This is what I see through the Globe pri$m:
"Hillary Rodham Clinton [is] on a path to become the most dominant nonincumbent candidate for president in American history, and it appears that unlike during the 2008 campaign, Democrats are now comfortable with the idea of backing Clinton as the Democratic nominee. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 92 percent of Democrats nationwide could support Clinton for president should she become the party nominee."
"Clinton traces a narrow path, worrying some Democrats; Election strategy bypasses states in the South" by Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman New York Times June 07, 2015
WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to be dispensing with the nationwide electoral strategy that won her husband two terms in the White House and brought white working-class voters and great stretches of what is now red-state America back to the Democrats.
With both parties controlled by corporations that means nothing now, and her husband gave the whole globalization project a huge help.
Instead, she is poised to retrace Barack Obama’s far narrower path to the presidency: a campaign focused more on mobilizing supporters in the Great Lakes states and in parts of the West and South than on persuading undecided voters.
Meaning she may not win, folks, no matter who the Republicans run. Remember, Obama's first victory was more broad-based. Tide going to other way now.
Aides say it is the only way to win in an era of heightened polarization, with a declining pool of voters truly up for grabs.
That is only true polarization is when something would be good for the American people; otherwise, they seem to come together real good for (in order of vote differential) Israel, Wall Street, the war machine, and well-connected corporations.
Her liberal policy positions, they say, will fire up Democrats, an easier task than trying to win over independents in more hostile territory, even though a broader strategy could help lift the party with her.
Except Democrats are not fired up at all.
This early in the campaign, however, forgoing a determined outreach effort to all 50 states, or even most of them, could mean missing out on the spirited conversation that can be a unifying feature of a presidential election. And it could leave Clinton, if she wins, with the same difficulties Obama has faced in governing with a Republican-controlled Congress.
It is causing consternation among Democrats in conservative states that could be given short shrift by her campaign or bypassed altogether.
When Bill Clinton reclaimed the presidency for Democrats in 1992, his road to the White House ran through Southern and Southern-border states filled with what were then a precious commodity: swing voters.
That's pretty brazen. Something like the chickens coming home to roost.
Twenty years later, Obama convincingly won a second term without competing in states like Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, or West Virginia that powered Bill Clinton. And because of his strong appeal among liberals, Obama did so even while losing among independent voters.
As Hillary Clinton intensifies her campaign for the Democratic nomination, it is clear from her left-leaning policy stances, her hiring, and her focus on data-driven organizing that her strategy is modeled on Obama’s, not her husband’s.
If she won, it would suggest the Obama coalition of young, nonwhite, and female voters is transferable to another Democrat. And it would validate the idea that energizing core supporters is more important in presidential contests than persuading those still undecided.
Already supplying the narrative for a rigged victory.
To the architects of the Obama strategy, Clinton’s approach is not mere homage: It is unavoidable, given that there are few genuine independents now, and that technology increasingly lets campaigns pinpoint their most likely voters.
This as the more people -- at least here -- abandon the two parties. It's a trend that has accelerated, and yet here I am getting this sh** narrative from the pre$$.
Of course, you could never tell that by the crowds that are bought and paid for.
“If you run a campaign trying to appeal to 60 to 70 percent of the electorate, you’re not going to run a very compelling campaign for the voters you need,” said David Plouffe, a top Obama strategist who has consulted informally with Clinton.
So to Democrats in states where Clinton is unlikely to compete, her relying on Obama’s map would be worrisome. It would not only further diminish beleaguered state parties, but also leave Clinton with a narrower margin for error.
“Go ask Al Gore,” Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, said about the risk of writing off states such as his, where Democratic presidential candidates prospered until 2000. “He’d be president with five electoral votes from West Virginia. So it is big, and it can make a difference.”
Al Gore had the election stolen from him, not that it would have mattered. Yes, maybe some issues on the edges might have been approached differently, but nothing substantial would have been done. These guys are figureheads for power and privilege.
A larger risk of a tailored strategy is that by taking advantage of polarization, a candidate could lose some of the authority that comes from the civic exercise of appealing to much of the nation.
Oh yeah? Cui bono?
“The president is the one person who potentially could be the unifying figure in the country,” said H.W. Brands, a historian at the University of Texas Austin. “And if the president or a presidential candidate basically writes off 40 states, then how in the world do the people in those 40 states feel like they have a stake in that person or that election?”
They don't, just as I don't feel I have a stake in any of these pathetic considerations of both parties.
"Democrats waging legal battle for voter access; Effort seen as aid to Clinton bid for White House" by Maggie Haberman and Amy Chozick New York Times June 04, 2015
Setting up a steal.
NEW YORK — Democrats allied with Hillary Rodham Clinton are mounting a nationwide legal battle 17 months before the 2016 presidential election, seeking to roll back Republican-enacted restrictions on voter access that Democrats say could, if unchallenged, prove decisive in a close campaign.
What good is access when the machines and scanners are rigged?
The Democrats began last month with lawsuits filed in Ohio and Wisconsin, presidential battleground states whose governors are likely to run for the Republican nomination. They are most likely going to attack a host of measures, including voter identification requirements that Democrats consider onerous, time restrictions imposed on early voting that they say could make it difficult to cast ballots the weekend before Election Day, and rules that could nullify ballots cast in the wrong precinct.
The effort is being spearheaded by a lawyer, Mark Elias, whose clients include Clinton’s campaign. It reflects an urgent practical need, Democrats say, to get litigation underway early enough so that federal judges can be persuaded to intervene in states where Republicans control legislatures and governor’s offices.
Why bother? She's taking the narrow path and turning out the base for victory.
A similar lawsuit was begun last year in North Carolina. Other potential fronts in the preemptive legal offensive, Democrats say, could include Georgia, Nevada, and Virginia.
Almost all of those states have growing African-American or Hispanic populations, groups crucial to President Obama in 2012 but whose voting rights Democrats say could be impinged next year, damaging the party’s prospects.
They preach unity and AmeriKanism as they divide us into subgroups.
Democrats seeking office at every level in 2016 could gain if lawsuits in their states are successful. But Clinton, who has a wide lead in public polls, is certain to benefit if she is the party’s nominee.
On Thursday, Clinton will tackle ballot access head-on in an address at Texas Southern University, a historically black college in Houston. She is expected to condemn the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling striking down a provision of the Voting Rights Act, which opened the way for states to pass laws requiring voters to have government-issued photo identification at the polls.
I seem to have to show a license or form of identification when I go places. If fraud is limited, what's the big deal? Or is this just a way to pad the rolls with illegal immigrants and such so vote totals add up?
Even if it is a way to manipulate and deny those voters, does it really matter in an age when the election results have already been preprogrammed with no possibility of checking?
I know people fought and died for the right. It meant something once.
Clinton is also expected to single out laws in Texas, North Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin, which voting rights groups say limit participation, especially among minorities, the poor, and younger voters who disproportionately cast their ballots for Democrats.
Her speech, which is expected to be similar in scope and tenor to her remarks about overhauling the criminal justice system, will tie voting rights into the broader civil rights strife that has erupted over the recent deaths of several unarmed black men at the hands of white police officers, aides said.
Attention has shifted off the cops and onto private citizen Roof and the South Carolina script.
For Clinton, such speeches can do much to reinforce her liberal credentials while reassuring black voters who supported Obama that she is on their side.
I wonder if they feel as taken for granted and politically patronized as I would.
In the same way, even if the lawsuits are unsuccessful, Democratic strategists say, they serve an important political purpose for Democrats by highlighting Republicans’ responsibility for the statutes being challenged. Democrats will also remind the party’s base that Republicans have tried to mobilize their own core voters by warning, as Mitt Romney did in 2012, against the possibility of widespread voter fraud by Democrats.
The whole $y$tem is fraudulent.
Republicans, however, argue that the lawsuits are a transparent ruse aimed at energizing minority voters, whom Clinton badly needs to turn out in numbers similar to those Obama drew in his 2012 reelection.
That's a myth because the turnout was down from 2008.
“I think it has been a growing trend in the last 10 years for campaigns to use litigation like this as a campaign weapon,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a Republican election law expert at the Heritage Foundation.
“The claims that they keep making, that this is going to depress turnout, just keep proving to be not true, and many of these issues have already been litigated.”
If the bankers had it there way, there would be no voting at all but then the veneer
"Striking populist tone, Clinton makes case for presidency" by Anne Gearan and Philip Rucker Washington Post June 13, 2015
NEW YORK — Promising a more hopeful, inclusive America ready to take on the big challenges facing it, Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday that she wants to be the champion the nation needs as well as its first female president.
First thing I notice is the total rewrite (Gearan the only byline in my print copy).
Speaking before thousands, Clinton blended her work as an advocate for children and families with pledges to give people a fairer bargain on a range of issues, including how taxes are levied, voting is conducted, and immigration is managed. She took shots at her would-be Republican rivals and the very wealthy — a group Clinton is a member of and one she will count on to help fund a campaign that aims to raise more than $1 billion.
‘‘Prosperity can’t be just for CEOs and hedge-fund managers,’’ Clinton said in an address on Roosevelt Island. ‘‘Democracy can’t be just for billionaires and corporations. Prosperity and democracy are part of your basic bargain, too. You brought our country back. Now it’s time — your time — to secure the gains and move ahead.’’
Except it has been just for them under her husband's and Obama's watch, sandwiching W. Bush.
Clinton entered the 2016 race in April but waited two months to frame her populist-flavored agenda and explicitly ask for the nation’s vote. On Saturday, she sought to provide a rationale for her candidacy, saying she is running for ‘‘everyone who’s ever been knocked down but refused to be knocked out.’’
That line served as both a reference to the economic circumstances of many Americans since the Great Recession as well as to her own disappointing White House run in 2008.
Clinton was looser than she often appeared during that campaign, smiling and pausing from time to time to absorb the applause from a crowd the campaign estimated at over 5,000.
Who paid to have them show up?
She got her loudest applause with a grinning reference to the many ways she would be a different kind of president. ‘‘I may not be the youngest candidate in this race. But I will be the youngest woman president in the history of the United States,’’ she said. ‘‘And the first grandmother as well.’’
Clinton jeeringly referred to what she called the false promise of Republicans that ‘‘if we let those at the top pay lower taxes and bend the rules, their success would trickle down to everyone else.’’
Remember all Obama's false promises?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not excusing the Repuglicans, either.
She did not mention any Republican opponents by name and said nothing about the smaller field of Democratic challengers. But in a series of attacks that drew applause from the crowd, Clinton hit Republicans for wanting to repeal the Affordable Care Act, deport immigrants, and take away ‘‘reproductive-health decisions.’’ Clinton said Republicans ‘‘turn their backs on gay people who love each other.’’ And on climate change, she said: ‘‘Ask many of these candidates about climate change, one of the defining threats of our time, and they'll say: ‘I'm not a scientist.’ Well, then, why don’t they start listening to those who are?’’
I'll tell you why.
As president, Clinton said she would reward businesses for long-term investments. She promised to restore America’s position of being on the cutting edge of innovation, science, and research by increasing public as well as private investments. And she pledged to improve preschool options, make college affordable, and rebuild decaying infrastructure. Policy details will be rolled out in coming weeks, she said.
The speech’s setting was a nod to both Clinton’s adopted home state, which she represented in the Senate for eight years, and the legacy of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ethos that America should be free from want and fear.
‘‘President Roosevelt called on every American to do his or her part, and every American answered,’’ Clinton said. ‘‘It’s America’s basic bargain: If you do your part, you ought to be able to get ahead. And when everybody does their part, America gets ahead, too.’’
That idea of a can-do, all-in-this-together society, with a government that provides and protects, is a startling embrace of the kind of Roosevelt-flavored big government many recent Democrats, including Bill Clinton, have avoided.
That suggests Clinton thinks she can win by appealing to her own party’s most progressive wing as well as to others who feel left behind in an economy where the gap between rich and poor has grown much wider than when her husband was in the White House in the 1990s. It also suggests that Clinton thinks she can overcome her own perceived coziness with Wall Street titans, which has caused some ambivalence among progressives.
Are you fooleyed?
After the speech, she flew to Iowa, the start of a swing through New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, other early primary states.
"In N.H. trip, Hillary Clinton calls for early education" by James Pindell and Annie Linskey Globe Staff June 15, 2015
ROCHESTER, N.H. — Hillary Rodham Clinton, in one of the first major policy addresses of her presidential run, called Monday for every 4-year-old to have access to “high-quality” prekindergarten within a decade.
“We shouldn’t think of child care as just a place to deposit your kids, a warehouse,” she told hundreds at the YMCA of Strafford County. “We should invest in programs that create healthy environments for early learning.”
Her policy rollout came on the same day that tensions flared between her campaign and the national press corps. Early in the day, Clinton’s campaign banned a designated national press pool reporter from covering two of her events. In Rochester, local media were turned away while 300 New Hampshirites waited inside.
It's become a problem.
But the policy focus of her New Hampshire visit, her first in a new phase of her campaign that kicked off with a large weekend rally in New York City, remained squarely on the message that early-childhood education is critical in preparing children for the future.
Before she announced her proposal, Clinton sat with a prekindergarten classroom, where she helped read “The Very Hungry Caterpillar.” The class teacher, Eve Sterling of Middleton, read the story while Clinton added color commentary for 18 students.
All I could think of was "My Pet Goat."
Clinton’s campaign stressed the event would be open to the public, and 20 minutes before it began, only standing room was available. Clinton also took questions from the audience on child care, drug addiction, and education funding.
After her YMCA visit, Clinton headed to Concord to hold her first large-scale 2016 campaign rally in New Hampshire, speaking to 500 people gathered inside an apple orchard barn. During 25 minutes of remarks, Clinton stressed a populist message, tying economic anxiety to retirement and college affordability.
“Now the question is: When does your hard work pay off? When does your family get ahead? When?” Clinton asked.
It's rhetorical, folks.
As she did at her Rochester event, Clinton attempted to shake the hand of every person in the room. Then she held court with the press for 15 minutes — the third and longest media availability of her presidential campaign so far.
They don't seem to happy about it, yet they are still fawning and deferential.
When asked three times about her position on a trade agreement with Asian nations, Clinton declined to take a position on the issue, which has split the Democratic Party. But Clinton did address questions about her personal wealth and whether it contrasts with her populist message.
“I am very grateful for the success that Bill and I have had,” Clinton said. “But I have been saying pretty much the same thing since I was a college student. I am proud of my progressive credentials and my experiences and my accomplishments and I am waging a campaign about what I think is best for the country.”
Blah, blah, blah.
Clinton revealed little more on her early-childhood education initiative, declining to put a figure on what it would cost.
The session marked the most recent chapter in Clinton’s dealings with the national media, which had demanded more access to the perceived front-runner for her party’s nomination.
The journalist denied access to the two campaign events Monday was David Martosko from the Daily Mail of London. He had been scheduled to cover Clinton that day for the national press pool, a collective of news organizations that rotate covering the candidate at smaller events that cannot accommodate a large media pack.
Must be approved by the campaign, too.
The pool is organized by the participating media, not the Clinton campaign. The press pool dispatches are first shared by e-mail with the outlets participating in the rotation and then sent at the end of the day to all interested news outlets.
I will be getting to the e-mails below.
When Martosko showed up at Clinton’s first event in Rochester, he said he was denied access inside the YMCA by a “Secret Service agent.” Later in the day, Clinton aides again denied Martosko access to an evening fund-raiser for the Manchester City Democratic Committee that the candidate attended.
Nick Merrill, a Clinton campaign spokesman, said the campaign has received “blowback” from foreign outlets. Foreign outlets have been denied access to some Clinton events because the campaign wants to give preference to US publications.
Then why the hoops? Why not have them all along?
“We need to rethink it all, maybe for a day,” Merrill told Martosko in the morning, according to the reporter’s e-mailed account of the conversation, “and just cool things off until we can have a discussion.”
The Boston Globe, which participates in the Clinton traveling press pool, had access to Clinton’s events Monday because a reporter from the paper was selected as a member of a local pool. The Globe’s circulation area includes New Hampshire.
I won the lottery, I won the lottery!
Additionally, several other national outlets were invited to the pooled events, along with wire services, which typically are always with the candidate.
Clinton’s team has worked to foster a friendlier relationship with the press during her second run for the White House. But compared with other presidential candidates, media access to Clinton has been minimal.
I'm supposed to take this reporting seriously?
This weekend, she was interviewed for the first time in her campaign by local news outlets, nearly two months after she started her run.
"In 1992, at a now-razed Merrimack hotel, Bill Clinton declared himself “the comeback kid.” Later that year, New Hampshire picked Bill Clinton over President George H.W. Bush, marking the first time the state voted for a Democrat for president since 1964. It did so again for his reelection in 1996. Indeed, when Hillary Clinton’s presidential hopes appeared to be finished in 2008, New Hampshire Democrats shockingly picked her over Barack Obama in their primary."
Not a shock if you see selections, 'er, elections my way.
Maybe this will $ell you on her:
"Hillary Clinton is political, but her foundation isn’t" by Dan Payne June 04, 2015
The much-discussed Clinton Foundation builds partnerships with businesses, governments, nongovernment organizations, other foundations, and wealthy individuals. Like Robin Hood, the foundation used those resources to reduce childhood obesity and improve meals at 20,000 US schools, aid 56,000 small farmers in Malawi, launch programs to save forests in Cambodia, Guyana, Indonesia, Kenya, and Tanzania, and cut the cost of HIV/AIDS medications for 9.9 million people in 70 countries.
OMG, he's comparing them to Robin Hood.
See: Report: Only 6% Clinton Foundation Expenditures Go To Charity
It's a slush fund for friends and family, and it isn't even a charity; it's a for-profit corporation.
Also see: Modern Day Robin Hoods
It's the state that loves and protects you.
Clinton detractors would have us believe the foundation is an arm of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. But judging by the politics of its donors, people give and support the foundation without regard to her campaign. Consider these big donors:
Big Media is well-represented, an indication that they don’t see the foundation as a political arm of Campaign Hillary. Comcast, NBC Universal, News Corporation, Thomson Reuters, Time Warner, and Turner Broadcasting are big contributors; other big givers include Carlos Slim, the Mexican telecom magnate and largest shareholder of The New York Times Company. Bloomberg News donated $500,001-$1 million. (Gifts are reported as a range.)
If the foundation benefits Clinton’s candidacy, that will come as news to James Murdoch, co-chief operating officer for the company that owns Fox News, donated $1 million-$5 million, as well as his father Richard, who founded Fox News and gave $500,001-$1 million.
Well, his name is actually Rupert and his son is taking over!
Major conservatives have given major dollars. Calling itself “The #1 conservative site in the nation,” Newsmax Media chipped in $100,001-$250,000 and also $1 million-$5 million. The recently deceased Pittsburgh billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, principal heir to the Mellon family’s old banking, oil, steel and aluminum fortune, was described as “one of America’s leading funders of conservative causes.” He donated $250,001-$500,000.
Even big name Republicans are on board. Many Republicans have supported Foundation events, including the Global Initiative meetings. Guests have included Laura Bush; former two-time presidential candidate Mitt Romney; TV host Donald Trump, who also forked over $100,000; New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, presidential candidates Carly Fiorina; former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson.
What about Stephanopolous? Yes, George Stephanopolous, of ABC News, gave $75,000 to the foundation, which was publicly listed. Yes, he helped Bill Clinton’s campaign for president and should have told his bosses and his audience about his donation. But he gave to support efforts against AIDS and deforestation. His gift reveals nothing about his political history that wasn’t already known.
How diverse can you get? None other than onetime vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin attended a Clinton Global Initiative session to hear a speech by Senator John McCain, the-then presidential nominee.
I know he's trying to help, but at the same time he is exposing the whole $y$tem as $ham.
The ideological variety of the foundation’s supporters shows its work is seen by even the most political people as apolitical. Many things can be said to criticize Hillary Clinton. But using the Clinton Foundation to advance her run for president isn’t one of them.
I know he tried to defend them, but the rank corruption and conflict of interest stinks on the surface, and do we really want Bill as First Gentlemen?
Looking for more money:
"Hillary Clinton has busy calendar of Mass. fund-raisers" by Jim O’Sullivan Globe Staff June 10, 2015
Hillary Rodham Clinton has a busy calendar of Massachusetts fund-raisers the next few weeks, starting Wednesday with events in Boston and Chestnut Hill and branching out to different pockets of the state early next month.
The former US secretary of state attended a Wednesday afternoon fund-raiser at the home of Jonathan and Margot Davis. Jonathan Davis founded a local real estate firm.
The July 2 events will take the front-runner for the Democratic nomination from Holyoke, one of the poorest cities in the Commonwealth, to Osterville and Provincetown, two upscale Cape Cod towns where she will be the guest of longtime friends.
All of the events ask up to $2,700 per head, with cohosting opportunities for $27,000, which can also purchase a photo with Clinton and inclusion in the Hillstarters program for high-dollar fund-raisers. In Osterville, the $27,000 also includes a reception with Clinton, according to a copy of the invitation obtained by the Globe.
But she's a populist!
Attendees are also invited to donate $50,000, which buys the status of event host, and the Hillstarters status.
It's like what Catholic priests used to do or still do!
Clinton’s event in Holyoke, where US Representative Richard Neal is also expected to speak, will be cohosted by state Democratic Party Treasurer Nicole LaChapelle and Thomas Lesser, who helped President Obama’s campaigns in 2008 and 2012.
Renowned event planner Bryan Rafanelli and Alix Ritchie, a longtime gay-rights activist, will cohost the Provincetown event, according to a copy of the invitation.
In Osterville, Clinton will be hosted by Elaine and Gerald Schuster, two longtime Democratic fund-raisers and Clinton family friends.
Also in Osterville, Clinton will be revisiting a local skirmish more than a decade old. The Schusters were in 2001 locked in a bitter feud with local Democrats.
The state party had sided with the Service Employees International Union in its effort to organize a union at a nursing home owned by the Schusters as part of their real estate and housing empire, prompting the couple to publicly condemn the party’s then-chairman, Philip W. Johnston. A family spokesman likened Johnston to Benedict Arnold.
The acrimony has long since cooled, Democrats and top union officials said.
Republicans on Wednesday ripped Clinton for her fund-raising activities. Republican National Committee spokesman Raffi Williams said in a press release, “Clinton’s campaign has been full of hypocrisy, flip-flops, and scandals, so it’s no surprise she would prefer to avoid interacting with real voters. The truth is that Clinton is more comfortable schmoozing with millionaire donors than pretending to relate to average Americans.”
That's true of them all.
Speaking of money:
"Clinton urges Obama to tweak trade deal; Says president, Congress need to protect wages" by Ken Thomas Associated Press June 15, 2015
Related: Is the TPP Okay With Slavery? Really?
This at the same time the Confederate battle flag is being ripped to shreds.
Can the absurd and insane hypocrisy be any more over-the-top.
DES MOINES — Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday that President Obama should use a setback in Congress to seek the best possible trade agreement with 11 other Pacific Rim nations, pointing to stumbles over the pact as an opportunity to address Democrats’ concerns about job protections and wages.
‘‘Let’s take the lemons and turn it into lemonade,’’ Clinton told more than 700 supporters at the Iowa State Fairgrounds, addressing the Trans Pacific Partnership trade proposal that has splintered Obama from House minority leader Nancy Pelosi and rank-and-file Democrats.
Courting Iowa voters, Clinton sought to address Democratic opponents of the trade legislation, including liberals and labor unions, who have said the Obama-backed plan will cost US jobs. The agreement has not been finalized or submitted to Congress.
He has fast track now so no more criticism.
‘‘The president should listen to and work with his allies in Congress, starting with Nancy Pelosi, who had expressed their concerns about the impact that a weak agreement would have on our workers to make sure we get the best strongest deal possible,’’ Clinton said. ‘‘And if we don’t get it, there should be no deal.’’
She's on the outside of this right now and talk is cheap.
‘‘I have held my peace because I thought it was important for the Congress to have a full debate without thrusting presidential politics and candidates into it,’’ Clinton said at a house party in Burlington. ‘‘But now I think the president and his team could have a chance to drive a harder bargain.’’
Clinton was spending most of the weekend in Iowa after formally launching her campaign in New York City.
Two other announced candidates for the Democratic nomination, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and former governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland, have also been campaigning in Iowa. Sanders had appearances across the state Sunday. O’Malley held events in the state last week.
O'Malley On the Move
Former Virginia senator Jim Webb, who is exploring a potential Democratic bid, also held events in Iowa on Sunday.
Must be why he hasn't gotten much coverage yet.
The White House and Republican leaders in Congress now face long odds in reviving the trade legislation after congressional Democrats helped defeat a job retraining program in a blow to Obama’s attempt to secure so-called fast track authority.
Are you sick of the propaganda pre$$ deception and deceit yet?
Without the authority to negotiate trade deals that Congress can approve or reject, but not amend, the president would face difficulty in securing the Asia trade deal after years of work.
Somehow I feel if she becomes president we are just moving sideways (a signal to Israel? Exit America, stage right?)
At least the chef that was fired won't be spilling any secrets.
What did he see that he shouldn't have?
The 21st-century version of tea leaves:
"US didn’t get all of Clinton e-mails" by Michael S. Schmidt New York Times June 26, 2015
WASHINGTON — Despite assertions by Hillary Rodham Clinton that she provided the State Department with all of her work-related e-mails from the personal account she used exclusively when she was in office, the department has received several related to Libya that she had not handed over, according to officials at the agency.
She lied? What a shock.
The e-mails that Clinton did not give to the State Department were between her and her longtime confidant and adviser Sidney Blumenthal. He did not work for the department at the time but was routinely sending her intelligence memos on Libya.
There just seems to be something shady and wrong there.
"Blumenthal, a Clinton confidante whose potential employment at the State Department was nixed by Obama administration officials, advised Clinton on the content of her speeches, on political developments in a number of countries and even on how her policies were playing in the international press. The new records indicate Blumenthal's advisory role went far beyond the informal intelligence memos he prepared for her about Libya. In fact, the emails suggest Blumenthal performed the duties of a full-time State Department staffer, despite being on the payroll of the Clinton Foundation during the same time period."
Did you see the gesture she is making?
It was reported at the beginning of Obama's presidency that he basically turned foreign policy over to her because he liked the domestic stuff.
There are 15 e-mails that Blumenthal gave to the House committee looking into the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that the State Department cannot find among the e-mails that Clinton handed over last year, according to a State Department official. The House committee gave those e-mails to the State Department this month. A spokesman for Clinton did not return an e-mail seeking comment.
We are never going to get the truth of what happened there.
Clinton has said that she provided the State Department with about 30,000 e-mails that were related to her work as secretary of state. She said that she deleted roughly the same number from the account, saying those messages “were private, personal” ones.
Apparently the account was wide open for hacking and did contain classified information. That's what I heard.
Questions about whether Clinton gave the State Department all of her work-related e-mails emerged in recent weeks. On June 12, Blumenthal gave the House committee about 60 e-mails related to Libya that he exchanged with Clinton.
Blumenthal handed them over in response to a subpoena from the committee. Many of these e-mails had not been given to the committee by the State Department.
Concerned that the State Department had withheld the e-mails from the panel, its chairman, Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina sent a letter to the agency asking why it had not been given the e-mails and whether Clinton had handed them over. The agency then went through the e-mails Clinton had turned over, discovering there were some Blumenthal had given to the committee that Clinton had not handed over.
I have some ideas and suspicions.
"Hillary Clinton’s notes to adviser under fire" New York Times June 29, 2015
WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters last month that the memos about Libya she received while secretary of state from Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime adviser whom the Obama administration had barred her from hiring, had been “unsolicited.”
But officials briefed on the matter said e-mail records that Clinton apparently failed to turn over to the State Department last fall show she repeatedly encouraged Blumenthal to “keep ’em coming,” as she said in an August 2012 reply to a memo from him.
Do we really want another serial liar as president, even if she is a woman?
All or part of 15 Libya-related e-mails she sent to Blumenthal were missing from the trove of 30,000 that Clinton provided to the State Department last year, as well as from the 847 that the department in turn provided in February to the House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. The e-mails were reviewed by a reporter.
The department had asked Clinton last year for copies of all work-related e-mails she sent or received on the personal e-mail account she exclusively used when she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.
She has said she wiped the server clean thereafter, deleting the e-mails that she had not turned over to the department, which she said were personal.
Seems criminal to me.
The fact that some of the missing correspondence contained expressions of gratitude and encouragement to Blumenthal is being seized on by Republicans, who plan to use the apparent contradiction to raise new questions about Clinton’s credibility.
If they were destroyed how can it be a fact? No one has seen them!
Terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya Clinton’s e-mail
Looks like a threat.
GOP criticizes delays on releasing Hillary Clinton e-mails
I noticed the name Blumenthal was omitted from the article!
Here is another reading of them:
"You have an Administration on the ropes in Washington, with its star player for the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton, tanking on potential charges of corruption, gross mismanagement of the State Department, and outright lying to Congress on Benghazi, you start to feel cornered. And cornered politicians are both desperate and dangerous. Except for the money junkies, the economy is in a mess; just ask anyone whose job was recently offshored/outsourced. The benefit for such an administration from a national series of race riots would be to give Obama the excuse to suspend the Constitution and Bill of Law, and invoke martial law, and perhaps postpone the next election...indefinitely. Nothing could be said about the US business-shredding Atlantic or Pacific trade deals, without imprisonment, fines, or both. Nothing could be said about upcoming potential wars with Iran, China, and Russia. And nothing could be said about Charlie Rangel's legislation, still sitting in the Armed Services Committee, to reinstate the draft, and draft our young women, as well as our young men. I am noticing that on the feed from Faux News, we are being "prepped" for some kind of horrific terror incident to happen over this weekend, either domestically, or against American interests. This could well be another "justification" for President Obama's gleeful suspension of the Constitution and Bill of Rights." -- http://whatreallyhappened.com
Related: Report: FBI Agents Telling Friends & Family to ‘Avoid July 4 Celebrations’
I have not yet seen anything in print, but the web is warning about some fireworks this weekend -- and you won't be able to film it, either.
I'm sorry, readers, but I have lost my spark and am tired now. I'll have to end things here before continuing early tomorrow morning. Time to have some tea before turning in for the night.
July 4th fireworks crew gets ready for big show
Given the armed camp Bo$ton has become during such things, I'd say f*** it.
"E-mails show an unvarnished Clinton" by Annie Linskey Globe Staff July 02, 2015
WASHINGTON — A federal judge and a grudging State Department are doing what Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign has so far failed to accomplish: humanize her.
(Blog editor shaking his head at this front-page shilling)
Thousands of Clinton e-mails — squirreled away on a private server at her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., while she was secretary of state — are now being released, and they provide a bracing dose of authenticity to one of the country’s most scripted and careful politicians.
What about the ones she didn't give to the State Department and the server she wiped clean?
Not all the e-mails are positive. Documents show top fund-raisers cozying up with the secretary and asking for favors; gossipy dispatches from aides about administration officials, including Vice President Joe Biden; insecurity about access to the president; and an at-times awkward relationship with her husband, Bill Clinton.
One of the more cringe-worthy is a missive she wrote to staff that could have come right from the HBO television show “Veep.”
“I heard on the radio that there is a Cabinet mtg this am,” Clinton wrote. “Is there? Can I go?”
The presidential candidate’s fax skills and White House angst were on display in e-mails from 2009 that were made public Tuesday.
Just before the holiday weekend people are now looking forward to, same as the first batch released when all attention was on Netanyahu's speech to Congress.
Gotta hand it to the Clinton's, they do understand the media cycle and how to try and minimize bad news.
Staff members later determined that the meeting in question wasn’t really for the full Cabinet and that the State Department was invited to send representatives.
These e-mails are part of a cache of communiques that came to light earlier this year when Clinton acknowledged that she used a private e-mail address exclusively during her four years as secretary of state. Her team deleted about half of the e-mails that were deemed private and turned over about 30,000 of them to the State Department, which is reviewing them for classified material.
The State Department initially announced the e-mails would be turned over in January 2016, but a federal judge intervened and set a monthly schedule for release that the department must follow to comply with the federal Freedom of Information Act. A certain portion must be released by the end of each month until 100 percent are made public by Jan. 29, 2016, just days before the Iowa caucuses.
The e-mails go well beyond revealing Clinton’s idiosyncrasies and provide broader insight into the workings of official Washington, a place filled with unctuous aides rushing to flatter their bosses, anxiety about being invited to the big events, and the notion that saying just the right thing over lunch in Nantucket might open doors in Foggy Bottom.
What a rotting carcass of corruption down there.
It’s unclear whether the e-mails will affect Clinton’s campaign, which said Wednesday it raised $45 million in the first quarter. None of the e-mails that Clinton deemed private will be released — they no longer exist — and much of the substance in this first batch was redacted by the State Department.
So I have a page one story saying they have the secrets of the Clinton e-mail, and it's all censored ad redacted. Nice deception, Globe.
The e-mails became public around 9 p.m. Tuesday, and reporters quickly dug through them and blasted out some of the more comedic ones via Twitter.
This is the pre$$ corp we are relying on to get the story out of Washington?
Particular attention was paid to the sensitivity Clinton felt about her early relationship with Obama. In one e-mail, Clinton complains that she was stood-up by the White House. “I arrived for the 10:15 mtg and was told there was no mtg,” Clinton wrote. “This is the second time this has happened. What’s up???”
She frets over how she would be compared to Henry Kissinger, who was secretary of state under President Nixon.
“I see POTUS at least once a week while K saw Nixon everyday,” she wrote, using the Washington acronym for president of the United States.
Honestly, the number of dead bodies accumulated on both war-criminal watches are comparable.
In the same e-mail, Clinton shows a flash of the humor she rarely shows in public.
“Of course, if I were dealing w that POTUS I’d probably camp in his office to prevent him from doing something problematic.”
Her history there is all convoluted. She was a little Republican until she worked the Watergate committee as a staffer -- and was fired from the job.
There’s evidence that at times Hillary Clinton wasn’t in particularly close touch with her husband, who was crisscrossing the globe and raising money for the Clinton Foundation and other ventures.
That is not a surprise at all. Everyone knows it's a sham marriage of convenience.
In May 2009, Bill Clinton’s aide Doug Band e-mailed two of Hillary Clinton’s staff members to tell them the former president had just agreed to be a special envoy to Haiti — and the news had already leaked to the press.
“Wjc said he was going to call hrc but hasn’t had time,” Band wrote, using the initials for both Clintons.
Where did all those billions in Haiti aid disappear to, Bill?
Other e-mails show some of the empathy that Clinton confidants say is her greatest strength.
After watching a CNN segment about Nujood Ali, a Yemeni child bride who divorced her husband, Clinton asked her staff to intervene.
“Is there any way we can help her?” Clinton asked a staff member. “Could we get her to the US for counseling and education?”
Notable, also, is the glitzy venue in which Clinton came across the girl: The 2008 Glamour Awards.
Another moment was the death of Senator Edward Kennedy, who had disappointed the Clintons for endorsing Obama in the 2008 election.
On Aug. 26, 2009 — the day after Kennedy died — Clinton asked her staff if arrangements had been made. “Any word on Kennedy funeral?” she wrote.
The next day she wanted to know if she’d been “invited” to the funeral.
Clinton did attend the funeral, which was on Aug. 29, 2009. And she followed up with a note to staff about “People I saw at funeral who I want to see or who want to see me.” The list included labor leader Randi Weingarten, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California (who she sometimes refers to a “DiFi”), and then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California.
Friends of Clinton make frequent appearances in the trove — and cause some trouble. One of the juiciest exchanges is via Lynn Forester de Rothschild, one of Clinton’s staunchest allies and fund-raisers.
Now if you don't think that name jumped out at me....
De Rothschild, a member of the storied financial family, e-mailed Clinton personally to vouch for Leslie Gelb, the Pulitzer-prize-winning former journalist for The New York Times and former president of the Council on Foreign Relations. De Rothschild had just had lunch with Gelb at a Nantucket yacht club, where Gelb had explained to de Rothschild that he was trying to shadow Clinton for an article that would be on the cover of Parade Magazine.
“He said he would give you a veto over content,” de Rothschild wrote to Clinton about Gelb. “And looked me in the eye and said, ‘she will like it.’ ”
Gelb, in an interview, disputed the account, saying that he never promised the Clinton team any editorial control over the piece and that the State Department had already approved his request.
“No one who has ever known me would ever dream that I would give anyone any veto power,” Gelb said. The notion, he said, is “utter nonsense.”
It's allegedly in the e-mails.
He also pointed out that the piece would run in a magazine not known for holding public officials accountable.
“Parade Magazine never hatcheted anybody,” Gelb said.
Odd messages to Clinton are also captured in the e-mails. A staff member to US Representative Jim McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat, sent Clinton’s aides an AP story about a Colombian rock star having a third child in Miami.
He's my rep even though I didn't vote for him.
“Jim tells me the Secretary likes to be aware of such things — in case you haven’t already heard,” wrote McGovern aide Cindy Buhl.
The message was dutifully passed on to a confused Clinton. She simply replied: “??????????????????????????”
(A McGovern aide explained that the congressman was aware that Clinton had recently met the rock star and therefore wanted to share the information.)
Among the more memorable exchanges show Clinton’s struggles with a fax machine.
Nixon wasn't very good with mechanical things, either.
Clinton, who was having trouble receiving a document, left the phone on the fax machine off the hook, preventing a connection from being established.
“I thought it was supposed to be off hook to work?” she wrote to top aide Huma Abedin.
The name rings a bell.
The two then went back and forth on e-mail at least six times about the fax.
In another exchange in July 2009, Clinton explained she didn’t get a document because her fax machine was out of service. Again Abedin came to the rescue.
“My fax is broken!” Clinton wrote. “So Huma is coming to print for me.”
Related: CNN: Obama White House Lied ‘We Didn’t Know About Hillary’s Private Email’