Do you like the media created image and illusion?
"In swing states, Clinton may face gender bias; Voters often reluctant to back female candidates" by Annie Linskey Globe Staff September 09, 2015
WASHINGTON — Should Hillary Rodham Clinton be the Democratic nominee, her path to the White House goes directly through a cluster of bellwether states that have zero history electing a woman to the Senate or putting one in the governor’s mansion, so even while the historic nature of Clinton’s candidacy is helping to buoy her chances in the primary contest by exciting the Democratic base, if Clinton wants to win the general election she’ll have to overcome obstacles that male candidates do not face.
Winning-while-female means being both likable and strong, in touch with the common people and highly qualified. It also means living up to higher standards of ethical behavior than male candidates — the subject of Clinton’s most recent troubles.
It’s not a simple task for someone who recently has had to redouble efforts to work on just being genuine.
How sad is that, huh?
So what we have been getting is a calculated presentation for political purposes.
Republicans, well aware of the playbook, are already attacking her in areas where female candidates are particularly vulnerable.
**************
Since Clinton left the State Department and sought the White House, her likability ratings have capsized....
Clinton’s campaign is striving to humanize her with an authenticity offensive in coming weeks intended to find opportunities to showcase her personality.
Kinds tough when the entire campaign is scripted.
Btw, I'm tired of elections being decided on "personality."
Already there has been some evidence of it: On Wednesday she joked about President Vladimir Putin of Russia during a question and answer segment at the Brookings Institution in Washington....
I don't find anything regarding relations with Russia funny given the push for war by the U.S.
She also taped a segment for “The Ellen DeGeneres Show” that will air Thursday. And next week Clinton is set to banter with late night TV host Jimmy Fallon — an interview that will be broadcast the same night as the second GOP presidential debate.
When does she do Colbert?
The Clinton team is also moving aggressively to address another area that’s uniquely potent to female candidates: ethics.
Typically women candidates are seen as more ethical than male counterparts — but when knocked off that pedestal, they suffer disproportionately, according to the Cambridge-based Barbara Lee Family Foundation’s research. “Voters expect women to be better,” said executive director Adrienne Kimmell.
I don't see them that way at all.
I hate to tell you, but my objections have NOTHING TO DO with race, gender, and all the other divisive avenues they propaganda pre$$ likes to raise. My objections to all the candidates, Democrat and Republican, are THE POLICIES. Period!
Truthfully, I would vote for a purple transgender candidate backed by Satan were they the peace candidate for which we are all searching.
The dynamic helps explain why persistent questions about Clinton’s unorthodox use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state are particularly dangerous for her candidacy.
No, that is dangerous because she allowed easy access to the messages were some foreign intelligence agency to wish it, and used her position in government to generate contributions to the Clinton Foundation.
To address those ethical concerns, Clinton has gone on an interview spree, answering dozens of questions about the server. Speaking to ABC’s David Muir on Tuesday, Clinton said she was sorry that her unorthodox communications setup and use of a private account “raised all of these questions.”
She followed up with a burst of electronic mea culpas hours later, posting a 207-word apology on her Facebook page and sending out an e-mail with the same message.
She thinks that will get the scandal behind her.
Clinton does score well in areas that cause many female candidates to stumble. She’s a prodigious fund-raiser, and importantly, she’s viewed as highly qualified for the job.
And Clinton’s strategists believe the historic nature of her candidacy will help energize the base in November, particularly motivating young women to vote — a group that tends not to turn out in large numbers.
That will be a change from past elections when female candidates said they regularly confronted overt sexism....
--more--"
Related: Clinton Campaign Laboring Over E-Mail Scandal
It's going to be a long birthing process.
At least someone still likes her.
NEXT DAY UPDATE:
"Clinton slams Trump over Fiorina comments" by Annie Linskey Globe Staff September 10, 2015
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Before the campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald Trump were on good terms. She and her husband, Bill Clinton, attended Trump's third wedding. Trump donated $100,000 to Clinton's family foundation. In 2012, Trump called Clinton a "terrific woman" who "works really hard" and does a good job.
How very interesting that paragraph was scrubbed.
I gue$$ knowing that would interfere with the illusion and imagery of the political $hit show fooley!
So did the campaigns tell you to do that?
Clinton used much of her speech to draw contrasts with the Republican field – at one point urging audience members to tune in to the GOP debate next week.
PFFFFFFT!
I guess we know who she is rooting for!
The state is a key battleground in the general election, but isn’t particularly important in the primary process. Clinton beat Barack Obama here by 10 points in 2008 in the Democratic primary.
Clinton made only a veiled reference to her top Democratic competitor, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, saying voters deserve detailed plans not just promises in broad strokes. A new Quinnipiac poll out Thursday morning showed him leading her by one point in Iowa, the first caucus state. Polls have shown him ahead in New Hampshire, the first primary state.
People don't like her!
Sanders, speaking in Washington on Thursday, said the Iowa poll shows momentum for his antiestablishment campaign. Tens of thousands are flocking to hear his liberal message of breaking up large financial institutions and pushing power away from special interests and wealthy individuals.
I'm not one of them.
Related: Sanders Working Hard in New Hampshire
Foreign policy article to come.
“We’re seeing just a huge amount of enthusiasm from working people and low-income people,” he said. “This will shock people inside the Beltway … The middle class of this country is disappearing.”
Clinton provided plenty of red meat to fire up her base of women voters in her speech – expressing support for higher wages, equal pay for women, Planned Parenthood, and a woman’s right to have an abortion.
But she also defended centrists, and her preference for sitting down with leaders who hold opposite views to forge compromise. “I’ve been accused of being a moderate,” Clinton said at one point. “I plead guilty.”
She also showed a flash of humor, acknowledging the negative headlines about her private e-mail server that has dogged her for months. “Controversy seems to follow me around,” Clinton said.
That scandal has now become an afterthought.
PFFFFFT!
Web added this instead:
Clinton left without taking questions from reporters. She has fund-raisers planned today in Columbus and Cincinnati.
The pre$$ is very tightly controlled by the campaign, but they never complain.
--more--"
"Bernie Sanders drops hints of foreign policy platform" by Kathie Obradovich Des Moines Register Political Columnist September 10, 2015
Senator Bernie Sanders, seeking the Democratic nomination for president, says his campaign website’s silence on foreign policy and national defense is due to growing pains.
Sanders apologized during an Sept. 3 meeting with Des Moines Register reporters and editors, when asked about the omission of a key policy area from his campaign materials.
“One of the problems that we are having, in Iowa politically and around the country, is our support is growing faster than our political infrastructure. We are hiring people every day trying to keep up with the support that we are getting and our website reflects that as well,” he said.
Sanders said he plans a major foreign policy speech, although he did not say when that would be, and promised to talk more about foreign policy on the campaign trail.
He doesn't talk about it because it's the same neo-con garbage we been getting for the last 14 years. It's the same with all the candidates.
He did drop a few bread crumbs. While he speaks passionately about the toll of war on American veterans and on the treasury, he isn’t entirely opposed to using military force. He voted against both wars against Iraq, and says history has proved him correct in terms of the destabilization of the region.
Related: VA reveals 900,000 applications are pending
At least Connecticut has housed all its homeless veterans (scandal. This government that lied them into war won't care for them).
No problem getting money for wars or the refugees from them, though.
“So I think maybe that says something about judgment,” he said. “I looked at the same facts that everybody else looked at, and you had most of Congress and you had a lot of the media saying, you know, we had to get into this war. I did not believe that. I believe history will record that I was right.”
However, he voted in favor of war against Afghanistan. “It seemed to me you had a war criminal in Osama bin Laden who had committed an atrocity against the United States. He had to be held accountable. The Taliban refused to release him,” Sanders said, and so he thought the war was appropriate.
Not only does he buy the narrative, he's no different.
He also voted in favor of the United States joining the NATO military action in Kosovo in 1999 “in order to minimize, or at least slow down, ethnic cleansing in that region,” he said.
Where is the criticism of Israel, Bernie?
Oh, right, same tribe.
Many Americans saw the Kosovo conflict as a humanitarian mission, but critics raised concerns about mission creep and the lack of a direct threat to the United States or its allies. Some of the same concerns were heard last year when President Obama decided to engage with airstrikes against ISIS in Syria after initially resisting involvement in that country’s civil war.
Well, all the false flags and staged and scripted fictions regarding ISIS™ have taken care of that (even if it isn't reported).
Sanders said he believes ISIS is a “barbaric organization” that must be defeated. But, he added, “I believe it cannot just be the United States of America alone that does these things. We have a whole world saying, hey, let America do it.”
He said he would build coalitions, and called out Saudi Arabia for not doing more to combat the ISIS threat on its border. “Saudi Arabia is a country run by a very wealthy, billionaire family that it turns out has the third largest military budget in the world,” he said, and yet it wants the United States to send ground troops against ISIS, supported by American taxpayers.
When are they going to learn they are next?
Obama has been sending troops anyway, so this hollow sh**.
“Well, sorry. I think the United States, along with the UK, France, other countries have got to be supportive, but I would like and expect to see the effort being led by countries in the region,” he said. They are “going to have to get over their problems and fight for the soul of Islam.”
He's so misinformed (or he is a propaganda-pushing liar)! Saudi is the main supplier of money and men to ISIS™ and Al-CIA-Duh.
Saudi Arabia is, in fact, moving toward greater involvement against ISIS, if the recent announcement of a pending $1 billion arms deal is any indication.
Yeah, sure.
So who got the contracts, Raytheon again?
Coalition building is always preferable to unilateral action.
Since when?
But it takes time and money to build coalitions and it could be argued that faster and more aggressive US action against ISIS back in 2013 might have saved lives and dollars.
Yup, if we had let Obummer invade Syria there would be no refugees and ISIS™wouldn't be a threat.
Today, there’s a frightening probability that ISIS and its sympathizers will strike in the United States if it cannot be defeated in the Middle East. Sanders needs to be clear under what circumstances he would be willing to authorize unilateral action if other countries fail to stand up with the United States.
So WHEN is the NEXT FALSE FLAG COMING?
That’s not a criticism of Sanders, unless he fails to follow through on his promise to clarify his positions on foreign policy.
No, it LOOKS like a THREAT and PREPROGRAMMING for the next BIG BANG (mushroom cloud over Chicago? That will show that Obama!)
Most other presidential candidates have offered piecemeal foreign policy outlines based more on hindsight and situational reactions than a vision of America’s role in the world.
Sanders has made his mark in this campaign on domestic and economic policy. But there won’t be any point in even talking about his massive domestic programs if the United States becomes embroiled in another war precipitated by a 9/11 style attack.
Oh, I DON'T LIKE THIS AT ALL!
The war on income inequality is one to be fought during a time of peace.
Now you know WHY WE ARE CONSTANTLY AT WAR with SELF-CREATED ENEMIES!!!!!!!!!!!
Yup, can fight a WAR on TWO FRONTS, but solving the wealth inequality while at war? Nope.
--more--"
Oh, from Iowa. That explains the idiocy.
Sorry I don't like Bernie, folks. He isn't going to stand up to Israel or their Yinonization plan.
Also see:
Democrats to stick with 6 debates, party leader says
I won't watch a one.
Biden not sure he can fully commit to being president
Revealed on the Colbert Show!
A funny thing happened at the forum
Do I look like I'm laughing?
As for O'Malley, well.... Baltimore.
Does it surprise that I no longer like doing this?
UPDATE: THE EPIC OF CLINTONS-MESS!
