HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Segami » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »

Segami

Profile Information

Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 02:07 AM
Number of posts: 14,923

Journal Archives

Warren Shows Progressives She’s STICKING With Them

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is wielding her voice for American progressives by staying quiet. Warren was the only one absent when every other woman Democratic senator threw her support behind Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton at an event on Capitol Hill Monday evening intended to raise money and highlight Clinton’s support. In one sense, Warren’s absence showed progressives in the Warren Wing of the party that she would stick with them, even as others, such as New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio., have recently endorsed Clinton.

“Elizabeth Warren is her own force. She recognizes she plays a very important role and the candidates very much want her endorsement,” said Charles Chamberlain, the executive director of the progressive group Democracy for America.

“In D.C., you have to leverage your power to get things done. It’s exciting she’s held out as long as she can. By doing that, she’s leveraging her power to get the candidates on board with her issues” he added. “That’s why we’re seeing ‘Warren Wing’ issues dominating.”


" target="_blank">A video produced by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a group aligned with Chamberlain’s DFA, noted statements from Clinton, Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley aligning with Warren on issues like eliminating college debt, strengthening Social Security and weakening banks viewed as “too big to fail.” At the height of the speculation in August about a possible presidential bid by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Warren had what she later described as “a long rambling policy conversation” with him at his residence in Washington.


When asked earlier in the year whether she will endorse in the presidential race, Warren said, “I imagine that’s what I’ll do.” In the meantime, she has not shied from offering critiques and advice to Clinton and the other presidential contenders. This summer, she said that a Democratic president’s progressive credentials should be questioned if their nominees for regulatory posts are too close to those they are supposed to regulate.


“Anyone who wants to be president should appoint only people who have already demonstrated they are independent, who have already demonstrated that they can hold giant banks accountable, who have already demonstrated that they embrace the kind of ambitious economic policies that we need to rebuild opportunity and a strong middle class in this country,” " target="_blank">she told a crowd at Netroots Nation in July.


cont'

http://atr.rollcall.com/elizabeth-warren-reaffirms-outlier-status-non-endorsement/

FBI Chief Is WILD CARD For Clinton

FBI Director James Comey is the pivotal figure in the 2016 presidential race that no one is talking about. Comey, a Republican appointed by President Obama who enjoys a stellar reputation on both sides of the aisle, is investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of State. Clinton is the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination next year and is expected to be a tough candidate for any Republican to face in 2016. Yet the controversy surrounding her private email account remains an Achilles’ heel. The GOP-created House Benghazi Committee flopped in October when Clinton testified for 11 hours. That hearing failed to produce anything newsworthy about her use of a private server and attracted criticism from liberals and conservatives alike. Its failure makes it clear that the FBI will have the final say on whether Clinton did anything wrong or illegal. And whatever the verdict is, both parties will have to accept it because Comey is, in many ways, untouchable.

~snip~

It’s the moment that made Comey’s reputation and underlines why Republicans and Democrats expect he’ll call the Clinton email investigation as he sees it, no matter the political stakes. “My folks don’t give a rip about politics,” the 6-foot-8-inch Comey said earlier this year. “We’re competent, we’re independent and we’re honest.” Comey donated to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in his 2008 run for the White House and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in his 2012 bid for the GOP nomination, but Obama still reportedly considered asking him to serve on the Supreme Court before tapping him for the FBI instead. Since then, Comey has broken with Obama on a host of issues.

~snip~

In 2004, Comey was a major player in investigating the mishandling of classified information by former President Bill Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger. “We take issues of classified information very, very seriously,” Comey told reporters at the time. “It’s our lifeblood, those secrets.” It’s unclear what exactly the FBI is reviewing regarding Hillary Clinton’s emails or when the agency will release its findings. Comey has only said he is briefed regularly and following the case closely. The FBI and Clinton campaign declined to comment for this column. There have been a number of leaks to the press on the FBI’s probe, such as in September when the agency reportedly uncovered emails from Clinton’s private server that were thought to have been deleted. After Obama said this fall that he didn’t think Clinton’s email system posed a national security problem, The New York Times reported that FBI agents were “angered” that the commander in chief would comment on an ongoing investigation. The White House walked back Obama’s comments.

~snip~

Some political observers believe that should the FBI find something incriminating against Clinton, the Democratic Party would seek out another standard-bearer such as Vice President Biden, former Vice President Al Gore or Secretary of State John Kerry. Many establishment Democrats don’t believe Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would be a viable nominee in the general election. But such a move wouldn’t be easy. In a recent white paper published by the Brookings Institution, Elaine Kamarck and Ashley Gabriele point out that in order to secure the Democratic nomination, the winning candidate must be on ballots. They wrote, “A candidate who is not on a primary ballot can’t win delegates from that state — pure and simple. ... The candidate who has missed filing deadlines through the end of January has potentially forfeited 2,232 delegates, the number to win the Democratic nomination!”



cont'

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/261582-fbi-chief-is-wild-card-for-clinton

FLIP-FLOP: Before US Sends Troops To Iraq, Clinton Says No To Deployment AFTER First Saying Yes




She was against it before she was for it...............


Tuesday morning's announcement that the U.S. would be deploying troops to fight the so-called Islamic State militant group in Iraq likely caught Hillary Clinton off guard, considering she said earlier in the day that she didn't think putting boots on the ground was such a prudent idea. Clinton's latest opinion on the topic was an abrupt departure from her previous stance, when the Democratic presidential front-runner less than two weeks ago expressed her support to "broaden" anti-ISIS efforts by bringing U.S. troops to the conflict-ridden region.

"In terms of thousands of combat troops, like some on the Republican side are recommending, I think that should be a non-starter," Clinton told CBS News during an interview that was televised Tuesday morning, reported Reuters. "I don't think it's the smartest way to go after ISIS. I think it gives ISIS a new recruitment tool."


CBS News ✔@CBSNews

.@HillaryClinton: "We're not putting American combat troops back into Syria or Iraq" http://cbsn.ws/1Q9JJTm

10:45 PM - 30 Nov 2015


Apparently it's more than just "the Republican side" that thinks U.S. troops in Iraq is the best move, as U.S. Department of Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced shortly after Clinton's interview ran that troops would be deployed there "to conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence and capture" ISIS leadership, reported Politico. Carter, who was testifying before the House Armed Services Committee, said sending troops to Iraq will give the U.S.-led coalition an advantage to fight ISIS in Syria, where the terror group has established its de facto capital in the city of Raqqa. Clinton reacted Nov. 19 to U.S. President Barack Obama's foreign policy speech in which he detailed what he called an effective strategy for fighting ISIS, including using U.S. ground troops. Clinton, who for the most part has aligned her proposed presidential policies with Obama's, seemingly agreed with the president's assessment.

“If we press forward on both sides of the border in the air and on the ground, as well as diplomatically, I do believe we can crush ISIS’s conclave of terror,” Clinton said at the time during a speech in New York City while outlining her presidential foreign policy. She urged Congress to pass a renewed war authorization for the ongoing conflict. “The United States has been conducting this fight for more than a year; it’s time to be begin a new phase and intensify and broaden our efforts,” she added.



cont'

http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-flip-flopping-ground-troops-fight-isis-us-sends-troops-iraq-clinton-2206261

LOL! - Hillary Clinton DEFENDS Wall Street Ties, Says She Can't Be Bought



"She Can't Be Bought"...... Load em' Up Jack.......





Hillary Clinton is defending her business ties, saying she can't be bought, including by Wall Street. The Democratic front-runner, in an interview with Charlie Rose, again brought up 9/11 when asked whether her image has taken a hit due to her ties to the financial sector.

"And so, yes, do I know people? And did I, you know, help rebuild after 9/11? Yes, I did," Clinton said, according to a "CBS This Morning" interview transcript released on Tuesday.


The comment echoes a remark she gave at last month's Democratic debate that triggered a backlash, in which she referenced 9/11 as part of the reason why she has received significant contributions from Wall Street while she was a U.S. senator.

"So, I represented New York, and I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is," Clinton said, in response to a comment from Bernie Sanders about her acceptance of campaign cash from Wall Street executives. "I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country."


In the interview that was taped Monday and released on Tuesday, Clinton said she has advocated for regulation on big banks, and that she has represented a range of business interests, from dairy farmers to fishermen. "Anybody who thinks that they can influence me on that ground doesn't know me very well," she said.



cont'

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/hillary-clinton-wall-street-business-216300

Bernie Sanders Is The First Presidential Candidate To OPPOSE The Kinder Morgan Pipeline






On Sunday, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders became the first 2016 hopeful to stand against a proposal that has stoked intense debate in New England. Speaking at the Jefferson Jackson dinner in Manchester, New Hampshire, Sanders said he opposed the construction of the natural gas pipeline, proposed by Kinder Morgan, which would cross through New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

“I believe the Northeast Energy Direct pipeline that would carry fracked natural gas for 400 miles through 17 communities is a bad idea – and should be opposed,” the Vermont senator said.

Calling climate change the “greatest environmental challenge of our time,” Sanders said he opposed the pipeline for the same reasons he long-opposed the recently rejected Keystone XL pipeline. The campaign’s New Hampshire communications director, Karthik Ganapathy, told Boston.com that concerns about the pipeline go beyond climate change.

“The truth is: there are lots of reasons to oppose this pipeline,” Ganapathy said. “There are justified concerns around abuse of eminent domain to seize private property, the route would go through historic towns and conservation sites and as with all pipelines, there could be leaks or spills.”


The proposed $5 billion project would bring fracked natural gas from Pennsylvania to New England. According to NHPR, Kinder Morgan hopes to begin construction on the pipeline, which is currently under federal review, by early 2017. However, the proposal has met fierce opposition in many of the small New England towns the 30-inch-wide line cuts through. A study this month commissioned by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey found that the region does not need the additional energy the pipeline would provide; rather, “energy efficiency and demand response” would be preferable.

Kinder Morgan called Healey’s study “seriously flawed.” Sanders is the first candidate to take a strong position on the pipeline. In July, Hillary Clinton told NH1, “this is a local matter.”

Jeb Bush, whose big-money donors include Kinder Morgan’s co-founder, has also repeatedly passed on the issue. Fellow Republican candidate John Kasich and Ben Carson also declined to take a stance on the pipeline, per NH1, though they both voiced concerns over the use of eminent domain.


http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2015/11/30/bernie-sanders-the-first-presidential-candidate-oppose-the-kinder-morgan-pipeline/T6eOPHv8u5SreGqz3HSpEP/story.html

Politico Looks At The Different Types Of DISHONESTY From Clinton, Trump, & Carson

Many politicians find ways to benefit from lying, and it might not be coincidental that the three front runners from the two major parties are candidates who have spread a lot of misinformation this year. Politico has looked at the lies from Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Ben Carson, finding differences in the types of lies they tell:

"...Not all lies are created equal. When Hillary Clinton lies, she generally does so with legalistic care. You get the sense that she knows what the exact truth is. But you also get the sense that she knows she’ll suffer if she provides the whole truth, so she shades the facts with interpretations and embellishments that flatter or favor her. She presents an incomplete timeline for her email account. She claims that her email practices were “permitted.” She overstates her cases and fibs with the numbers. Clinton has been doing it so long and so well that by 1996, New York Times columnist William Safire had already diagnosed her as a “congenital liar.”

Trump’s and Carson’s lies, on the other hand, come from the land of bullshit, that wonderful place where loose facts and wishful thinking mate to produce a quotable soundbite. They’re not trying to deceive you in a Clintonian fashion. They’re indifferent to the truth, content to say the first things that pop into their brains. You can see this strategy at work in Trump’s story about the American Muslims celebrating the fall of the twin towers, or his bogus assertion that the federal government is steering refugees to states that have Republican governors, or his claim that “61 percent of our bridges are in trouble.” He’s just winging it. If something gets broken in the telling of one of his stories, he doesn’t think it’s his fault..."

cont'

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/donald-trump-lies-2016-candidates-213391#ixzz3siKiV1oC


This summary only touches the surface of the many lies told by all three of these candidates. Ben Carson has been exposed for other lies about his biography. I recently noted some of the questionable claims made by Donald Trump as to what he observed on 9/11. While it doesn’t mean she lies any more that her Republican opponents, I have pointed out far more lies by Hillary Clinton in this election cycle alone due to concentrating coverage on the Democratic race. I recently noted how Clinton has been accused of lying about Edward Snowden in the second Democratic debate, although this might have been a mistake based upon her conservative mind set as opposed to an intentional lie. Her false claims about Sanders’ support for Medicare for All was more likely an outright lie considering how she has flip-flopped on single payer health plans. She was also exposed by the fact checkers for dishonesty during the first debate. Clinton has similarly been dishonest in her other smears against Sanders, reminiscent of the campaign she ran against Barack Obama eight years ago, during which many think she crossed the line, even considering our usual standards for a political campaign.

~snip~

Of course such hypocrisy can be seen in both parties, as many Democrats are willing to ignore Hillary’s Clinton’s long career which has been characterized by dishonesty, corruption, and undermining liberal principles whenever it was politically expedient. Some simply ignore the facts, while other see it as a good thing that someone on their side is matching the Republicans in their tactics. Partisan Democrats who back Clinton certainly cannot claim any moral superiority to Republican voters–which is one reason that so many independents who consider her to be dishonest are expressing a lack of interest in voting Democratic–possibly paving the way for dishonest Republican politicians such as Trump or Carson to get elected in 2016. Bernie Sanders’ campaign against Hillary Clinton is differentiating those Democrats who support principles as opposed to those practice blind partisanship.


cont'

http://themoderatevoice.com/211094/211094/

Wisconsin Survey Finds That Bernie Sanders Would DEFEAT ALL GOP Candidates in General Election


"...However, more voters favored the self-proclaimed "Democratic Socialist" when it comes to cracking down on Wall Street and being honest and trustworthy..."




Although Hillary Clinton continues to maintain a strong lead in the Democratic presidential primary, a new poll suggests that underdog Bernie Sanders would beat all Republican contenders in hypothetical head-to-head matchups in Wisconsin. Polling data taken in The Badger State and analyzed by Marquette University Law School show that the former secretary of state would lose by a percentage point in a match off with GOP candidate Marco Rubio and Ben Carson. On the other hand, the data suggests that Sanders would beat Rubio by 4 percentage points and Carson by 6 points.

According to Marquette Law School pollster Charles Franklin, Sanders' popularity among Independent voters and even a small amount of Republicans has given him a slight edge over Clinton in Wisconsin.

In possible matchups for November, Carson and Rubio edge Clinton by one point each, while Clinton holds a lead over Trump. Sanders holds an advantage over all three Republican candidates:


Carson 45 percent, Clinton 44 percent. (Not asked in September.)

Rubio 45 percent, Clinton 44 percent. (September: Clinton 48 percent, Rubio 40 percent.)

Clinton 48 percent, Trump 38 percent. (September: Clinton 50 percent, Trump 36 percent.)



Sanders 47 percent, Carson 41 percent. (Not asked in September.)

Sanders 46 percent, Rubio 42 percent. (September: Sanders 49 percent, Rubio 36 percent.)

Sanders 52 percent, Trump 35 percent. (September: Sanders 53 percent, Trump 34 percent.)

https://law.marquette.edu/poll/


"Now, whether that would continue as voters become more aware of both the Republican and Democratic candidates, that's too early to say," Franklin said, according to Wisconsin Public Radio. "But at least right now, the Sanders' advantage that we're seeing in the data has less to do with the way Democrats are voting and more to do with the way independents and a handful of Republicans are voting."


The poll, which was conducted from Nov. 12 to 15, also shows that Wisconsin voters think it is more important for a 2016 candidate to be willing to compromise rather than hold firm to their own party principles.


cont'

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/98360/20151130/presidential-polls-2016-wisconsin-survey-finds-that-bernie-sanders-would-defeat-all-gop-candidates-in-general-election.htm

BERNIE SANDERS: The New Hampshire Jefferson-Jackson Dinner




The three major Democratic candidates for president ripped Republicans to the cheers of 1,400 party faithful Sunday at the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner fundraiser.



Sanders, without naming Clinton, drew sharp distinctions between himself and the former secretary of state.

Sanders said that if his support continues, he can pull off one of the great political upsets in U.S. history.

“From coast to coast, the American people are crying out for change, for real change,” Sanders said. “They are tired of the same old, same old establishment politics, establishment economics and establishment foreign policy. They want this county to move in a new direction.”

Sanders said that as he travels the country and draws thousands of people – including many political newcomers -- to his rallies, “I see a future not just for my candidacy but also for the Democratic Party.

“I believe the campaign we are running is a campaign that not only regains the White House but takes the Democratic Party in a huge step forward into the future.”

“We are running a campaign which calls for real change” Sanders said. “We are running a campaign which calls for a political revolution and tonight I ask all of you to join in that revolution.”


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/30/1455288/-Bernie-News-Roundup-Sanders-Speaks-At-The-N-H-Jefferson-Jackson-Dinner

BERNIE SANDERS: The New Hampshire Jefferson-Jackson Dinner




The three major Democratic candidates for president ripped Republicans to the cheers of 1,400 party faithful Sunday at the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner fundraiser.



Sanders, without naming Clinton, drew sharp distinctions between himself and the former secretary of state.

Sanders said that if his support continues, he can pull off one of the great political upsets in U.S. history.

“From coast to coast, the American people are crying out for change, for real change,” Sanders said. “They are tired of the same old, same old establishment politics, establishment economics and establishment foreign policy. They want this county to move in a new direction.”

Sanders said that as he travels the country and draws thousands of people – including many political newcomers -- to his rallies, “I see a future not just for my candidacy but also for the Democratic Party.

“I believe the campaign we are running is a campaign that not only regains the White House but takes the Democratic Party in a huge step forward into the future.”

“We are running a campaign which calls for real change” Sanders said. “We are running a campaign which calls for a political revolution and tonight I ask all of you to join in that revolution.”


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/30/1455288/-Bernie-News-Roundup-Sanders-Speaks-At-The-N-H-Jefferson-Jackson-Dinner

Is There a DANGER Of A "Delayed Hillary's Baggage" Effect?





Okay, say Hillary wins the nomination: she survives all of the different scandals and accusations which have hounded her during the primaries, and she becomes the Democratic Party’s nominee. While Sanders supporters (including myself) would be naturally distraught, the party has it’s official standard bearer. The worst is over. Well, wouldn’t that be a little short-sighted? Wouldn’t the kind of scrutiny she had received from her fellow Democrats really just pale in comparison to what she will then have to face in a grueling, head-to-head battle with the Republican establishment? Particularly now that conservatives will have a very real possibility of controlling all three branches of government? Will they stop at absolutely nothing? Even now, many are saying that Hillary is “a disaster waiting to happen.” The real tragedy would, of course, be if the “real disaster” happens during the general election. Then there would be no going back and finding someone else. And “the real disaster” could be brought into being by merely firing, on all cylinders, at HRC’s boatload of baggage. Perhaps no new revelations would even be necessary. The “Atlantic Magazine” recently ran an article entitled “From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton Scandal Primer in which they say:

"....With Hillary Clinton leading the field for the Democratic nomination for president, every Clinton scandal—from Whitewater to the State Department emails—will be under the microscope. (No other American politicians—even ones as corrupt as Richard Nixon, or as hated by partisans as George W. Bush—have fostered the creation of a permanent multimillion-dollar cottage industry devoted to attacking them.) Keeping track of each controversy, where it came from, and how serious it is, is no small task,.."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/


They then list each one with a short summary of the specifics. Here’s the list:


The State Department Emails

Benghazi

Conflict of Interest at Foggy Bottom

Clinton’s Private Email Server

Sidney Blumenthal

The Speeches (the millions made from them)

The Clinton Foundation

The Bad Old Days (Whitewater. Troopergate. Paula Jones. Monica Lewinsky. Vince Foster)


Even if one can just shrug off some (or most) of them as empty or “resolved”, issues such as this can be no less harmful to a Presidential candidate. Need we look any further than John Kerry’s critical encounter with the “Swift Boaters”, to really appreciate how even a baseless accusation can torpedo a campaign? HRC’s vulnerabilities are legion. But, I think hers should be taken into consideration more than they currently are, when judging the risks of her candidacy, after the very distinct possibility of becoming the Democratic nominee, Would we even, perhaps, just be setting ourselves up?


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/29/1455177/-Is-There-a-Danger-of-a-Delayed-Hillary-s-Baggage-Effect
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »