coffeesudoku
New Member
Think Hillary takes the nom but interested by the tightening of the race
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Democrats 2016
- Thread starter Michael Scally MD
- Start date
Albright: 'special place in hell' for women who don't support Clinton
Tom McCarthy in Concord, New Hampshire@TeeMcSee
Saturday 6 February 2016 15.36 ESTLast modified on Sunday 7 February 201622.33 EST
Former secretary of state says women must help each other, while people are talking about a ‘revolution’ led by the first female US president
Madeleine Albright campaigns for Hillary Clinton – video
• Campaign live: Clinton and Sanders head for New Hampshire
Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright introduced Hillary Clinton at an event in New Hampshire on Saturday, telling the crowd and voters in general: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”
In polling, Clinton trails the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire by an average of around 17 points. She leads him nationally by 15 to 20 points. In this week’s Iowa caucuses, which Clinton won narrowly, the former secretary of state led Sanders among women by 53% to 42% but lost out among younger voters.
Both campaigns were in New Hampshire on Saturday, ahead of Tuesday’s primary. Introducing Clinton in Concord, Albright said: “When she was secretary of state, she restored America’s reputation.
“Those other people before made huge mistakes. They really undermined our reputation and our position in the world, and Hillary Clinton brought us back, she restored our position in the world.
— Sabrina Siddiqui (@SabrinaSiddiqui)February 6, 2016
Fwiw, Madeleine Albright has been using that "special place in hell" line for many years, it's not unique to Hillary Clinton.
“People are talking about revolution. What kind of a revolution would it be to have the first woman president of the United States?”
That was met with a chant of “Madam President! Madam President!”
“Not only that,” said Albright. “But she’s just the best!”
Albright was the first woman to be secretary of state and served during the presidency of Clinton’s husband, Bill. She closed her New Hampshire speech with an allusion to the ongoing struggle with Republicans over abortion rights.
“Young women have to support Hillary Clinton. The story is not over!” she said. “They’re going to want to push us back. Appointments to the supreme court make all the difference.
“It’s not done and you have to help. Hillary Clinton will always be there for you. And just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”
Albright has recited the line for years, and the line drew a great cheer from the Concord crowd. but it may not play as well retrospectively, with a glance back of just six days, when Bernie Sanders overwhelmingly won young voters in Iowa – by a margin of six-to-one, including young women.
-I guess women will be safe if they don't believe in hell.
Tom McCarthy in Concord, New Hampshire@TeeMcSee
Saturday 6 February 2016 15.36 ESTLast modified on Sunday 7 February 201622.33 EST
Former secretary of state says women must help each other, while people are talking about a ‘revolution’ led by the first female US president
Madeleine Albright campaigns for Hillary Clinton – video
• Campaign live: Clinton and Sanders head for New Hampshire
Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright introduced Hillary Clinton at an event in New Hampshire on Saturday, telling the crowd and voters in general: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”
In polling, Clinton trails the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire by an average of around 17 points. She leads him nationally by 15 to 20 points. In this week’s Iowa caucuses, which Clinton won narrowly, the former secretary of state led Sanders among women by 53% to 42% but lost out among younger voters.
Both campaigns were in New Hampshire on Saturday, ahead of Tuesday’s primary. Introducing Clinton in Concord, Albright said: “When she was secretary of state, she restored America’s reputation.
“Those other people before made huge mistakes. They really undermined our reputation and our position in the world, and Hillary Clinton brought us back, she restored our position in the world.
Fwiw, Madeleine Albright has been using that "special place in hell" line for many years, it's not unique to Hillary Clinton.
“People are talking about revolution. What kind of a revolution would it be to have the first woman president of the United States?”
That was met with a chant of “Madam President! Madam President!”
“Not only that,” said Albright. “But she’s just the best!”
Albright was the first woman to be secretary of state and served during the presidency of Clinton’s husband, Bill. She closed her New Hampshire speech with an allusion to the ongoing struggle with Republicans over abortion rights.
“Young women have to support Hillary Clinton. The story is not over!” she said. “They’re going to want to push us back. Appointments to the supreme court make all the difference.
“It’s not done and you have to help. Hillary Clinton will always be there for you. And just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”
Albright has recited the line for years, and the line drew a great cheer from the Concord crowd. but it may not play as well retrospectively, with a glance back of just six days, when Bernie Sanders overwhelmingly won young voters in Iowa – by a margin of six-to-one, including young women.
-I guess women will be safe if they don't believe in hell.
Bill and Hillary Clinton: The Crony Capitalists in Chief
Jun. 17, 2014
"Americans see a grim future for themselves, their children, and their country," National Journal's Ron Fournier wrote last week after House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's (R-VA) primary defeat. "They believe their political leaders are selfish, greedy, and short-sighted—unable and/or unwilling to shield most people from wrenching economic and social change."
Fournier then quotes from a 2013 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/which-side-of-the-barricade-are-you-on-100302.html#.U6BFxRavYddwritten by former Clinton White House political director Doug Sosnik about the rising populist sentiment in America:
Americans' long-brewing discontent shows clear signs of reaching a boiling point. And when it happens, the country will judge its politicians through a new filter—one that asks, "Which side of the barricade are you on? Is it the side of the out-of-touch political class that clings to the status quo by protecting those at the top and their own political agendas, or is it the side that is fighting for the kind of change that will make the government work for the people—all the people?"
Unfortunately for Democrats it is becoming increasingly clear which side of the barricade their 2016 nominee will be on. Bloomberg reports today (emphasis added):
Bill and Hillary Clinton have long supported an estate tax to prevent the U.S. from being dominated by inherited wealth. That doesn’t mean they want to pay it.
To reduce the tax pinch, the Clintons are using financial planning strategies befitting the top 1 percent of U.S. households in wealth. These moves, common among multimillionaires, will help shield some of their estate from the tax that now tops out at 40 percent of assets upon death.
In other words, while mouthing support for taxing the rich through higher estate taxes, the Clinton's are hypocritically doing all they can to avoid the current estate tax rates themselves. No wonder the American people believe their "political leaders are selfish, greedy, and short-sighted."
And that is not all the news we learned about the Clintons last week. Politicoreported that Chelsea Clinton was paid "an annual salary of $600,000 at NBC News" last year. The Washington Post's Erik Wemple did a little further digging and reported:
If that name hadn’t been connected to American royalty, she could have expected to rake in between $100,000 and $200,000 as a first-year network correspondent, a job that people from less-high-profile families snare only through years and years of tireless work covering the news. That salary range is confirmed by several people familiar with the compensation levels at major network news outlets.
...
NBC News refers to Clinton as a “special correspondent,” a title best interpreted literally. What unspecial correspondent, after all, gets paid more than a half-mil to do puff stories and travel to Nairobi to check in on elephants?
...
Whatever she’s done with her paycheck, this whole Chelsea Clinton-NBC News saga is awful. Awful because it’s an affront to hard-working broadcast journalists. Awful because any NBC News reporter or anchor who hustles for an exclusive with Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton has to live with the suspicion that the network’s familial ties to the Clintons facilitated the “get.” Awful because $600,000. Awful because her chief of staff said that the NBC News job was part of Chelsea Clinton’s plan to “in the public good.” Awful because the conceit for Chelsea Clinton’s interview with fashion designer Stella McCartney — woman with famous father (Bill Clinton) interviews woman with famous father (Paul McCartney) — was awful.
And that is just the news from this month.
There is also Hillary Clinton's sordid relationship with Goldman Sachs, andBoeing, and, in fact, virtually every top 30 company listed on the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
If there is a populist movement rising in America, there is no target more ripe for its judgement than the Clintons.
-Bill Clinton has went on the attack against Sanders, insinuating Sanders supporters are sexist (this coming from the guy who cheated on his wife while he was in the White House) and exclaiming that according to Sanders, everyone must be tools of the east abolishment. This is from 2014 and I guess it answers whether or not the American people believe that the Clinton's are 'tools of the establishment'.
Jun. 17, 2014
"Americans see a grim future for themselves, their children, and their country," National Journal's Ron Fournier wrote last week after House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's (R-VA) primary defeat. "They believe their political leaders are selfish, greedy, and short-sighted—unable and/or unwilling to shield most people from wrenching economic and social change."
Fournier then quotes from a 2013 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/which-side-of-the-barricade-are-you-on-100302.html#.U6BFxRavYddwritten by former Clinton White House political director Doug Sosnik about the rising populist sentiment in America:
Americans' long-brewing discontent shows clear signs of reaching a boiling point. And when it happens, the country will judge its politicians through a new filter—one that asks, "Which side of the barricade are you on? Is it the side of the out-of-touch political class that clings to the status quo by protecting those at the top and their own political agendas, or is it the side that is fighting for the kind of change that will make the government work for the people—all the people?"
Unfortunately for Democrats it is becoming increasingly clear which side of the barricade their 2016 nominee will be on. Bloomberg reports today (emphasis added):
Bill and Hillary Clinton have long supported an estate tax to prevent the U.S. from being dominated by inherited wealth. That doesn’t mean they want to pay it.
To reduce the tax pinch, the Clintons are using financial planning strategies befitting the top 1 percent of U.S. households in wealth. These moves, common among multimillionaires, will help shield some of their estate from the tax that now tops out at 40 percent of assets upon death.
In other words, while mouthing support for taxing the rich through higher estate taxes, the Clinton's are hypocritically doing all they can to avoid the current estate tax rates themselves. No wonder the American people believe their "political leaders are selfish, greedy, and short-sighted."
And that is not all the news we learned about the Clintons last week. Politicoreported that Chelsea Clinton was paid "an annual salary of $600,000 at NBC News" last year. The Washington Post's Erik Wemple did a little further digging and reported:
If that name hadn’t been connected to American royalty, she could have expected to rake in between $100,000 and $200,000 as a first-year network correspondent, a job that people from less-high-profile families snare only through years and years of tireless work covering the news. That salary range is confirmed by several people familiar with the compensation levels at major network news outlets.
...
NBC News refers to Clinton as a “special correspondent,” a title best interpreted literally. What unspecial correspondent, after all, gets paid more than a half-mil to do puff stories and travel to Nairobi to check in on elephants?
...
Whatever she’s done with her paycheck, this whole Chelsea Clinton-NBC News saga is awful. Awful because it’s an affront to hard-working broadcast journalists. Awful because any NBC News reporter or anchor who hustles for an exclusive with Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton has to live with the suspicion that the network’s familial ties to the Clintons facilitated the “get.” Awful because $600,000. Awful because her chief of staff said that the NBC News job was part of Chelsea Clinton’s plan to “in the public good.” Awful because the conceit for Chelsea Clinton’s interview with fashion designer Stella McCartney — woman with famous father (Bill Clinton) interviews woman with famous father (Paul McCartney) — was awful.
And that is just the news from this month.
There is also Hillary Clinton's sordid relationship with Goldman Sachs, andBoeing, and, in fact, virtually every top 30 company listed on the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
If there is a populist movement rising in America, there is no target more ripe for its judgement than the Clintons.
-Bill Clinton has went on the attack against Sanders, insinuating Sanders supporters are sexist (this coming from the guy who cheated on his wife while he was in the White House) and exclaiming that according to Sanders, everyone must be tools of the east abolishment. This is from 2014 and I guess it answers whether or not the American people believe that the Clinton's are 'tools of the establishment'.
Establishment* not "east abolishment", bad spellcheck
Bernie Sanders can beat Hillary Clinton, and Conservatives should take note
By http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/tim-stanley/
9:42AM GMT 05 Feb 2016
Bernie Sanders can beat Hillary Clinton, and Conservatives should take note
American voters are tired of being asked to accept compromise by compromised politicians. Sanders taps into a real hunger for change
I am a philosophical conservative and I like Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. I said as much at a gathering of conservatives in Washington this week and elicited a few gasps of horror.
"I will tell the billionaire class: you can't have it all while kids in this country go hungry."
-Bernie Sanders
One said: “He’s so socialist he’s hardly even American.” But that can’t be right. How can someone so antiquatedly, exotically Left-wing enjoy such a huge poll lead in next week’s New Hampshire primary? It’s because while some of the answers he gives are crazy, the questions he raises about American capitalism are perfectly sane. Given a chance, he could be a very effective nominee.
On Thursday night, Bernie bossed the NBC debate against Hillary Clinton. Mrs Clinton gave the same performance she’s been giving since she ran for the Senate in 2000: “I know you hate me, but you know you need me.” The difference between her and Sanders goes to the heart of a historical disagreement on the Left about how to effect change.
Hillary believes that America is inherently conservative; that change is accomplished through patient coalition building and that the Left achieves nothing by promising too much, terrifying the voters and delivering very little. Sanders, by contrast, believes that you can only achieve reform if you honestly make the case for it. Democrats win office, he told the audience, when they generate a high turnout by exciting the people.
One said: “He’s so socialist he’s hardly even American.” But that can’t be right. How can someone so antiquatedly, exotically Left-wing enjoy such a huge poll lead in next week’s New Hampshire primary? It’s because while some of the answers he gives are crazy, the questions he raises about American capitalism are perfectly sane. Given a chance, he could be a very effective nominee.
On Thursday night, Bernie bossed the NBC debate against Hillary Clinton.
Mrs Clinton gave the same performance she’s been giving since she ran for the Senate in 2000: “I know you hate me, but you know you need me.” The difference between her and Sanders goes to the heart of a historical disagreement on the Left about how to effect change.
Hillary believes that America is inherently conservative; that change is accomplished through patient coalition building and that the Left achieves nothing by promising too much, terrifying the voters and delivering very little. Sanders, by contrast, believes that you can only achieve reform if you honestly make the case for it. Democrats win office, he told the audience, when they generate a high turnout by exciting the people.
And he means all the people. Clinton divides the electorate up into special interest groups: she throws out policies to satisfy women, African-Americans or gay people. Sanders divides the electorate by class: his goal is to convince a majority of the population that they have more in common than they realize. Sanders is, sadly, very Left-wing on social issues – but he has the decency not to go on about it.
He’s made Wall Street his central issue instead. The Sanders argument goes like this. Why does liberal reform get beaten? Because businesses lobby against it. Ergo, cut big money out of politics and America will see more liberal reform. It’s a handy coincidence that Sanders’ opponent is one of the people most associated with the interplay of money and politics. In the 1990s, the Clintons advertised their cosiness with big business as a way of reassuring centrist voters that they knew something about economics. This translated into policies such as deregulating the housing market and signing free trade policies that gutted US industry. After the Clintons left office, they stayed in touch with their old friends. Mrs Clinton made $675,000 for giving three speeches to Goldman Sachs alone. She claimed during the debate that she used the speeches to tell Wall Street that it was hurting America. I doubt that’s true. If someone paid me $675,000 to give a speech they’d get 90 minutes of unqualified praise. Heck, for that kind of money I’d strip.
Sanders is reluctant to hit Clinton directly on this sort of thing – he prefers to play the gentleman and talk policy. By so doing, he’s cleverly turned the Democratic primaries away from a referendum on Clinton and towards a referendum on Clintonism.
This taps into a wider thirst for political change. The Republicans gave over half their votes in the Iowa caucus to two neophyte Hispanic conservatives and a black surgeon who has never even held office. Jeb Bush, another potent symbol of the Clinton/Bush era, is languishing in the New Hampshire polls and facing defeat at the hands of Donald Trump. The politics of that era is overfamiliar and tired. And younger voters resent constantly being told that ageing pragmatists know best –especially when the smart technocrats are the folks who gave us Iraq, the credit crunch and the mess that is Obamacare.
"You know, there is a reason why these people are putting huge amounts of money into our political system. And in my view, it is undermining American democracy and it is allowing Congress to represent wealthy campaign contributors and not the working families of this country."
-Bernie Sanders
British readers will see parallels between Sanders v Clinton and Jeremy Corbyn v the Blairites. But there’s a crucial difference. Sanders is a very American socialist. On foreign policy he’s quite mainstream: crush Isil, finish the job in Afghanistan. His position on gun control has shifted as per the views of his rural constituents. And he does not call for nationalisation of the economy but a restoration of stakeholder capitalism. His obsession with the venality of the big banks harks back to Andrew Jackson’s Bank War or William Jennings Bryan’s campaign for free silver, while his puritanical opposition to the influence of money has hints of Jerry Brown, Ross Perot and even Father Coughlin (before he went crazy). When Sanders speaks, I don’t hear Stalin. I hear Huey Long and Woody Guthrie, with a dash of Norman Mailer.
Sandernomics embraces the state as a tool of change and the federal government as the ally of the worker, no doubt. But Sanders’ tastes are Jeffersonian: he sees an unholy alliance of capital and government as the enemy of individual autonomy. When it comes to civil liberties, he’s on the side of the citizen against the national security state. On foreign policy, he correctly sees the differences between the Clintons and the Bushes as very thin. Mrs Clinton is a neoconservative, too. Just a neoconservative without a plan.
"Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders because of a coin toss: How it happened, and why it could happen in the UK"
All of this has the potential to strike a chord with the public – if they can look past the word “socialist”, with its overtones of Russian hats and French strikes. It’s odd that when a far-Right politician like Trump talks about economic populism, everyone assumes that it’ll be a vote winner. But when Sanders also discusses wages, prices and the damaging effects of inequality – it’s dismissed as hippie talk. Yet thoughtful conservatives ought to look long and hard at Sanders, consider the points of commonality and wonder if they point to an agenda that we can all build a consensus around.
For instance, he’s been critical of uncontrolled immigration. As a Left-winger, he doubtless acknowledges that it leads to depressed wages; conservatives see it as undermining social cohesion. The old-fashioned Left and the old-fashioned Right are united by a belief that healthy communities are more important than high profits.
More importantly, they share an almost spiritual understanding of the “promise” of America. The Puritans sought to build a city on a hill that shone not because it was paved with gold but because its people were virtuous. Clintonism, by contrast, is defined by moral compromise – while Trumpism is a deal with the devil of our nature. Neither is the stuff of American dreams.
By http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/tim-stanley/
9:42AM GMT 05 Feb 2016
Bernie Sanders can beat Hillary Clinton, and Conservatives should take note
American voters are tired of being asked to accept compromise by compromised politicians. Sanders taps into a real hunger for change
I am a philosophical conservative and I like Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. I said as much at a gathering of conservatives in Washington this week and elicited a few gasps of horror.
"I will tell the billionaire class: you can't have it all while kids in this country go hungry."
-Bernie Sanders
One said: “He’s so socialist he’s hardly even American.” But that can’t be right. How can someone so antiquatedly, exotically Left-wing enjoy such a huge poll lead in next week’s New Hampshire primary? It’s because while some of the answers he gives are crazy, the questions he raises about American capitalism are perfectly sane. Given a chance, he could be a very effective nominee.
On Thursday night, Bernie bossed the NBC debate against Hillary Clinton. Mrs Clinton gave the same performance she’s been giving since she ran for the Senate in 2000: “I know you hate me, but you know you need me.” The difference between her and Sanders goes to the heart of a historical disagreement on the Left about how to effect change.
Hillary believes that America is inherently conservative; that change is accomplished through patient coalition building and that the Left achieves nothing by promising too much, terrifying the voters and delivering very little. Sanders, by contrast, believes that you can only achieve reform if you honestly make the case for it. Democrats win office, he told the audience, when they generate a high turnout by exciting the people.
One said: “He’s so socialist he’s hardly even American.” But that can’t be right. How can someone so antiquatedly, exotically Left-wing enjoy such a huge poll lead in next week’s New Hampshire primary? It’s because while some of the answers he gives are crazy, the questions he raises about American capitalism are perfectly sane. Given a chance, he could be a very effective nominee.
On Thursday night, Bernie bossed the NBC debate against Hillary Clinton.
Mrs Clinton gave the same performance she’s been giving since she ran for the Senate in 2000: “I know you hate me, but you know you need me.” The difference between her and Sanders goes to the heart of a historical disagreement on the Left about how to effect change.
Hillary believes that America is inherently conservative; that change is accomplished through patient coalition building and that the Left achieves nothing by promising too much, terrifying the voters and delivering very little. Sanders, by contrast, believes that you can only achieve reform if you honestly make the case for it. Democrats win office, he told the audience, when they generate a high turnout by exciting the people.
And he means all the people. Clinton divides the electorate up into special interest groups: she throws out policies to satisfy women, African-Americans or gay people. Sanders divides the electorate by class: his goal is to convince a majority of the population that they have more in common than they realize. Sanders is, sadly, very Left-wing on social issues – but he has the decency not to go on about it.
He’s made Wall Street his central issue instead. The Sanders argument goes like this. Why does liberal reform get beaten? Because businesses lobby against it. Ergo, cut big money out of politics and America will see more liberal reform. It’s a handy coincidence that Sanders’ opponent is one of the people most associated with the interplay of money and politics. In the 1990s, the Clintons advertised their cosiness with big business as a way of reassuring centrist voters that they knew something about economics. This translated into policies such as deregulating the housing market and signing free trade policies that gutted US industry. After the Clintons left office, they stayed in touch with their old friends. Mrs Clinton made $675,000 for giving three speeches to Goldman Sachs alone. She claimed during the debate that she used the speeches to tell Wall Street that it was hurting America. I doubt that’s true. If someone paid me $675,000 to give a speech they’d get 90 minutes of unqualified praise. Heck, for that kind of money I’d strip.
Sanders is reluctant to hit Clinton directly on this sort of thing – he prefers to play the gentleman and talk policy. By so doing, he’s cleverly turned the Democratic primaries away from a referendum on Clinton and towards a referendum on Clintonism.
This taps into a wider thirst for political change. The Republicans gave over half their votes in the Iowa caucus to two neophyte Hispanic conservatives and a black surgeon who has never even held office. Jeb Bush, another potent symbol of the Clinton/Bush era, is languishing in the New Hampshire polls and facing defeat at the hands of Donald Trump. The politics of that era is overfamiliar and tired. And younger voters resent constantly being told that ageing pragmatists know best –especially when the smart technocrats are the folks who gave us Iraq, the credit crunch and the mess that is Obamacare.
"You know, there is a reason why these people are putting huge amounts of money into our political system. And in my view, it is undermining American democracy and it is allowing Congress to represent wealthy campaign contributors and not the working families of this country."
-Bernie Sanders
British readers will see parallels between Sanders v Clinton and Jeremy Corbyn v the Blairites. But there’s a crucial difference. Sanders is a very American socialist. On foreign policy he’s quite mainstream: crush Isil, finish the job in Afghanistan. His position on gun control has shifted as per the views of his rural constituents. And he does not call for nationalisation of the economy but a restoration of stakeholder capitalism. His obsession with the venality of the big banks harks back to Andrew Jackson’s Bank War or William Jennings Bryan’s campaign for free silver, while his puritanical opposition to the influence of money has hints of Jerry Brown, Ross Perot and even Father Coughlin (before he went crazy). When Sanders speaks, I don’t hear Stalin. I hear Huey Long and Woody Guthrie, with a dash of Norman Mailer.
Sandernomics embraces the state as a tool of change and the federal government as the ally of the worker, no doubt. But Sanders’ tastes are Jeffersonian: he sees an unholy alliance of capital and government as the enemy of individual autonomy. When it comes to civil liberties, he’s on the side of the citizen against the national security state. On foreign policy, he correctly sees the differences between the Clintons and the Bushes as very thin. Mrs Clinton is a neoconservative, too. Just a neoconservative without a plan.
"Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders because of a coin toss: How it happened, and why it could happen in the UK"
All of this has the potential to strike a chord with the public – if they can look past the word “socialist”, with its overtones of Russian hats and French strikes. It’s odd that when a far-Right politician like Trump talks about economic populism, everyone assumes that it’ll be a vote winner. But when Sanders also discusses wages, prices and the damaging effects of inequality – it’s dismissed as hippie talk. Yet thoughtful conservatives ought to look long and hard at Sanders, consider the points of commonality and wonder if they point to an agenda that we can all build a consensus around.
For instance, he’s been critical of uncontrolled immigration. As a Left-winger, he doubtless acknowledges that it leads to depressed wages; conservatives see it as undermining social cohesion. The old-fashioned Left and the old-fashioned Right are united by a belief that healthy communities are more important than high profits.
More importantly, they share an almost spiritual understanding of the “promise” of America. The Puritans sought to build a city on a hill that shone not because it was paved with gold but because its people were virtuous. Clintonism, by contrast, is defined by moral compromise – while Trumpism is a deal with the devil of our nature. Neither is the stuff of American dreams.
Last edited:
Wow, someone stop this woman...
Hillary Clinton Praises a Guy With Lots of Blood on His Hands
In lauding Henry Kissinger, the possible Democratic presidential nominee goes far beyond her usual hawkish rhetoric.
—David Corn on Fri. September 5, 2014 12:44 PM PDT
Henry Kissinger and Hillary Clinton receive the Germany Freedom Award in 2009. Gero Breloer/AP
Hillary Clinton often plays the hawk card: She voted for the Iraq war,http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/18/us-hillary-syria-idUSKBN0ES31M20140618 President Barack Obama for not being tough enough on Syria, and compared Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler. This is to be expected from a politician who has angled for a certain title: the first female president of the United States. Whether her muscular views are sincerely held or not, a conventional political calculation would lead her to assume it may be difficult for many voters to elect as commander-in-chief a woman who did not project an aggressive and assertive stance on foreign policy. So her tough talk might be charitably evaluated in such a (somewhat) forgiving context. Yet what remains more puzzling and alarming is the big wet kiss she planted (rhetorically) on former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger this week, with a fawning review of his latest book, World Order.
Sure, perhaps there is secretary's privilege—an old boy and girls club, in which the ex-foreign-policy chiefs do not speak ill of each other and try to help out the person presently in the post. Nothing wrong with that. But former-Madam Secretary Clinton had no obligation to praise Kissinger and publicly participate in his decades-long mission to rehabilitate his image. In the review, she calls Kissinger a "friend" and reports, "I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state. He checked in with me regularly, sharing astute observations about foreign leaders and sending me written reports on his travels." She does add that she and Henry "have often seen the world and some of our challenges quite differently, and advocated different responses now and in the past." But here's the kicker: At the end of the review, she notes that Kissinger is "surprisingly idealistic":
Even when there are tensions between our values and other objectives, America, he reminds us, succeeds by standing up for our values, not shirking them, and leads by engaging peoples and societies, the sources of legitimacy, not governments alone.
Kissinger reminds us that America succeeds by standing up for its values? Did she inhale?
Kissinger, who served as secretary of state for President Richard Nixon and then President Gerald Ford, is a symbol of the worst of US foreign policy. Though he guided the United States through détente with the Soviet Union and initiated the historic opening to China, he engaged in underhanded and covert diplomacy that led to massacres around the globe, as he pursued his version of foreign policy realism. This is no secret.
Once upon a time, Hillary Clinton protested the Vietnam War. She attended the 1968 GOP convention in Miami to join the effort to draft Nelson Rockefeller in order to prevent Nixon from winning the party's presidential nomination. She served on the staff of the House judiciary committee, which voted to impeach Nixon; one of the articles of impeachment drafted by the staff (but which was not approved) slammed Nixon for covering up the bombing in Cambodia. She knows what Kissinger has done. She knows what Kissinger represents. There's none of that in her self-serving review. Instead, she hails him as a champion of a values-driven foreign policy. Maybe when he's typing in front of a computer these days—but not when he wielded power. Clinton lets him off the hook and participates in the long-running pretense that Kissinger is a grand old statesman who deserves respect rather than scorn.
Democrats uneasy with Clinton as their party's standard-bearer have often wondered if there is a limit to what she might say or do to win the White House. Embracing Kissinger in this manner shows how low she can go. It likely will cause cringing among not-there-yet Democrats who can only fear that, with plenty of time before the campaign truly starts, Hillary Clinton is not yet done disappointing them.
Hillary Clinton Praises a Guy With Lots of Blood on His Hands
In lauding Henry Kissinger, the possible Democratic presidential nominee goes far beyond her usual hawkish rhetoric.
—David Corn on Fri. September 5, 2014 12:44 PM PDT
Henry Kissinger and Hillary Clinton receive the Germany Freedom Award in 2009. Gero Breloer/AP
Hillary Clinton often plays the hawk card: She voted for the Iraq war,http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/18/us-hillary-syria-idUSKBN0ES31M20140618 President Barack Obama for not being tough enough on Syria, and compared Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler. This is to be expected from a politician who has angled for a certain title: the first female president of the United States. Whether her muscular views are sincerely held or not, a conventional political calculation would lead her to assume it may be difficult for many voters to elect as commander-in-chief a woman who did not project an aggressive and assertive stance on foreign policy. So her tough talk might be charitably evaluated in such a (somewhat) forgiving context. Yet what remains more puzzling and alarming is the big wet kiss she planted (rhetorically) on former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger this week, with a fawning review of his latest book, World Order.
Sure, perhaps there is secretary's privilege—an old boy and girls club, in which the ex-foreign-policy chiefs do not speak ill of each other and try to help out the person presently in the post. Nothing wrong with that. But former-Madam Secretary Clinton had no obligation to praise Kissinger and publicly participate in his decades-long mission to rehabilitate his image. In the review, she calls Kissinger a "friend" and reports, "I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state. He checked in with me regularly, sharing astute observations about foreign leaders and sending me written reports on his travels." She does add that she and Henry "have often seen the world and some of our challenges quite differently, and advocated different responses now and in the past." But here's the kicker: At the end of the review, she notes that Kissinger is "surprisingly idealistic":
Even when there are tensions between our values and other objectives, America, he reminds us, succeeds by standing up for our values, not shirking them, and leads by engaging peoples and societies, the sources of legitimacy, not governments alone.
Kissinger reminds us that America succeeds by standing up for its values? Did she inhale?
Kissinger, who served as secretary of state for President Richard Nixon and then President Gerald Ford, is a symbol of the worst of US foreign policy. Though he guided the United States through détente with the Soviet Union and initiated the historic opening to China, he engaged in underhanded and covert diplomacy that led to massacres around the globe, as he pursued his version of foreign policy realism. This is no secret.
- Chile: Nixon and Kissinger plottedto thwart the democratic election of a socialist president. The eventual outcome: a military coup and a military dictatorship that killed thousands of Chileans.
- Argentina: Kissinger gave a"green light" to the military junta's dirty war against political opponents that led to the deaths of an estimated 30,000.
- East Timor: Another "green light"from Kissinger, this one for the Indonesian military dictatorship's bloody invasion of East Timor that yielded up to 200,000 deaths.
- Cambodia: The secret bombingthere during the Nixon phase of the Vietnam War killed between 150,000 and 500,000 civilians.
- Bangladesh: Kissinger and Nixon turned a blind eye to—arguably, they tacitly approved—Pakistan's genocidal slaughter of 300,000 Bengalis, most of them Hindus.
Once upon a time, Hillary Clinton protested the Vietnam War. She attended the 1968 GOP convention in Miami to join the effort to draft Nelson Rockefeller in order to prevent Nixon from winning the party's presidential nomination. She served on the staff of the House judiciary committee, which voted to impeach Nixon; one of the articles of impeachment drafted by the staff (but which was not approved) slammed Nixon for covering up the bombing in Cambodia. She knows what Kissinger has done. She knows what Kissinger represents. There's none of that in her self-serving review. Instead, she hails him as a champion of a values-driven foreign policy. Maybe when he's typing in front of a computer these days—but not when he wielded power. Clinton lets him off the hook and participates in the long-running pretense that Kissinger is a grand old statesman who deserves respect rather than scorn.
Democrats uneasy with Clinton as their party's standard-bearer have often wondered if there is a limit to what she might say or do to win the White House. Embracing Kissinger in this manner shows how low she can go. It likely will cause cringing among not-there-yet Democrats who can only fear that, with plenty of time before the campaign truly starts, Hillary Clinton is not yet done disappointing them.
And here she goes again...where are all the liberals at? What kind of "progressive" boasts about having a great relationship with a fucking war criminal. She shouldn't even be allowed to run based solely off of her vote on the war in Iraq. But this makes the idea of her becoming president even more disturbing.
Hillary Clinton and Henry Kissinger
February 7, 2016
Comments by: Ed Brayton
During the last Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton boasted that Henry Kissinger praised her work as secretary of state, a moment that really should leave liberals with their mouths agape. Henry Kissinger, undeniable war criminal and enemy of human rights and freedom, should be viewed as anything but a character witness.
Hillary Clinton boasted in the fifth Democratic presidential debate Thursday night that she is supported by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, an accused war criminal who oversaw policies that led to the deaths of millions of people.
“I was very flattered when Henry Kissinger said I ran the State Department better than anybody had run it in a long time,” she said.
The admiration is mutual. A year and a half ago, Clinton wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post full of effusive praise of Kissinger:
Is Clinton still strongly preferable to any of the Republican candidates? Of course. On foreign policy, there’s no discernible difference between her and them, but there is on a number of other issues that matter a great deal. The key issue for me is the Supreme Court. Any Democrat in the White House is preferable to any Republican because the list of people from whom they would choose a nominee for the Supreme Court is vastly different. And the list the Republicans would choose from scares the hell out of me.
Hillary Clinton and Henry Kissinger
February 7, 2016
Comments by: Ed Brayton
During the last Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton boasted that Henry Kissinger praised her work as secretary of state, a moment that really should leave liberals with their mouths agape. Henry Kissinger, undeniable war criminal and enemy of human rights and freedom, should be viewed as anything but a character witness.
Hillary Clinton boasted in the fifth Democratic presidential debate Thursday night that she is supported by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, an accused war criminal who oversaw policies that led to the deaths of millions of people.
“I was very flattered when Henry Kissinger said I ran the State Department better than anybody had run it in a long time,” she said.
The admiration is mutual. A year and a half ago, Clinton wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post full of effusive praise of Kissinger:
Is Clinton still strongly preferable to any of the Republican candidates? Of course. On foreign policy, there’s no discernible difference between her and them, but there is on a number of other issues that matter a great deal. The key issue for me is the Supreme Court. Any Democrat in the White House is preferable to any Republican because the list of people from whom they would choose a nominee for the Supreme Court is vastly different. And the list the Republicans would choose from scares the hell out of me.
Last edited:
Hillary Clinton's 12 year evolution on her Iraq War vote
Feb 08, 2016 6:54pm EST
by mauricelawrence
While she tries to dismiss it as ‘yeah, I made a mistake and admitted that — let’s move on’, it is important to remember that Hillary Clinton did not admit her “mistake” of voting for Bush’s Iraq War until 2014.
If we look at her complex history with the Iraq war she was a strong supporter and parroting Bush and Cheney to a tee in 2002 as she voted to give Bush the authority to invade. (footage below)
Throughout the years, including 2007 — 2008 during her campaign against Obama she refused to admit it was a mistake, possibly fearing it would make her look weak.
As Secretary of State, as the footage shows, she was very excited and hopeful about business opportunities in Iraq. No hint of a worry about rise of terrorism or the collapse of Iraq’s government. This was as late as 2011.
Only in 2014 when she was preparing for her presidential campaign did she finally admit her “mistake”. Perhaps learning from her mistakes of 2007 — 2008 and hoping that would diffuse the issue.
If you are tempted to give her a pass for finally saying she made a mistake (at the eve of launching her 2nd presidential campaign) please keep this in mind: not only was she wrong in 2002, but it took her 12 years to realize that.
Footage of Hillary from 2011, 2014 and 2002
Bernie Sanders Just Made History As The First Jew To Win A Presidential Primary
He quietly marked a major milestone in American politics.
2-10-16
Sam Levine Associate Politics Editor, The Huffington Post
When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) won the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, he quietly achieved a major milestone in American politics: becoming the first Jew and non-Christian to win a presidential primary of a major political party.
Sanders was raised by Jewish parents and has said he believes in God, but he does not participate in organized religion. Sanders told The Washington Post last month that, to him, believing in God means "all of us are connected, all of life is connected, and that we are all tied together.”
New Hampshire has a small Jewish population, but Rabbi Robin Nafshi of Temple Beth Jacob in Concord told HuffPost's Sam Stein last week that Sanders' popularity has sent a message about Judaism in America.
"It has provided real education to America about the fact that Jews come in all shapes and stripes," Nafshi told HuffPost. "That no, we are not all keeping kosher or observing the Sabbath -- that the way American Jews live our lives is as diverse as any group of people, perhaps even more diverse. I think that's one of the things that has been really quite educational with his candidacy."
Rabbi Jonah Pesner, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, told The Atlantic last month that one of the most significant aspects of Sanders' faith may be how little of a story it has been during his campaign.
“You have a guy who is from New York with a Brooklyn accent named Bernie who is a viable presidential candidate and nobody is discussing it, which to me is just a remarkable statement of the success of the American Jewish community to be fully integrated and distinct at the same time,” Pesner said.
Read more on the New Hampshire primary here.
He quietly marked a major milestone in American politics.
2-10-16
Sam Levine Associate Politics Editor, The Huffington Post
When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) won the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, he quietly achieved a major milestone in American politics: becoming the first Jew and non-Christian to win a presidential primary of a major political party.
Sanders was raised by Jewish parents and has said he believes in God, but he does not participate in organized religion. Sanders told The Washington Post last month that, to him, believing in God means "all of us are connected, all of life is connected, and that we are all tied together.”
New Hampshire has a small Jewish population, but Rabbi Robin Nafshi of Temple Beth Jacob in Concord told HuffPost's Sam Stein last week that Sanders' popularity has sent a message about Judaism in America.
"It has provided real education to America about the fact that Jews come in all shapes and stripes," Nafshi told HuffPost. "That no, we are not all keeping kosher or observing the Sabbath -- that the way American Jews live our lives is as diverse as any group of people, perhaps even more diverse. I think that's one of the things that has been really quite educational with his candidacy."
Rabbi Jonah Pesner, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, told The Atlantic last month that one of the most significant aspects of Sanders' faith may be how little of a story it has been during his campaign.
“You have a guy who is from New York with a Brooklyn accent named Bernie who is a viable presidential candidate and nobody is discussing it, which to me is just a remarkable statement of the success of the American Jewish community to be fully integrated and distinct at the same time,” Pesner said.
Read more on the New Hampshire primary here.
Bernie Sanders: We Have To Demilitarize Our Police So They Don't Look Authoritarian
Posted on January 17, 2016
BERNIE SANDERS: This is a responsibility for the U.S. Justice department to get involved. Whenever anybody in this country is killed while in police custody, it should automatically trigger a U.S. Attorney General's investigation.
Second of all, and I speak as a mayor who worked very closely, and well with police, the vast majority are honest, hard-working people trying to do a difficult job, but let us be clear. If a police officer breaks the law, like any public official, that officer must be held accountable.
And thirdly, we have got to demilitarize our police departments so they don't look like occupying armies. We've got to move toward community policing, and fourthly, we have got to make our police departments look like the communities they serve in their diversity.
Posted on January 17, 2016
BERNIE SANDERS: This is a responsibility for the U.S. Justice department to get involved. Whenever anybody in this country is killed while in police custody, it should automatically trigger a U.S. Attorney General's investigation.
Second of all, and I speak as a mayor who worked very closely, and well with police, the vast majority are honest, hard-working people trying to do a difficult job, but let us be clear. If a police officer breaks the law, like any public official, that officer must be held accountable.
And thirdly, we have got to demilitarize our police departments so they don't look like occupying armies. We've got to move toward community policing, and fourthly, we have got to make our police departments look like the communities they serve in their diversity.
Some interesting analysis from Romer and Romer:
According to an analysis by Gerald Friedman, Senator Sanders’s proposed policies would result in average annual output growth of 5.3% over the next decade, and average monthly job creation of close to 300,000.1 As a result, output in 2026 would be 37% higher than it would have been without the policies, and employment would be 16% higher.
Although we share many of Senator Sanders’s values and enthusiastically support some of his goals, such as greater public investment in infrastructure and education, we also believe it is vitally important to be realistic about the impact of policies on the performance of the overall economy. For this reason, it is worth examining Friedman’s analysis carefully. Moreover, Friedman has made available an extensive report describing his methodology and assumptions, allowing others to examine the specifics of his analysis.
Unfortunately, careful examination of Friedman’s work confirms the old adage, “if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.” We identify three fundamental problems in Friedman’s analysis. ...
According to an analysis by Gerald Friedman, Senator Sanders’s proposed policies would result in average annual output growth of 5.3% over the next decade, and average monthly job creation of close to 300,000.1 As a result, output in 2026 would be 37% higher than it would have been without the policies, and employment would be 16% higher.
Although we share many of Senator Sanders’s values and enthusiastically support some of his goals, such as greater public investment in infrastructure and education, we also believe it is vitally important to be realistic about the impact of policies on the performance of the overall economy. For this reason, it is worth examining Friedman’s analysis carefully. Moreover, Friedman has made available an extensive report describing his methodology and assumptions, allowing others to examine the specifics of his analysis.
Unfortunately, careful examination of Friedman’s work confirms the old adage, “if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.” We identify three fundamental problems in Friedman’s analysis. ...
TestStateofMindTX
New Member
Nice supporter^ lol. What do you think about the nominee Merrick garland? I heard he is considered to be moderate and not too far left.
Bernie Sanders plans short hiatus from New York campaign trail to speak at the Vatican
Bernie Sanders plans short hiatus from New York campaign trail to speak at the Vatican
NEW YORK — Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, an enthusiastic fan of Pope Francis's work, plans to step off the campaign trail next week to speak at a conference hosted by the Vatican on social, economic and environmental issues.
The senator from Vermont is planning to head to Rome immediately after a high-profile debate scheduled here with Hillary Clinton on April 14. He'll speak at the gathering hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, Sanders said.
Bernie Sanders plans short hiatus from New York campaign trail to speak at the Vatican
NEW YORK — Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, an enthusiastic fan of Pope Francis's work, plans to step off the campaign trail next week to speak at a conference hosted by the Vatican on social, economic and environmental issues.
The senator from Vermont is planning to head to Rome immediately after a high-profile debate scheduled here with Hillary Clinton on April 14. He'll speak at the gathering hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, Sanders said.
Hillary Clinton on gay marriage 2004:
Clinton on Iraq:
Clinton under sniper fire:
Young Clinton loses faith in polygraph test while defending later convicted serial rapist, later claims she had no choice. However in the tape she claims she did it as a favor:
Yes all women.
Clinton on Iraq:
Clinton under sniper fire:
Young Clinton loses faith in polygraph test while defending later convicted serial rapist, later claims she had no choice. However in the tape she claims she did it as a favor:
Yes all women.
Similar threads
Sponsors
Latest posts
-
-
Wuhan Wansheng Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (USA, International)
- Latest: Missingintheabyss
-
-
-
