HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » cali » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 46 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: born is LA, grew up there and in New Canaan CT
Home country: USA
Current location: East Hardwick, Vermont
Member since: Wed Sep 29, 2004, 03:28 PM
Number of posts: 112,521

Journal Archives

Trump's campaign chairman says he'll pick a white man to be his running mate

That's good news for Clinton, I think.

Donald Trump Unlikely to Pick a Woman or Minority as VP Running Mate, Campaign Chairman Says

A tale of 2 political hitmen: The similarities of David Brock and Roger Stone

One takes a pint sized dog named Toby almost everywhere, smokes electronic cigarettes and wears his silver hair in a sweeping pompadour.

The other has a portrait of Richard M. Nixon tattooed on his back, boasts that he owns more shoes than Imelda Marcos and traffics in conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination.


I would hope to have enough integrity that I wouldn't excuse

a candidate who has lied and stonewalled and demonstrated a cavalier disregard for following the rules, if not the law. I don't know that I would. We all justify things. We all see things through the prism of our biases. What I find beyond the pale, you may find perfectly acceptable.

I don't expect the candidates I support to be paragons of virtue. I think good leaders can be deeply flawed and still be effective and do good.

In the end though, integrity and character are of great importance to me when I assess any candidate for office.

All in for Bernie: How Bernie Sanders Is Changing The Face Of Vermont's Democratic Party


In Vermont, though, the Democratic Convention was an unabashed Sanders love fest. Town delegates voted almost unanimously to endorse his candidacy. And the legacy of the Sanders’ candidacy here might be the unification of the left, not its division.

Haslam says establishment Democrats in Vermont so far haven’t been up to the task of delivering on things like livable wage, universal health care or substantive tax reform. Haslam says the advent of Sanders joining the Democratic Party will change that.

“I think what Bernie has done around the country, and certainly in Vermont, has really opened up the Vermont Democratic Party to be an arena for change in this country,” Haslam says.

“If Bernie is not the nominee, it’s going to be challenging,” says Terje Anderson, a Sanders supporter who won election to the powerful post of Democratic National Committeeman Sunday.

Anderson beat out longtime Patrick Leahy staffer John Tracy for the post. Tracy voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary. Leahy is one of only four Vermont superdelegates who favor Clinton. And Anderson’s victory is itself evidence of the Sanders supporters’ new influence over the internal machinery of the state party.

Anderson says he’s optimistic that the fragile union between Sanders’ followers, and the party they’re feeling out, will strengthen over time.

“There used to be incredibly bad blood in Burlington and statewide between Bernie and Democrats, and then we look at 86 percent” of primary voters who supported Sanders, Anderson says.

And the role of that 86 percent on the Vermont Democratic Party could shift the course of politics in this state for years to come.

Lol. Newly powerful Sanders flexes Senate muscles

Far away from the halls of Congress, as he continues to rankle Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail, Bernie Sanders is fashioning a new role for himself in the Senate: The next Dr. No.

The Vermont senator, remade as one of the most well-known members of Congress, is throwing his weight against some of the most significant bipartisan deals pending in Congress this year. He’s actively urging Senate Democrats to reject a deal reached by House Republicans and the Obama administration to ease Puerto Rico’s debt crisis and has emerged as one of the few opponents of a landmark overhaul of chemical safety laws — the first major environmental legislation in a generation.

Sanders’ stands against those measures are the first signs of how he intends to leverage his newfound notoriety to become a force for the left in Congress once his presidential run ends. Asked how influential Sanders would be on these and other issues once he returns to the Senate, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) responded: “Very.”

“He’s grown a movement, and he is the leader of it, although there are others,” Schatz added. “I think his voice is louder and stronger than ever.”


Sanders has long been an iconoclastic voice of the left in the Senate, but his positions generally drew little notice. Before he launched his campaign last year, the last time he had commanded serious national attention was when he waged an eight-hour speech railing against renewal of the Bush tax cuts in 2010 — a maneuver that dazzled liberals.

But at whatever time he comes back to the Senate, Sanders is poised to be more powerful than ever, backed by more than 2 million Twitter followers and millions more admirers nationwide who’ll be looking to him to help set the progressive agenda.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/senate-bernie-sanders-223538#ixzz49lC1tLvC
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

New poll: Clinton and Sanders in dead heat in California

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are virtually deadlocked in California, the biggest prize of the 2016 Democratic presidential primary season, according to a new poll.

The survey, conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, finds Clinton with only a small lead over Sanders, 46 percent to 44 percent, among likely voters in the Democratic primary next month.


While even losing California's June 7 primary wouldn't stop Clinton from claiming the Democratic nomination, it would send her limping out of the gates in the general election against Donald Trump. The disappointing poll numbers come as Clinton holds rallies Thursday in San Jose and San Francisco, reeling from Wednesday's report from the State Department's Inspector General sharply criticizing her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

"She's not winning in a blaze of glory; she's winning in a cloud of ambiguity," said Jack Pitney, a professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College.



"What I did was allowed by the State Department. It was fully above board."

Hillary Clinton, 7 September, 2015

Far from it. The OIG report sharply refutes that lie of Hillary's and there is no way to spin her statement as anything but a bald faced lie. Certainly not the only lie she told about her email imbroglio.

The report is a portrait of Clinton that paints her as imperious, dishonest, secretive, disloyal and someone with seriously flawed judgment.

In March of this year, the Washington Post, published a history of the email tale:


One year earlier, during her own presidential campaign, Clinton had said that if elected, “we will adopt a presumption of openness and Freedom of Information Act requests and urge agencies to release information quickly.”

But in those first few days, Clinton’s senior advisers were already taking steps that would help her circumvent those high-flown words, according to a chain of internal State Department emails released to Judicial Watch, a conservative nonprofit organization suing the government over Clinton’s emails.


Ironic, no? Why should anyone believe her campaign promises this year?

She was warned in no uncertain terms. The following can also be found at the link posted above:


“Our review reaffirms our belief that the vulnerabilities and risks associated with the use of Blackberries in the Mahogany Row considerably outweigh the convenience their use can add,” the memo said.

He emphasized: “Any unclassified Blackberry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving e-mails, and exploiting calendars.”

Nine days later, Clinton told Boswell that she had read his memo and “gets it,” according to an email sent by a senior diplomatic security official. “Her attention was drawn to the sentence that indicates (Diplomatic Security) have intelligence concerning this vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia,” the email said.

But Clinton kept using her private BlackBerry — and the basement server.


It's damning, and clear, that Clinton had no intention of turning her emails over to archivists. She didn't while she was in office, and she didn't after she left office until forced to.


In December 2012, near the end of Clinton’s tenure, a nonprofit group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, filed a FOIA request seeking records about her email. CREW received a response in May 2013: “no records responsive to your request were located.”

Other requests for Clinton records met the same fate — until the State Department received a demand from the newly formed House Select Committee on Benghazi in July 2014. The committee wanted Clinton’s email, among other things, to see what she and others knew about the deadly attack in Libya and the response by the U.S. government.


A few more bullet points:

She has not turned over the entirety of her work mail according to the OIG report. Months are missing from early 2009.

Staff who raised concerns about her email setup were told to shut the fuck up.

She lied repeatedly about attempted hacks.

The comparison to Powell is weak.


Trust and Hillary Clinton are two words that don't co-exist.

WaPo Editorial: Clinton’s inexcusable, willful disregard for the rules

The more we learn, the worse it looks.

Deny all you want. This is now serious. I don't know what it portends, but the profile of this debacle was just significantly raised.

And no, the Post is not pro-Trump. Heaven knows, it's not pro-Bernie.


By Editorial Board May 25 at 7:13 PM

HILLARY CLINTON’S use of a private email server while secretary of state from 2009 to 2013 has been justifiably criticized as an error of judgment. What the new report from the State Department inspector general makes clear is that it also was not a casual oversight. Ms. Clinton had plenty of warnings to use official government communications methods, so as to make sure that her records were properly preserved and to minimize cybersecurity risks. She ignored them.

The 83-page report declares that “beginning in late 2005 and continuing through 2011,” the department revised its Foreign Affairs Manual and “issued various memoranda specifically discussing the obligation to use Department systems in most circumstances and identifying the risks of not doing so.” Ms. Clinton didn’t.

During her tenure, State Department employees were told that they were expected to use approved, secure methods to transmit information that was sensitive but unclassified, or SBU. If they needed to transmit SBU information outside the department’s network, they were told to ask information specialists for help. The report said there is no evidence that Ms. Clinton ever asked, “despite the fact that emails exchanged on her personal account regularly contained information that was marked as SBU.” On June 28, 2011, a cable was sent to all diplomatic and consular posts over her signature warning that personal email accounts could be compromised and officials should “avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts.” At the time, Ms. Clinton was doing exactly that.

On March 11, 2011, an assistant secretary sent a memorandum on cybersecurity threats directly to Ms. Clinton, noting a “dramatic increase” in attempts to compromise personal email accounts of senior department officials, possibly for spying or blackmail. That didn’t stop Ms. Clinton either. There were also numerous notifications that some emails (but not all) are considered federal records under the law and that she should print and file those in her office and, before leaving office, surrender all emails dealing with department business. She did so only about two years later, in December 2014.


Why is Hillary disliked as much as Trump?

Yes, a lot of it is sexism

Women have always faced a double standard running for executive office, the highest and hardest glass ceiling to break. There’s a reason why less than 5 percent of Fortune 1000 CEOs, only 6 of the nation’s 50 governor and less than 17 percent of mayors are women: women seeking executive office have to prove that they are capable enough, while remaining likable, an extremely tough needle to threat. Men, generally speaking, don’t face the capability test: most men are assumed to be tough enough and have the experience to handle the job. But women trying to prove their bona fides can easily overshoot and become too tough, and therefore not likable.

“What research from the Barbara Lee Family Foundation finds is that likability matters more for women candidates than for men. In other words, voters are much more comfortable voting for male candidates that they don’t like, but think are qualified to serve. For women, likability and qualifications are tied together in voters’ minds. They must demonstrate both traits to earn voter support,” says Kelly Dittmar, a researcher at Rutgers University’s Center for American Women and Politics. “It’s no surprise, then, that we seem to spend a lot more time worrying about how likable Hillary Clinton is than we do about whether or not we want to have a beer with Donald Trump.”


Indeed, 4 in 10 Americans still believe America would be better off if women and men would “stick to the jobs and tasks they are naturally suited for” according to a recent PRRI/Atlantic poll and half of Trump supporters agree with that statement, says Melissa Deckman, chair of the political science department at Washington College and author of the new book, “Tea Party Women.” “Americans have always been conflicted about women who are too ambitious, and who is Hillary Clinton if not the most politically ambitious woman in America?”



Good commentary from, of all places, Fox News

Donald Trump wants you to know that he isn’t sure that Hillary Clinton had her friend and adviser Vince Foster murdered back in 1993.


AND IT IS DIRTY. If Donald Trump actually thinks that Vince Foster was assassinated, he is an idiot who can’t tell the difference between a discredited internet rumor and reality. But he isn't an idiot. He is smart which he, himself--sounding like Fredo in “Godfather II”—constantly and passionately asserts). That leaves the second possibility: Trump is knowingly and falsely suggesting that Hillary Clinton is a murderer.

Trump’s stated rationale for such creepy slander is that Hillary started it by saying mean things about him. He is an innocent counter-puncher, a guy just fighting back.

This is not just childish; it is a chilling insight into what a Trump administration might be like. Opposition and criticism are fact of life for an American president. Slings and arrows come with the job. It is necessary for a president to fire back, but not with unconventional weapons.

Candidate Trump can’t do more than make Hillary Clinton lose her composure (which, I suppose, is his intention). But just imagine the kind of retaliation President Trump—in charge of the Justice Department, the FBI, the IRS and other punitive machinery of the federal government—might visit upon his political opponents, media critics, foreign leaders and just plain citizens who happen to offend him.


Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 46 Next »