar. And he said to me: Hi Stephanie, I am the Saint, but you–you can call me David if you like. And I said, I will be your source, if that is what you want. And he gave me a wink. You gotta believe me mom. Life is good here. Not so in the country. But who cares about them.

  111. S

    …perhaps there is another hijacker who is here to force their POV and take down a legitimate discussion of the candidate most of us support or have supported or may support again…and in Hillary’s words cause a “distraction” and ‘rile us up emotionally’…and in doing so try to take over the discussion and mire the topics and the candidate in defeat..why? what would motivate those intentions…if you find that interesting…engage…if not, SB has the solution…scroll on…

    ——-
    Gotta agree with you S, and at a time that most of us finally have something to feel a little happy about, listening and even seeing all this crap, day after day, is unnerving to say the least. It’s easy to scowl past and not give credence to the posts.

  112. DEVELOPING: Baltimore police say 7 officers suffered injuries during clashes with protesters. http://fxn.ws/1JLB18H

    Live coverage by local station there. Expanded NYC coverage. Sad. Lynch just sworn in. Wonder about connection there.

  113. That situation in Baltimore is evil. The guy they are rioting about had an arrest record a mile long, but you can’t say that. Facebook suspended a guy who posted it.
    Freddie Gray’s arrest record:

    3-20-15 – dealing cocaine
    8-28-08 – possession of narcotics
    10-5-12 – illegal gambling
    1-25-14 – possession of narcotics over 10 grams
    8-24-07 – manufacturing and distribution of narcotics
    8-29-07 – distribution of narcotics
    9-16-08 – distribution of narcotics
    4-16-08 – distribution of narcotics
    5-9-12 – distribution of narcotics
    1-4-15 – distribution of narcotics
    12-31-14 – distribution of narcotics
    5-13-14 – stolen property
    7-16-08 – distribution of narcotics
    3-28-08 – possession of narcotics
    2-12-08 – distribution of narcotics
    9-29-13 distribution of narcotics
    12-4-14 – distribution of narcotics
    12-4-14 – possession of narcotics
    3-20-08 – Burglary
    3-20-08 – possession of narcotics
    9-21-07 – distribution of narcotics
    4-30-08 – unlawful possession (TWO COUNTS)

    (Source: Maryland Dept. of Justice.)

    Not that it makes what happened to him OK, just that it makes what is happening in Baltimore not OK. Obama and his thugs have done nothing for honest African Americans, just the criminal ones who sell poison.

  114. I wonder what it will be like for these thugs when Barry and his Holder pack their bags and move out in 2016?

  115. Shadowfax,

    I cannot imagine what it is like to be their shoes. Nothing to lose. This was their time? An Obamanation.

  116. Apparently the City of Baltimore has more problems that drug dealers and police. They are in the process of shutting off water to 25,000 residents for non-payment. And apparently there is a dirty deal with Wallstreet behind it.

  117. As the attacks on Hillary continue, what I perceive is a certain closing of the mind by some on this blog. The inuendos get pretty thick and the lack of tolerance for a broader discussion of context cause and effect which do not conform to the talking points of a candidate all become suspect. Do you really believe that is liberating? The problem you are left with is if you assume a fuerher bunker mindset in the face of these attacks is you lose the ability to counter them, and everybody who says anything off point becomes suspect. I encountered this several years back when I stopped blogging and confloyd among other speculated that I was giving aid and comfort to the enemy and spying on the people here. The hell of it was I had many telephone conversations with her which should have convinced her of my bona fides. When I posted my itinerary of going to four states for Hillary she was shaken up. But one of the things that happens when you do that is it changes you and the simple party line narrative which does not conform to reality becomes very hard to swallow. The other thing I found is even though I had been around politics for many years, either I had never really understood it or it had changed to become more perverse and more controlled. This growing process, and just looking above the foxhole produces a set of reactions which many people who want a simple straigtforward marching song find unnerving, because it introduces an element of uncertainty and because in some cases a sense of doubt. But every life situation is that way if you think about it, and your answer can be either it is the lords will, or lets see if we can find the flaw in their line of argument. The mind of some people on this blog is closing, and if that trend continues, it will not be fun to contribute here any more. Like Confloyd, some may say–you see, he was not being honest, he was playing Walter Mitty, and kill the heretic. Others may conclude that the blog is less liberating than it used to be. I would rather hear the contrary argument, because as the Cuban banker once told me the other side will tell you things about your side that your side will not. For me it is like may dad used to say: trust all men. But cut the cards.

  118. wbb

    The inuendos get pretty thick and the lack of tolerance for a broader discussion of context cause and effect which do not conform to the talking points of a candidate all become suspect. Do you really believe that is liberating?

    _______________

    If your reference is to the skepticism several of us voiced about hwc’s comments, more importantly, the motive behind them, I believe you are failing to consider that our suspicions based, in large part, upon the manner in which she presented herself and her arguments. Both were, IMHO, less about provoking thought about specific concerns, and more about attempting to evoke an emotional response. Her objective, I believe, was to put it crudely to stir shit.

    Others posters have raised concerns about Hillary with regard to certain aspects of her policy, campaign, political style, etc.,, including yourself. Those comments have not met with narrow minded expectations of “conformity to the talking points”, as you know. I believe this to be a better indicator of our willingness to listen to dissent and to consider information provided. And I would suggest that possibly, your failure to recognize this may be indicative of narrow thinking.

    Please credit us with the good sense not to close our minds to any issue or area of concerns. I believe that to question the motives of a poster, once we have observed a pattern of responses that call for scrutiny, represents a more broad minded view than to do otherwise.

    I don’t think it’s those of us who remain loyal to Hillary, unwilling to immediately and automatically believe all that is alleged about her by her enemies who are guilty of having too narrow a view. Rather, it’s those who are quick to accept any so-called “confirmation” of the latest slam against her, or to blindly trust sources which represent her and her campaign in a bad light whose mind and view point requires broadening.

Comments are closed.