February 6, 2016

Clinton trying to cling to the other two Secretarys of State is a deception.

It's far from the same situation. Powell and Rice (or her staff) used private email for material that was not classified at the time.

For you to believe Hillary did the same, one thing you have to accept, since she only had one email address (no .gov email address),
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/
is that she never sent or received any information in any email that was already classified in her four years as Secretary of State. Think about that. Think about what the Secretary of State does and how impossible that scenario would be to come about given that information from foreigners is born classified.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

Powell and Rice did not:
- have their own unsecured server at home storing state department emails - including over 1600 emails with classified information - some that were classified when she took possession of it
- exposed emails between the president and SoS through her unsecure server which are born confidential/classified
- have 29 (apparently the number has risen) top secret emails exposed over and above the other two that were beyond top secret
- expose emails from foreign countries that are born classified (classified the second they are created)
So there are quite of few things very different about what went on here with Hillary's emails compared with Powell & Rice. But Hillary didn't tell the American people that during the debate. She implied her situation was basically the same ... another lie. Clinging to Powell and Rice's situation was bogus and Hillary knew it.

Check out this little exchange in the press conference of Feb 4th
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/02/252161.htm

QUESTION: Right. So are you challenging sworn declarations from the CIA that they were top secret at the time of transmission?

MR KIRBY: As I said last week, it was at the request of the intelligence community that we specifically upgraded that traffic to top secret.

QUESTION: Okay, so you don’t dispute that.

MR KIRBY: If we had disputed it, we wouldn’t have upgraded it --

QUESTION: Okay.

John Kirby, Spokesperson at the state Department, acknowledged that there are sworn declarations from the CIA that said there were emails on Hillary's server that were top secret at the time of transmission and Kirby doesn't dispute those declarations (noted in Jan 14th letter link below).
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2693832/Letter-by-the-Intelligence-Agencies-Inspector.pdf

Hillary has denied doing this and the CIA has two sworn declarations she did that the State Department does not dispute.

Do Powell and Rice have "sworn declarations from the CIA that" their emails "were top secret at the time of transmission" ? Nope.

Would Hillary know what has been found? The IG says he's been updating her lawyer. And heck, it's in the news and on the State Department website.

I wouldn't put too much stock in Powell's or Rice's email situation. I realize that's what Hillary has tried to suck us into doing but that's another Clinton deception.

February 6, 2016

CNN: $153 million in Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking fees, documented

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/index.html

Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks.
...
"What being part of the establishment is, is in the last quarter, having a super PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one's life raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests," Sanders said at Thursday's Democratic debate hosted by MSNBC.
...
"Time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth which really comes down to, you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought. And I just absolutely reject that, senator, and I really don't think these kinds of attacks by insinuation are worthy of you. And enough is enough," Clinton said.

Breakdown of speeches
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2704851/Total-Bill-and-Hillary-Clinton-Speech-Income.pdf

I'd say this supports much of what Bernie has been saying and it's a very prominent story on CNN.

February 2, 2016

Dewey beats Truman ... WSJ article calling Iowa for Clinton disappears

http://www.politico.com/blogs/iowa-caucus-2016-live-updates/2016/02/iowa-caucus-clinton-wall-street-journal-218602?lo=ap_b2





Poor Rupert Murdoch ...

February 1, 2016

New Hampshire 2016 UMass Lowell/7News Poll Sanders 61, Clinton 30 (Sanders +31)

http://www.uml.edu/docs/TOPLINE%20-%20UMassLowell-7NEWS%20NH%20PRIMARY%202-1-16_tcm18-230419.pdf

Bernie beats her in every demographic

On to Nevada ?

February 1, 2016

Here's Why Winning Iowa Could Break The Election Wide Open For Bernie Sanders

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iowa-bernie-sanders_us_56aa3483e4b0d82286d51290?utm_hp_ref=politics

CHARLESTON, S.C. -- In the fall of 2007, Hillary Clinton held a 24-point lead over Barack Obama among black voters in a CNN national poll. By Jan. 18, 10 days after the New Hampshire primary, Obama was winning blacks by 28 points in the same poll, a 52-point swing.

This time around, Clinton again holds a commanding lead among black voters headed into Iowa. She boasts a roughly 45-point lead nationally, which her campaign refers to as a firewall.
...
What changed? His viability.
...
"The reality is, if Mrs. Clinton loses Iowa and New Hampshire, that could create new and real problems for her here(South Carolina)." S.C. Rep. Jim Clyburn

I don't think Bernie has to win. It would be nice and send Clinton's campaign into a tailspin but Bernie doesn't have to have it.

He'll become more viable in many people's eyes by how close he's come.

When blacks find out what Bernie is about, which these primaries will help to do, he's going to pull a bunch of them on board, tighten up SC and win some delegates.

February 1, 2016

Politico: Clinton will carry Iowa

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/insiders-trump-and-clinton-will-carry-iowa-218492

Democratic insiders believe overwhelmingly that Clinton will win.
Democratic insiders weren’t nearly as divided as their GOP counterparts: They said by a wide margin that Clinton will defeat Bernie Sanders on Monday night, crediting what they say is her vastly superior organization.

“Hands down, Clinton has the best operation,” one Iowa Democrat said. “It doesn't matter who I speak to — whether it's in a big county or small, on the western side of the state or eastern — they all say the same thing: They see no evidence of Sanders organizing. They have a lot of people, but none of them are trained or prepared for what will happen on Monday. The lesson they took from Obama’s 2008 win was that big crowds equate [to] support in a caucus room. They seem to [forget] that Obama also had the best caucus campaign Iowa had seen up to that point. Unfortunately for them, Clinton has a stronger operation than even Obama did then, and her supporters are more committed than theirs.”
...
But while Democrats overwhelmingly say Clinton will win, Republicans disagreed. A majority of GOP insiders insist Sanders’ energized supporters will carry him to victory.

“My friends on the [Democratic] side tell me that Hillary will win due to organization,” one Iowa Republican said, “but it will be close and damaging.”

Bernie's in tough. Go Bernie's team Go!

February 1, 2016

New Hampshire CNN/WMUR Sanders +23 Boston Herald/FPU Sanders +20

https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/research_publications/primary2016_demprimary013116.pdf

CNN/WMUR Sanders 57, Clinton 34, O'Malley 1 Sanders +23


http://www.bostonherald.com/sites/default/files/media/2016/01/31/FPU-BH-Jan26-30-Dem.pdf

Boston Herald/FPU Sanders 57, Clinton 37, O'Malley 2 Sanders +20


Something is happening folks

Debate is there next week I think so Hillary can check it out for herself on live TV

February 1, 2016

Clinton: “We are on the right path, my friends. We just have to stay on it.”

In Iowa, Hillary Clinton Defends A System Everyone Else Is Trashing
Her pitch: Bernie Sanders is a pie-in-the-sky, tax-raising radical and she is a battle-tested leader and defender of Obamacare.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-iowa-campaign_us_56ae969de4b077d4fe8e970f


Direction of Country
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

Right Direction: 29.7% Wrong Track: 63%

Look at the graph for how long people have felt that way.

This is what you call an out of touch politician.

People keep telling me she is smart but I cannot say I agree.

Trump (much as I can't stand him) and Sanders represent the different direction people (or Trump's loonies) want. Hillary doesn't.

Hillary is closer to "Leave everything alone. It's fine. We don't want a big squabble in Washington. I'll tweak a few policies to the right and we'll carry on."

January 31, 2016

Clear up some disinformation in the media

"Mr. Sanders’s story continues with fantastical claims about how he would make the European social model work in the United States. He admits that he would have to raise taxes on the middle class in order to pay for his universal, Medicare-for-all health-care plan, and he promises massive savings on health-care costs that would translate into generous benefits for ordinary people, putting them well ahead, on net. But he does not adequately explain where those massive savings would come from. Getting rid of corporate advertising and overhead would only yield so much. Savings would also have to come from slashing payments to doctors and hospitals and denying benefits that people want."

Washington Post Editorial January 27, 2015

In protest, I refuse to link to lies for quoting a paragraph.

It's not a matter of Bernie admitting "he would have to raise taxes on the middle class in order to pay for his universal, Medicare-for-all health-care plan"

That line for heath spending per capita in the US in the graph below is much longer than any other country


Who do you think pays for those costs? Americans -every single over priced dime. Some of it was collected as Americans paid into social programs while they worked. Some of it was paid by Americans employers as a part of their compensation. Some of is paid with tax dollars collected from Americans or American companies. Some of it paid for by health premiums Americans pay for. etc.

The most expensive health care on the planet by far is already paid for by Americans. Bernie doesn't "HAVE raise taxes" on anyone to get this healthcare.

The problem that chart shows you is that Americans are being ripped off.

It's been trending that way for a long time.

And you're not getting your money's worth:


Republicans and corporate America whine about "big government" all the time. Everything that ails us is due to BIG incompetent government. But you know what that chart shows and proves? That's not true - certainty not true in this case. And it hasn't been true for decades. It shows that single payer or universal care provided by governments kicks the crap out of corporate America private health care as a better bang for the buck - because that's where a big chunk of these excessive costs come from - corporate administration, profits, overheads, CEOs, etc. It's certainly not all of the problem. there's much to be done with other drug costs, doctors costs, etc But it's 31% of private healthcare cost that do not add value to the well being of a patient. These are corporate opportunist leeches sucking the financial blood out of the afflicted.

Americans are paying about $1.5 trillion dollars a year extra in part to satisfy to these corporate parasites in significant part because America got sucked into this "big government is bad" GOP nonsense that's proven to be BS. And these companies are stuffing politicians pockets and campaigns with six figure speaking fees or contributions because that's peanuts in the bigger scheme of $1.5 trillion in excess annual healthcare business.

When a country is spending that much on healthcare, that country doesn't have to raise another dime. They're already spending 2.5 times the average of everyone else and way more than anyone else. So there is lots of money to do whatever they want with healthcare. Money available for healthcare at the country level is not the problem. So no taxes "have" to be raised. The Washington Post is full of shit on some of their arguments and too stupid to realize it.

The problem is: Bernie would like to get Americans a better deal. Bernie doesn't want to see the average American get ripped off on excessive health insurance costs any more. They've been doing it for years and cleaned out the savings of a lot of Americans.

Bernie's plans can be adjusted. But more money isn't the issue. He wants Americans to get a fair shake in what they're paying for their healthcare. Hillary has stated in effect, she's staying the course and will nibble at the problem through the ACA.

The GOP is always whining about the debt. But they never seem to whine about private heathcare costs:




We have to fix this for America's fiscal survival:



So corporate owned America don't want Bernie or the Americans he represents to fix this. They do not want to stop collecting the growing $1.5 trillion in excess healthcare costs. Hillary is on the record as saying it's "too hard" and "never, ever". She's going to tinker with the ACA.

Bernie is trying to do more that fix healthcare with his plan. He's trying to also make an adjustment for income inequality. The average person doesn't have to pay $5,000 in health insurance any more but they have to give back $500 of that savings in taxes (probably to shut the GOP up about it being a freebee/entitlement). He gets employers to largely pick up the balance. And he saves a bunch on much of the 31% in overhead, admin, CEO, profits of private heathcare to pay for those who don't have any healthcare.

That doesn't have to be the final plan. If there are issues with it, it can be adjusted.
But it is not a stupid pipe dream financially. And it has to be done.

I'm not sure any of the above helps but I thought I'd take a shot.

It up to you to decide which of those candidates you think is right.

January 30, 2016

Elizabeth Warren weighs in with an Opinion for your consideration

Elizabeth Warren: One Way to Rebuild Our Institutions
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/opinion/elizabeth-warren-one-way-to-rebuild-our-institutions.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — WHILE presidential candidates from both parties feverishly pitch their legislative agendas, voters should also consider what presidents can do without Congress. Agency rules, executive actions and decisions about how vigorously to enforce certain laws will have an impact on every American, without a single new bill introduced in Congress.

The Obama administration has a substantial track record on agency rules and executive actions. It has used these tools to protect retirement savings, expand overtime pay, prohibit discrimination against L.G.B.T. employees who work for the government and federal contractors, and rein in carbon pollution. These accomplishments matter.

Whether the next president will build on them, or reverse them, is a central issue in the 2016 election. But the administration’s record on enforcement falls short — and federal enforcement of laws that already exist has received far too little attention on the campaign trail.
...
Legislative agendas matter, but voters should also ask which presidential candidates they trust with the extraordinary power to choose who will fight on the front lines to enforce the laws. The next president can rebuild faith in our institutions by honoring the simple notion that nobody is above the law, but it will happen only if voters demand it.

It didn't change my mind because I already think I've picked the right horse but it may help those on the fence