Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
September 9, 2015
Once a war hawk, always a war hawk..........she just can't wait!....
WASHINGTON -- In the lead-up to the 2008 presidential election, Hillary Clinton’s vote to authorize the Iraq War six years before haunted her on the campaign trail. It put her in stark contrast with then-Senator Barack Obama, who touted his foresight in opposing the ill-fated war. But if Clinton was scarred by the perception that her foreign policy agenda is too hawkish for the Democratic Party, she showed no signs of it Wednesday morning in a speech detailing her plan to counter Iran after the implementation of the nuclear deal. While Clinton was instrumental in paving the road for the nuclear negotiations with Iran in 2012 and supports the accord reached between Iran, the U.S., and five world powers in July, she made clear on Wednesday at the Brookings Institution that she does not view the agreement as marking a shift in U.S.-Iranian relations.
“I don’t believe Iran is our partner in this agreement. Iran is the subject of the agreement,” Clinton said, using rhetoric that notably contrasts with that of the Obama administration, which has been consistenly cautious about not upsetting Iran.
Tyler Cullis @TylerCullis
Her way of talking is why @JohnKerry got the #IranDeal, not her: https://twitter.com/jessicaschulb/status/641610423930908672 …
9:59 AM - 9 Sep 2015
Obama was hesitant to condemn the Iranian crackdown on protesters during the 2009 Green Revolution. The unrest erupted just as the Obama administration was quietly mulling outreach to the Iranians on the nuclear issue, and the president was mindful of the way a condemnation would sound in a country that views the U.S. as an arrogant superpower intent on regime change. The administration’s failure to take a more proactive role on behalf of the protesters was a mistake Clinton regrets, as she wrote in her memoirs and repeated in her speech Wednesday. “That won’t happen again,” she vowed. Clinton’s message to the Iranians was clear: “The U.S. will never allow you to acquire a nuclear weapon,” she said Wednesday. “I will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon.” While Obama has always insisted that military action against Iran remained on the table, he generally avoided issuing what could be construed as an outright threat.
But the key to successful implementation to the Iran deal, Clinton argued, is showing the Iranians the U.S. is serious. "We should expect that Iran will want to test the next president. They will want to see how far they can bend the rules," she said in the speech. "That won’t work if I’m in the White House." To show her seriousness, the former secretary of state suggested deploying additional U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf region and recommended that Congress “close any gaps” in the existing sanctions to punish Iran for any current or future instances of human rights abuses and support for terror. Although the nuclear agreement allows for additional sanctions that are unrelated to Iran’s nuclear program, it also requires parties to avoid action “inconsistent with the letter, spirit and intent” of the deal. Since July, a handful of senators from both parties have said they are drafting new sanctions laws. Though the Obama administration has resisted additional sanctions during the implementation phase of the nuclear agreement, Clinton advised Obama to work with lawmakers to pass new laws. While the speech focused on Iran, Clinton also addressed foreign policy elsewhere, highlighting areas in which she thought Obama was too hesitant to use military might to exert American influence abroad.
cont'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-iran-foreign-policy_55f05c2ae4b002d5c07786b2
Hillary Clinton Promises A MORE MUSCULAR Foreign Policy As President
Clinton vowed to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge and suggested renewing its current security package (currently $3 billion a year in U.S. aid) this year rather than waiting until it expires in 2017 -- both non-controversial policies that would have the backing of any American president. But she add that she’d invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to visit the White House within her first month in office, noting that “tough love” for the country is counterproductive because it invites other countries to delegitimize Israel.
Once a war hawk, always a war hawk..........she just can't wait!....
WASHINGTON -- In the lead-up to the 2008 presidential election, Hillary Clinton’s vote to authorize the Iraq War six years before haunted her on the campaign trail. It put her in stark contrast with then-Senator Barack Obama, who touted his foresight in opposing the ill-fated war. But if Clinton was scarred by the perception that her foreign policy agenda is too hawkish for the Democratic Party, she showed no signs of it Wednesday morning in a speech detailing her plan to counter Iran after the implementation of the nuclear deal. While Clinton was instrumental in paving the road for the nuclear negotiations with Iran in 2012 and supports the accord reached between Iran, the U.S., and five world powers in July, she made clear on Wednesday at the Brookings Institution that she does not view the agreement as marking a shift in U.S.-Iranian relations.
“I don’t believe Iran is our partner in this agreement. Iran is the subject of the agreement,” Clinton said, using rhetoric that notably contrasts with that of the Obama administration, which has been consistenly cautious about not upsetting Iran.
Tyler Cullis @TylerCullis
Her way of talking is why @JohnKerry got the #IranDeal, not her: https://twitter.com/jessicaschulb/status/641610423930908672 …
9:59 AM - 9 Sep 2015
Obama was hesitant to condemn the Iranian crackdown on protesters during the 2009 Green Revolution. The unrest erupted just as the Obama administration was quietly mulling outreach to the Iranians on the nuclear issue, and the president was mindful of the way a condemnation would sound in a country that views the U.S. as an arrogant superpower intent on regime change. The administration’s failure to take a more proactive role on behalf of the protesters was a mistake Clinton regrets, as she wrote in her memoirs and repeated in her speech Wednesday. “That won’t happen again,” she vowed. Clinton’s message to the Iranians was clear: “The U.S. will never allow you to acquire a nuclear weapon,” she said Wednesday. “I will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon.” While Obama has always insisted that military action against Iran remained on the table, he generally avoided issuing what could be construed as an outright threat.
But the key to successful implementation to the Iran deal, Clinton argued, is showing the Iranians the U.S. is serious. "We should expect that Iran will want to test the next president. They will want to see how far they can bend the rules," she said in the speech. "That won’t work if I’m in the White House." To show her seriousness, the former secretary of state suggested deploying additional U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf region and recommended that Congress “close any gaps” in the existing sanctions to punish Iran for any current or future instances of human rights abuses and support for terror. Although the nuclear agreement allows for additional sanctions that are unrelated to Iran’s nuclear program, it also requires parties to avoid action “inconsistent with the letter, spirit and intent” of the deal. Since July, a handful of senators from both parties have said they are drafting new sanctions laws. Though the Obama administration has resisted additional sanctions during the implementation phase of the nuclear agreement, Clinton advised Obama to work with lawmakers to pass new laws. While the speech focused on Iran, Clinton also addressed foreign policy elsewhere, highlighting areas in which she thought Obama was too hesitant to use military might to exert American influence abroad.
cont'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-iran-foreign-policy_55f05c2ae4b002d5c07786b2
September 9, 2015
or
But the above quotes are from today's NYT, not from 8 years ago.
As is this:
It's no wonder people find her calculating, insincere and untrustworthy. Who's the real Hillary? The poll-tested, focus-group tested person? What's unfortunate for her is she could probably get away with it if her people didn't talk about it. The contrast in the 2008 campaign with Obama's staff was striking: they never talked about their strategy, whereas Clinton's people did what they are doing now all the time. Maybe this time she'll learn to at least shut them up or maybe she'll show us the authentic version for a refreshing change.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/09/1419622/-Clinton-Redux-Reinventing-Herself-Like-its-2007
Clinton Redux?: REINVENTING Herself Like its 2007
from DailKos....
My take on Clinton's loss to Obama in the 2008 Presidential campaign is that she largely self-destructed by continually re-inventing herself, apparently responding to focus groups and polls. That alone was not fatal, however. What really hurt her was that she advertised the continual re-settings by way of her campaign announcing them. Of course, they didn't say explicitly that that was what they were doing. They just said things like:
"....In extensive interviews by telephone ..., Mrs. Clinton’s strategists acknowledged missteps ... and promised that this fall the public would see the sides of Mrs. Clinton that are often obscured by the noise and distractions of modern campaigning..."
or
"...They want to show her humor. [snip] They want to show her heart ..."
But the above quotes are from today's NYT, not from 8 years ago.
As is this:
"...Previous attempts to introduce Mrs. Clinton’s softer side to voters have backfired amid criticism that the efforts seemed overly poll tested..."
It's no wonder people find her calculating, insincere and untrustworthy. Who's the real Hillary? The poll-tested, focus-group tested person? What's unfortunate for her is she could probably get away with it if her people didn't talk about it. The contrast in the 2008 campaign with Obama's staff was striking: they never talked about their strategy, whereas Clinton's people did what they are doing now all the time. Maybe this time she'll learn to at least shut them up or maybe she'll show us the authentic version for a refreshing change.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/09/1419622/-Clinton-Redux-Reinventing-Herself-Like-its-2007
September 7, 2015
Howard Dean STRUGGLES To Defend Clinton's Use Of A Private Email Server
While discussing the revelation that Hillary Clinton paid a State Department staffer to manage her private email server, MSNBC host Thomas Roberts and former Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) got into an extended debate over whether this controversy is media-driven or a legitimate problem for the Democratic presidential candidate.
The pair became so entangled in the battle that Republican strategist Susan Del Percio didn’t get a single word in for the last eight minutes of the segment.
Dean’s main contention: The media is overplaying the email scandal by constantly relitigating her private server, ignoring that she has “the right” to maintain such a server seeing as she is a former First Lady with an intensely public life. Roberts’ rebuttal: Taxpayers expect transparency, and it is clear she had no oversight while using this server.
While tension between the two was quite palpable, neither Dean nor Roberts raised their voices or made ad hominem attacks. Definitely a worthwhile conversation for your viewing, via MSNBC:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-thomas-roberts-battles-howard-dean-over-hillary-emails/
The pair became so entangled in the battle that Republican strategist Susan Del Percio didn’t get a single word in for the last eight minutes of the segment.
Dean’s main contention: The media is overplaying the email scandal by constantly relitigating her private server, ignoring that she has “the right” to maintain such a server seeing as she is a former First Lady with an intensely public life. Roberts’ rebuttal: Taxpayers expect transparency, and it is clear she had no oversight while using this server.
While tension between the two was quite palpable, neither Dean nor Roberts raised their voices or made ad hominem attacks. Definitely a worthwhile conversation for your viewing, via MSNBC:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-thomas-roberts-battles-howard-dean-over-hillary-emails/
September 6, 2015
".....Last month, as Bernie started gaining more and more traction with Democratic voters in key states, Clinton headquarters started pushing surrogates to ramp up the attacks, and even gave the duller ones verbal lines to use against him...."
A few days ago, Rima Regas, writing for Alternet, exposed the ugly truth about the media's relationship with the Bernie Sanders campaign, namely that the mainstream media undermines him at every turn. It will only get worse as more Americans find out about him and his program (primarily via word-of-mouth). Regas asserts that the media is colluding with the Clinton machine. I wouldn't doubt it, not for a moment.
~snip~
Bernie's campaign has been unique in that he never utters a negative word about his opponents-- not the Wall Street-owned Clinton nor the buffoonish O'Malley, who, after a career as an aggressive centrist and corporatist, is trying, unsuccessfully, to mimic Bernie's decades in politics. But the Clinton machine is "unleashing the hounds." In June McCaskill ran to MSNBC's Republican morning show to argue that Bernie is too liberal to be elected. “I very rarely read in any coverage of Bernie that he’s a socialist,” she said, something she reiterated last month on CNN: "I think the question that some of us have is can someone who has said, 'I'm not a Democrat,' has chosen the title of socialist, is that person really electable?" Last month, as Bernie started gaining more and more traction with Democratic voters in key states, Clinton headquarters started pushing surrogates to ramp up the attacks, and even gave the duller ones verbal lines to use against him.
cont'
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com
Hillary's Campaign Repays Bernie For His Positive Message About Her w Clintonian Smears & Innuendos
".....Last month, as Bernie started gaining more and more traction with Democratic voters in key states, Clinton headquarters started pushing surrogates to ramp up the attacks, and even gave the duller ones verbal lines to use against him...."
A few days ago, Rima Regas, writing for Alternet, exposed the ugly truth about the media's relationship with the Bernie Sanders campaign, namely that the mainstream media undermines him at every turn. It will only get worse as more Americans find out about him and his program (primarily via word-of-mouth). Regas asserts that the media is colluding with the Clinton machine. I wouldn't doubt it, not for a moment.
When analyzing the quantity and content of the vast majority of what is said and written about Sanders, his campaign platform, and appearances, one finds a running theme across the so-called liberal media. The New York Times has been called out by more than one analyst, myself included, for its complete lack of serious coverage of Bernie Sanders.
Since joining the staff at the New York Times, Maggie Haberman has written about Sanders on fewer than a handful of occasions, while she has written about the other candidates in the race more often. While it is understandable that Hillary Clinton would be the subject of more numerous articles, it makes no sense for Martin O'Malley to have more articles written about him than Sanders, given the pecking order that emerged right from the start, yet that is what has transpired so far.
In articles that address various aspects of the Democratic side of the primary, Senator Sanders' ability to succeed is always described in doubtful terms, even as Hillary Clinton's troubles in the polls are being described. The New York Times has published fewer than a dozen pieces that are Sanders campaign-specific and each is problematic in the way he is portrayed. Most often, Sanders' age and hair are highlighted, and the incorrect moniker "socialist" is applied. (Socialist and Democratic socialist are not interchangeable terms.)
While the age of a candidate might matter to some when thinking about a candidate's experience or mental capacity, Bernie Sanders is 73, only six years older than Hillary Clinton. His mental capacity has never been a subject of contention. One can only conclude from the repetition of negative references, that writers are attempting to condition readers into thinking of Sanders as the "unkempt" elderly stereotype.
...The most harmful way anti-Sanders media bias has been manifested is by omission. In this respect, the New York Times is joined by the vast majority of the mainstream media in not typically reporting on Sanders, especially on policy. Overall there is a version of a “wall of silence” built by the media when it comes to serious reporting and analysis of his policies; or when analyzing or reporting on the policies of his opponents, a failure to mention Sanders' in contrast, especially when his is the more progressive position. This behavior hasn't gone unnoticed by readers. You can see numerous complaints from readers about the Times organization's bias toward Sanders. You see it in the New York Times comments section, on the Facebook pages and comments sections of all the major publications, and just about everywhere else. Readers complain about the lack of substantive coverage as well as the bias in what little is published. The Times' Jason Horowitz' piece, "Bernie Sanders Draws Big Crowds to His 'Political Revolution'" drew over 1600 comments, double what the most popular columns usually fetch, with most in protest over the obvious bias of the piece and the Times' egregious lack of coverage of Bernie Sanders news.
cont'
Since joining the staff at the New York Times, Maggie Haberman has written about Sanders on fewer than a handful of occasions, while she has written about the other candidates in the race more often. While it is understandable that Hillary Clinton would be the subject of more numerous articles, it makes no sense for Martin O'Malley to have more articles written about him than Sanders, given the pecking order that emerged right from the start, yet that is what has transpired so far.
In articles that address various aspects of the Democratic side of the primary, Senator Sanders' ability to succeed is always described in doubtful terms, even as Hillary Clinton's troubles in the polls are being described. The New York Times has published fewer than a dozen pieces that are Sanders campaign-specific and each is problematic in the way he is portrayed. Most often, Sanders' age and hair are highlighted, and the incorrect moniker "socialist" is applied. (Socialist and Democratic socialist are not interchangeable terms.)
While the age of a candidate might matter to some when thinking about a candidate's experience or mental capacity, Bernie Sanders is 73, only six years older than Hillary Clinton. His mental capacity has never been a subject of contention. One can only conclude from the repetition of negative references, that writers are attempting to condition readers into thinking of Sanders as the "unkempt" elderly stereotype.
...The most harmful way anti-Sanders media bias has been manifested is by omission. In this respect, the New York Times is joined by the vast majority of the mainstream media in not typically reporting on Sanders, especially on policy. Overall there is a version of a “wall of silence” built by the media when it comes to serious reporting and analysis of his policies; or when analyzing or reporting on the policies of his opponents, a failure to mention Sanders' in contrast, especially when his is the more progressive position. This behavior hasn't gone unnoticed by readers. You can see numerous complaints from readers about the Times organization's bias toward Sanders. You see it in the New York Times comments section, on the Facebook pages and comments sections of all the major publications, and just about everywhere else. Readers complain about the lack of substantive coverage as well as the bias in what little is published. The Times' Jason Horowitz' piece, "Bernie Sanders Draws Big Crowds to His 'Political Revolution'" drew over 1600 comments, double what the most popular columns usually fetch, with most in protest over the obvious bias of the piece and the Times' egregious lack of coverage of Bernie Sanders news.
cont'
~snip~
Bernie's campaign has been unique in that he never utters a negative word about his opponents-- not the Wall Street-owned Clinton nor the buffoonish O'Malley, who, after a career as an aggressive centrist and corporatist, is trying, unsuccessfully, to mimic Bernie's decades in politics. But the Clinton machine is "unleashing the hounds." In June McCaskill ran to MSNBC's Republican morning show to argue that Bernie is too liberal to be elected. “I very rarely read in any coverage of Bernie that he’s a socialist,” she said, something she reiterated last month on CNN: "I think the question that some of us have is can someone who has said, 'I'm not a Democrat,' has chosen the title of socialist, is that person really electable?" Last month, as Bernie started gaining more and more traction with Democratic voters in key states, Clinton headquarters started pushing surrogates to ramp up the attacks, and even gave the duller ones verbal lines to use against him.
cont'
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com
September 2, 2015
I recently did a piece about Sanders doing very well in New Hampshire, the nation's second Democratic primary. According to the polling firm PPP (my emphasis throughout):
Now comes similar news from Iowa, the first-in-the-nation Democratic primary contest. Bloomberg:
Sanders Within Striking Distance of Clinton in Iowa
Hillary Clinton’s once-prohibitive advantage in Iowa has slipped enough to jeopardize her front-runner status and Bernie Sanders has moved to within striking distance, revealing a Democratic presidential field in unexpected flux as Vice President Joe Biden mulls whether to make a late entrance into the race.
The results of the latest Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll, released Saturday, show Clinton is now the first choice of 37 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers in the state where the first ballots of the presidential contest will be cast early in 2016. She's followed by Sanders at 30 percent and Biden at 14 percent. It’s the first time the poll has had Clinton's support under 50 percent.
In May, the Iowa Poll put Clinton, a former secretary of state, U.S. senator and first lady, at 57 percent, Sanders at 16 percent, and Biden at 8 percent.
The rest of the poll results are interesting as well, including this:
The biggest surprise is Sanders. Unlike his recent strong showing in New Hampshire polls, his performance here cannot be dismissed as a result of the Vermont lawmaker’s regional appeal.
The survey of 404 likely Democratic caucus attendees, conducted Aug. 23-26, shows the self-declared socialist, who serves as an independent in the U.S. Senate, packing a powerful appeal in the nation's rural heartland. In the last two months, Sanders' favorability rating has jumped to 73 percent from 57 percent among likely Democratic caucus-goers.
"On paper, he’s not the kind of candidate that traditionally ends up as the nominee," Selzer said of Sanders. "But he’s making them feel good about being a Democrat."
More at the link, including some interesting graphics.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-29/sanders-within-striking-distance-of-clinton-in-iowa
cont'
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com
Sanders Within STRIKING DISTANCE of Clinton in Iowa
I recently did a piece about Sanders doing very well in New Hampshire, the nation's second Democratic primary. According to the polling firm PPP (my emphasis throughout):
There's been a big shift on the Democratic side since April as well. Bernie Sanders now leads the field in the state with 42% to 35% for Hillary Clinton, 6% for Jim Webb, 4% for Martin O'Malley, 2% for Lincoln Chafee, and 1% for Lawrence Lessig.
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2015/08/sanders-up-big-in-new-hampshire-biden.html
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2015/08/sanders-up-big-in-new-hampshire-biden.html
Now comes similar news from Iowa, the first-in-the-nation Democratic primary contest. Bloomberg:
Sanders Within Striking Distance of Clinton in Iowa
Hillary Clinton’s once-prohibitive advantage in Iowa has slipped enough to jeopardize her front-runner status and Bernie Sanders has moved to within striking distance, revealing a Democratic presidential field in unexpected flux as Vice President Joe Biden mulls whether to make a late entrance into the race.
The results of the latest Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll, released Saturday, show Clinton is now the first choice of 37 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers in the state where the first ballots of the presidential contest will be cast early in 2016. She's followed by Sanders at 30 percent and Biden at 14 percent. It’s the first time the poll has had Clinton's support under 50 percent.
In May, the Iowa Poll put Clinton, a former secretary of state, U.S. senator and first lady, at 57 percent, Sanders at 16 percent, and Biden at 8 percent.
The rest of the poll results are interesting as well, including this:
The biggest surprise is Sanders. Unlike his recent strong showing in New Hampshire polls, his performance here cannot be dismissed as a result of the Vermont lawmaker’s regional appeal.
The survey of 404 likely Democratic caucus attendees, conducted Aug. 23-26, shows the self-declared socialist, who serves as an independent in the U.S. Senate, packing a powerful appeal in the nation's rural heartland. In the last two months, Sanders' favorability rating has jumped to 73 percent from 57 percent among likely Democratic caucus-goers.
"On paper, he’s not the kind of candidate that traditionally ends up as the nominee," Selzer said of Sanders. "But he’s making them feel good about being a Democrat."
More at the link, including some interesting graphics.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-29/sanders-within-striking-distance-of-clinton-in-iowa
cont'
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com
September 1, 2015
In politics, the unthinkable must be thought about. Not all that long ago, it was unthinkable that Hillary Clinton could lose Iowa, the first of the 2016 presidential contests. True, she had lost the Iowa caucuses in 2008, coming in a shocking third after both Barack Obama and John Edwards. And she had had everything going for her. She had the money, she had the endorsements, she had the name recognition, and she had the demographics, i.e., there are virtually no black people in Iowa, so how was Barack Obama supposed to beat Hillary Clinton there? Obama’s people were astonished at how lightly Hillary’s people were taking Obama. “The crowds he was drawing in 2007 should have scared the shit out of them,” Bill Daley, who had run Al Gore’s presidential campaign in 2000 and had been Bill Clinton’s secretary of commerce, told me. “They should have been asking: ‘How do you take this guy out?’”
Instead, the Hillary people were vigorously fighting with each other, knifing each other in the back when they were not too busy knifing each other in the front. Daley thought the Clinton campaign wildly underestimated Obama, in part because of his race. “He’s black, start there,” Daley said. “When was the last time a black guy pulled this off? Well, never. A black guy in the Senate only three years, who had never done anything in their opinion? They felt he was just a pretty boy. They had a bloated campaign and no strategy.” “Hillaryland was about Hillary,” Daley said. “By the time they focused on [Obama], it was over. He was credible, he was real, and they couldn’t stop him.” And it was Iowa that made Obama credible and real. “If I win the Iowa caucuses,” Obama told Daley early in 2007, “I can get the nomination.”
~snip~
Like how she doesn’t really like campaigning. As Katie Glueck of POLITICO wrote on Aug. 16 during Clinton’s visit to the Iowa State Fair: “While Clinton is notorious for avoiding big crowds, she walked around the fairgrounds talking to anyone who approached her or asked to snap a picture.” Stop the presses! Hillary talks to people! Read all about it! I would say a presidential candidate who is “notorious for avoiding big crowds” is a presidential candidate who is in the wrong business. Running for president is often about talking, meeting with and winning over big crowds, the bigger the better, in fact. But who is attracting the big crowds this time around? You guessed it: Bernie Sanders. He draws very, very big crowds. In Los Angeles in mid-August, Sanders drew a crowd of 27,500 people, which The Washington Post pointed out was “about five times as large as any crowd that has turned out for Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.” This was not good news for Clinton, but the real body blow came this weekend:
The highly respected Iowa Poll came out and for Clinton --the news ran from bad to worse. The poll said:
“Clinton has lost a third of her supporters since May, a trajectory that, if sustained, puts her at risk of losing again in Iowa.” Clinton is below the 50 percent mark for the first time, while “Bernie Sanders, riding an updraft of insurgent passion in Iowa, has closed to within 7 points of Hillary Clinton.” “‘This feels like 2008 all over again,’ said J. Ann Selzer, pollster for the Iowa Poll.” Only 8 percent of likely caucus goers have a negative view of Sanders, while 19 percent have a negative view of Clinton.
cont'
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/roger-simon-hillary-clinton-new-hampshire-iowa-213195
Could Hillary LOSE Iowa And New Hampshire? YOU BET.
"....Simon says: Not all that long ago, it was unthinkable that she could lose Iowa...."
In politics, the unthinkable must be thought about. Not all that long ago, it was unthinkable that Hillary Clinton could lose Iowa, the first of the 2016 presidential contests. True, she had lost the Iowa caucuses in 2008, coming in a shocking third after both Barack Obama and John Edwards. And she had had everything going for her. She had the money, she had the endorsements, she had the name recognition, and she had the demographics, i.e., there are virtually no black people in Iowa, so how was Barack Obama supposed to beat Hillary Clinton there? Obama’s people were astonished at how lightly Hillary’s people were taking Obama. “The crowds he was drawing in 2007 should have scared the shit out of them,” Bill Daley, who had run Al Gore’s presidential campaign in 2000 and had been Bill Clinton’s secretary of commerce, told me. “They should have been asking: ‘How do you take this guy out?’”
Instead, the Hillary people were vigorously fighting with each other, knifing each other in the back when they were not too busy knifing each other in the front. Daley thought the Clinton campaign wildly underestimated Obama, in part because of his race. “He’s black, start there,” Daley said. “When was the last time a black guy pulled this off? Well, never. A black guy in the Senate only three years, who had never done anything in their opinion? They felt he was just a pretty boy. They had a bloated campaign and no strategy.” “Hillaryland was about Hillary,” Daley said. “By the time they focused on [Obama], it was over. He was credible, he was real, and they couldn’t stop him.” And it was Iowa that made Obama credible and real. “If I win the Iowa caucuses,” Obama told Daley early in 2007, “I can get the nomination.”
~snip~
Like how she doesn’t really like campaigning. As Katie Glueck of POLITICO wrote on Aug. 16 during Clinton’s visit to the Iowa State Fair: “While Clinton is notorious for avoiding big crowds, she walked around the fairgrounds talking to anyone who approached her or asked to snap a picture.” Stop the presses! Hillary talks to people! Read all about it! I would say a presidential candidate who is “notorious for avoiding big crowds” is a presidential candidate who is in the wrong business. Running for president is often about talking, meeting with and winning over big crowds, the bigger the better, in fact. But who is attracting the big crowds this time around? You guessed it: Bernie Sanders. He draws very, very big crowds. In Los Angeles in mid-August, Sanders drew a crowd of 27,500 people, which The Washington Post pointed out was “about five times as large as any crowd that has turned out for Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.” This was not good news for Clinton, but the real body blow came this weekend:
The highly respected Iowa Poll came out and for Clinton --the news ran from bad to worse. The poll said:
“Clinton has lost a third of her supporters since May, a trajectory that, if sustained, puts her at risk of losing again in Iowa.” Clinton is below the 50 percent mark for the first time, while “Bernie Sanders, riding an updraft of insurgent passion in Iowa, has closed to within 7 points of Hillary Clinton.” “‘This feels like 2008 all over again,’ said J. Ann Selzer, pollster for the Iowa Poll.” Only 8 percent of likely caucus goers have a negative view of Sanders, while 19 percent have a negative view of Clinton.
cont'
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/roger-simon-hillary-clinton-new-hampshire-iowa-213195
September 1, 2015
~snip~
Sanders is being buoyed by a coalition that looks uncannily like the one that helped Barack Obama topple Clinton from the front of the Democratic field in 2008: young people, liberals and first-time caucus-goers. Sanders draws 50 percent of the support of likely Democratic caucus-goers under the age of 45, well above Clinton’s 27 percent and Biden’s 8 percent. Sanders has a five percentage point lead over Clinton among self-described liberals. Among Democrats who plan to attend their first caucus in 2016, Sanders is the first choice of 43 percent, Clinton of 31 percent.
Clinton leads with a small group of self-described conservatives among likely Democratic caucus-goers (44 percent to Sanders’s 5 percent); Sanders has a 5-point lead among liberals. Support for other Democratic presidential contenders—Martin O’Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee—remains in the low single digits, the poll showed. Asked to identify their second choice for president, respondents divided their preferences essentially evenly among Biden, Clinton and Sanders.
Nearly all Sanders supporters—96 percent—said they are motivated mostly by support for him and his ideas rather than by opposition to Clinton. While Clinton posts a slightly higher overall favorable rating than Sanders, 77 percent compared with 73 percent, Sanders counts a considerably higher share who rate him as “very favorable,” the most positive of the favorability rankings, at 39 percent compared with Clinton’s 27 percent.
"For the last six months, there hasn’t been another contender, but recently Joe Biden and, most importantly, Bernie Sanders has shaken things up," said Bryce Rodgers, 28, a software developer from Iowa City, who still counts Clinton as his first choice but says Sanders may yet steal him away. "People talk about how they’re more excited about Bernie Sanders," said Rodgers. He's weighing that versus the question of electability. "It bothers me that she’s a little bit more entrenched in the status quo where Bernie has zero problem upsetting the status quo. But on the flip side I think that also could be an advantage" for Clinton in terms of money and organization.
cont'
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-29/sanders-within-striking-distance-of-clinton-in-iowa
Bernie Sanders’s Surge in Iowa from Attractiveness of His Ideas: Poll
Phil Mattingly | Bloomberg Business |
“Hillary Clinton saw her support in Iowa dwindle as voters boosted Bernie Sanders in the latest Bloomberg Politics/ Des Moines Register poll that also found a bipartisan dislike for the state of politics in the United States. Bloomberg’s Phil Mattingly reports on “Bloomberg Surveillance.”
http://www.juancole.com/2015/09/bernie-sanderss-attractiveness.html
“Hillary Clinton saw her support in Iowa dwindle as voters boosted Bernie Sanders in the latest Bloomberg Politics/ Des Moines Register poll that also found a bipartisan dislike for the state of politics in the United States. Bloomberg’s Phil Mattingly reports on “Bloomberg Surveillance.”
http://www.juancole.com/2015/09/bernie-sanderss-attractiveness.html
~snip~
Sanders is being buoyed by a coalition that looks uncannily like the one that helped Barack Obama topple Clinton from the front of the Democratic field in 2008: young people, liberals and first-time caucus-goers. Sanders draws 50 percent of the support of likely Democratic caucus-goers under the age of 45, well above Clinton’s 27 percent and Biden’s 8 percent. Sanders has a five percentage point lead over Clinton among self-described liberals. Among Democrats who plan to attend their first caucus in 2016, Sanders is the first choice of 43 percent, Clinton of 31 percent.
Clinton leads with a small group of self-described conservatives among likely Democratic caucus-goers (44 percent to Sanders’s 5 percent); Sanders has a 5-point lead among liberals. Support for other Democratic presidential contenders—Martin O’Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee—remains in the low single digits, the poll showed. Asked to identify their second choice for president, respondents divided their preferences essentially evenly among Biden, Clinton and Sanders.
Nearly all Sanders supporters—96 percent—said they are motivated mostly by support for him and his ideas rather than by opposition to Clinton. While Clinton posts a slightly higher overall favorable rating than Sanders, 77 percent compared with 73 percent, Sanders counts a considerably higher share who rate him as “very favorable,” the most positive of the favorability rankings, at 39 percent compared with Clinton’s 27 percent.
"For the last six months, there hasn’t been another contender, but recently Joe Biden and, most importantly, Bernie Sanders has shaken things up," said Bryce Rodgers, 28, a software developer from Iowa City, who still counts Clinton as his first choice but says Sanders may yet steal him away. "People talk about how they’re more excited about Bernie Sanders," said Rodgers. He's weighing that versus the question of electability. "It bothers me that she’s a little bit more entrenched in the status quo where Bernie has zero problem upsetting the status quo. But on the flip side I think that also could be an advantage" for Clinton in terms of money and organization.
cont'
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-29/sanders-within-striking-distance-of-clinton-in-iowa
September 1, 2015
~snip~
Sunday morning Bernie was on CNN's State of the Union with Jake Tapper. Right from the beginning of the interview Tapper tried getting Bernie to attack Hillary, which he has refused to do. His standard answer is usually that he knows her, likes her and respects her, even if they differ on several issues that are crucial to America's working families. Tapper did manage to get Bernie to lay out some key examples of policy positions where there is a clear contrast with Clinton's neo-liberal-- if not corporatist and Wall Street-inspired-- agenda.
The Hillary machine responded to the growing Bernie threat by having a spokesperson go out and tell the media he's pro-gun or some such nonsense. He has a lifetime NRA rating of D-minus. The irony is that Hillary spent part of the weekend in Ohio campaigning for conservaDem fossil Ted Strickland, who has been endorsed by the NRA over Republican John Kasich. Strickland, whom Hillary endorsed, rather than the progressive Democrat running for the seat, PG Sittenfeld, has an A+ from the NRA, a higher rating than most Republicans.
cont'
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com
Bernie Clarifies: That IS NOT Hillary Clinton's Position
~snip~
Sunday morning Bernie was on CNN's State of the Union with Jake Tapper. Right from the beginning of the interview Tapper tried getting Bernie to attack Hillary, which he has refused to do. His standard answer is usually that he knows her, likes her and respects her, even if they differ on several issues that are crucial to America's working families. Tapper did manage to get Bernie to lay out some key examples of policy positions where there is a clear contrast with Clinton's neo-liberal-- if not corporatist and Wall Street-inspired-- agenda.
The Hillary machine responded to the growing Bernie threat by having a spokesperson go out and tell the media he's pro-gun or some such nonsense. He has a lifetime NRA rating of D-minus. The irony is that Hillary spent part of the weekend in Ohio campaigning for conservaDem fossil Ted Strickland, who has been endorsed by the NRA over Republican John Kasich. Strickland, whom Hillary endorsed, rather than the progressive Democrat running for the seat, PG Sittenfeld, has an A+ from the NRA, a higher rating than most Republicans.
cont'
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com
September 1, 2015
Ken. Clerk DEFIES Supreme Court, DENIES MARRIAGE LICENSES To Same-Sex Couples ‘Under God’s Authority'
Kentucky county clerk defied a U.S. Supreme Court order and refused to issue marriage licenses to two same-sex couples. The top court ruled Monday evening that Kim Davis, the Rowan County clerk, could not be excused from following the law on religious grounds. The clerk arrived at her office Tuesday morning just after 7 a.m., and a couple attempted to obtain a marriage license shortly after 8 a.m. Another couple was refused about a half hour later. An employee in the county clerk’s officer denied a marriage license to the same-sex couple, who had previously attempted to obtain one three times.
The employee said Davis was unavailable to meet with the couples because she was “doing reports.” However, the clerk eventually emerged and said she would not issue the licenses to same-sex couples, and they asked under whose authority she could make that decision. “Under God’s authority,” Davis said. “I’ve asked you all to leave, you’re interrupting my business.” The county attorney’s office last week referred an official misconduct charge against Davis, who is represented by the conservative Liberty Counsel, to the Kentucky attorney general’s office. “I pay your salary,” said David V. Moore, who has attempted several times to obtain a marriage license from the clerk’s office. “I pay you to discriminate against me.”
Moore told Davis he had been with his partner, David Ermold, for 17 years and challenged her to tell him the longest relationship she had ever had, as a friend began laughing. “I’m going to ask you all to leave,” Davis said, but the men refused. “You all are more than welcome to stay, just push back away from the counter.” Davis retreated to her office, and the group began chanting “do your job” as Moore dared the clerk to call the police.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/kentucky-clerk-defies-us-supreme-court-and-denies-marriage-licenses-to-same-sex-couples-under-gods-authority/
The employee said Davis was unavailable to meet with the couples because she was “doing reports.” However, the clerk eventually emerged and said she would not issue the licenses to same-sex couples, and they asked under whose authority she could make that decision. “Under God’s authority,” Davis said. “I’ve asked you all to leave, you’re interrupting my business.” The county attorney’s office last week referred an official misconduct charge against Davis, who is represented by the conservative Liberty Counsel, to the Kentucky attorney general’s office. “I pay your salary,” said David V. Moore, who has attempted several times to obtain a marriage license from the clerk’s office. “I pay you to discriminate against me.”
Moore told Davis he had been with his partner, David Ermold, for 17 years and challenged her to tell him the longest relationship she had ever had, as a friend began laughing. “I’m going to ask you all to leave,” Davis said, but the men refused. “You all are more than welcome to stay, just push back away from the counter.” Davis retreated to her office, and the group began chanting “do your job” as Moore dared the clerk to call the police.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/kentucky-clerk-defies-us-supreme-court-and-denies-marriage-licenses-to-same-sex-couples-under-gods-authority/
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
