HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Segami » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AM
Number of posts: 14,923

Journal Archives

Political Guru David Axelrod Calls Bernie Sanders Campaign A 'PHENOMENON'

Looks like Axelrod has finally felt 'The Bern'............

David AxelrodVerified account


Got a first-hand look at the @BernieSanders phenomenon today @UChiPolitics. 2,000 in hall. 500 in overflow.

And 2500 couldn't get in.

David Axelrod was referring to Bernie's appearance at U of Chicago Institute of Politics today. I saw some of the event. Bernie was introduced by David Axelrod who is Director of the U of Chicago Institute of Politics. How good a political guru is David Axelrod? Well, David was the Chief Strategist for Barack Obama's presidential campaigns. That's how good.

Event is long may have to watch it in segments as I did but, it's one of his best appearances. Well worth the time as he deviates from stump speech and gets a little personal since it is his alma mater.

Check out the student response as Bernie was leaving the event:


Hillary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders In A Nutshell

Share with Family & Friends .....

That's it. Thank you for your kind attention


Dave Matthews Feels The Bern

"..I feel like there's hope as long as some people are speaking to the real problem in this country," says Dave Matthews..."

Dave Matthews Band recently wrapped up their 24th consecutive U.S. summer tour, but as Matthews told Rolling Stone backstage at Farm Aid 30 earlier this month — before he performed with longtime friend and collaborator, Tim Reynolds — his mind has often been elsewhere. The singer has been following the Presidential race and also working through new material he's written for his band's next album. In a passionate conversation with Rolling Stone, Matthews explained why Bernie Sanders gives him hope and offered an update on the forthcoming DMB LP.


Do you support any particular candidate for President in the 2016 election?

When I hear someone speaking in terms of the workers rising up and the working people feeling like they have a voice, when I hear someone like Bernie Sanders talking, I think there's a hope. And I have no party affiliation [laughs]. I'm not saying with his half-a-million donators and supporters that have committed 30 bucks on average to his campaign, he can win without a Super PAC. But that's a guy who is talking about something real and that isn't insulted by being called a liberal. Someone could call me a liberal, and I'd say, "Thank you." Someone could call me a socialist, and I'd say, "I wish I was a socialist." I should get a shirt that says, "Tax me! Tax the fuck out of me!" At least we're hearing more of a voice from him by having him out there and speaking in complete sentences rather than a bunch of slogans that don't mean anything. So I feel like there's hope as long as some people are speaking to the real problem in this country.

We shouldn't look down on homeless people in this country or the mentally ill or the people who don't have work or migrant workers who want to come here and work hard for their futures, and they're trying to make something. That in the richest and the most powerful country in the world we can't house our own people and we can't take care of people who have fallen through the cracks and that we don't have a safety net to look after each other is fucking astounding.



Hillary Clinton vs. FOIA: The State Department Email Summaries Point To BIG TROUBLE AHEAD

".....What Democrats are only beginning to understand is that 35 FOIA lawsuits is a guarantee of weekly Clinton email-news bombs. This isn’t ending. The polls keep measuring Mrs. Clinton in theoretical matchups. The only matchup that matters is this one: Clinton vs. FOIA. And FOIA is crushing it...."

If Hillary Clinton loses this election, it won’t be because of Bernie Sanders. It won’t be because of Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush or Carly Fiorina. It will be because of a 1966 statute. The Clintons are street fighters, and over their scandal-plagued years they have mastered outwitting the press, Congress, the Justice Department, even special prosecutors. But the reason Mrs. Clinton isn’t winning her latest scandal is because she faces a new opponent—one she can’t beat: the Freedom of Information Act. Of all the Clinton email revelations this week, none compared with a filing by the State Department in federal Judge Emmet Sullivan’s court in Washington on Monday. The filing was a response to a FOIA lawsuit brought in March by conservative organization Citizens United. The group demanded documents from Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state related to the Clinton Foundation and to the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya. What the State Department revealed was a testament to the power of FOIA.

Congressional investigators can subpoena documents, but even if after long delays they get them, the investigators must trust that the agency handed over everything. The agency usually doesn’t. Under FOIA, by contrast, the agency is required by law to provide plaintiffs with a complete inventory and broad description of every document it has that pertains to the request—but is withholding. This is known as a Vaughn index. The State Department on Monday handed over its Vaughn index to Citizens United and, boy, are these email descriptions revealing. We find that the State Department has—but is not releasing—an email chain between then-Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills and a Clinton Foundation board member about the secretary of state’s planned trip to Africa. We find that the State Department has—but is not releasing—emails between Ms. Mills and foundation staff discussing “invitations to foreign business executives to attend the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative.” We find many undisclosed email chains in which State Department officials talk with Clinton Foundation officials about Bill Clinton speeches and Bill Clinton travel, including to events in North Korea and Congo.

Huma Abedin, a longtime confidante of Mrs. Clinton’s, was somehow allowed to work, simultaneously, at the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and as a consultant to Teneo—a consulting firm run by Clinton loyalist Doug Band. All three of Ms. Abedin’s hats come into play in an undisclosed email exchange regarding a 2012 dinner in Ireland. As the Washington Examiner reported in May, Mrs. Clinton received an award at the dinner from a Clinton Foundation donor. The ceremony was promoted by Teneo. Mrs. Clinton attended in her official capacity as secretary of state. Sort through that. We already know that the Clinton Foundation continued to take foreign money even while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state. We now know this was only the start of the entwining. These email summaries show that the Clinton Foundation was the State Department and the State Department was the Clinton Foundation. All one, big, seamless, Clinton-promoting entity. We would know far more if State released the full emails. It is citing personal privacy as one reason not to make some public. In others, it claims the emails “shed no light on the conduct of U.S. Government business.”



Hillary APPROVED Special Status For Aide Huma Abedin

Hillary Clinton greenlighted the controversial “special government employee” position for her top aide Huma Abedin, allowing her to both advise her at State Department while collecting a paycheck from an outside consulting firm and the Clinton Foundation. According to new documents obtained by conservative group Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the 2016 Democratic frontrunner was the immediate supervisor who approved the position on March 23, 2012, allowing her then-deputy chief of staff to work several jobs at once. That dual role, which wouldn't go into effect until June of that year, is currently under investigation by Senate Judiciary Committee Republican staff. Republicans and outside groups have openly wondered if the post presented a conflict of interest for the woman who is now vice chair of Hillary for America, or if her other jobs influenced what happened at State. Her lawyers have maintained that she did nothing wrong, noting that government workers have moved to SGE status before.

POLITICO reported Wednesday that the president of the outside company where Abedin would end up working later that year, Doug Band of Teneo, had contacted her that spring in April 2012, asking her for help getting a client appointed to a post on the President’s Global Development Council. In the email, he made sure Abedin knew the woman, Judith Rodin, president of The Rockefeller Foundation, was also a big supporter of the Clinton Foundation — another place Abedin would collect a paycheck after her SGE status was approved.


Clinton, in an interview with MSNBC on Sept. 4, said she "was not directly involved" with Abedin's job arrangement. "Do you think Donald Trump had a point in raising the question of whether it was appropriate for her to be taking a State Department salary and also be paid by an outside company closely associated with your husband, by you?" asked reporter Andrea Mitchell.

"Well, I was not directly involved in that, but everything that she did was approved under the rules as they existed by the State Department," Clinton said.

The document states the following:

“I certify that this is an accurate statement of the major duties and responsibilities of this person… and the position is necessary to carry out government functions for which I am responsible,” the form reads in a box labelled "supervisory certification."

“Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State,” reads the name in that box.

The signature, however, has been blanked out by the State Department.



BREAKING: Bernie UP 16 POINTS Against Hillary in NH; 13 w/o Biden!

New CNN/WMUR New Hampshire poll:

Sanders: 46%
Clinton: 30%
Biden: 13%

Without Biden:

Sanders: 49%
Clinton: 36%

CNN)Hillary Clinton trails Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the race for the Democratic nomination for president in New Hampshire, even if Vice President Joe Biden decides not to make a run for the White House, according to a new CNN/WMUR poll. Sanders has the backing of nearly half of those who say they plan to vote in the first-in-the-nation Democratic primary next year -- 46% support him -- while just 30% say they back Clinton. Another 14% say they would support Biden, 2% former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, 1% former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, and less than half of 1% back former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee or Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig. Clinton trails Sanders across most demographic groups, with broad gender and ideology divides bolstering Sanders' run. He holds 56% of male Democratic voters compared with just 20% who back her, while the two are much closer among women, 39% back Sanders, 37% Clinton. Likewise, Sanders holds a 56% to 30% lead among liberals, versus a 37% to 31% race among moderates.

And opinions about the Democratic race have solidified more so than on the Republican side of the coin. More than half of Democrats now say they have made up their minds or are leaning toward someone, compared with 41% on the Republican side. In most recent national polling, assessments of the Democratic race without Biden have boosted Clinton's standing well above that of Sanders, but in New Hampshire, Biden's backers aren't enough to push Clinton back to the top of the field. Though Clinton picks up more of Biden's supporters than Sanders when they are reallocated to their second choice, Sanders maintains control of the race, holding 49% to Clinton's 36%. And voters are split on who they think will ultimately win the state's primary, with 42% saying Clinton will and 42% saying Sanders will. Another 6% say Biden will, and no respondents chose any other candidates.



Sanders Within Striking Distance of Record With 1 MILLION GRASSROOTS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS

“......When you have one family spending more money than either the two major political parties, I think it is an example of what the Pope is talking about when he says money rules,” he said. “Money does rule, and that is why, in my view, we have got to overturn [the 2010 Supreme Court ruling] Citizens United and in fact move to public funding of elections so the wealthy and the powerful will not be able to buy elections......”

In coming days, Bernie Sanders is hoping to achieve a political milestone by showing the political world, from America’s grassroots to party bosses and pundits in Washington, that he has more than 1 million donations to his 2016 presidential campaign. Sanders sent out the word Wednesday morning in an e-mail blast saying he was within striking distance of the symbolic threshold of 1 million campaign contributors—who typically have given well under $100—and urging supporters to lift him across that line.

“We have a chance to make history,” his e-mail blast began, saying his insurgent campaign would be reporting its fundraising progress next week to the Federal Election Commission. “We will have to publicly report not just how much money our campaign has raised, but how many people have made a contribution to own a part of it.”

Without getting too far ahead of the news, there is a strong likelihood Sanders will reach that threshold, because his supporters have become the wild card in the Democratic Party’s nominating contest. Last week, he raised more than $1 million after a super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton launched an attack ad smearing his socialist philosophy.

“Having more than 1 million contributions would be absolutely, totally historic this early in an election,” Sanders said. “In the 2008 race, with all of his grassroots momentum and enthusiasm in his incredible campaign, President Obama did not reach more than 1 million contributions until after he won the Iowa caucuses.”

The political media, Sanders said, takes fundraising deadlines seriously—but not always for the right reasons. They typically equate having the biggest war chest with being the most popular or viable candidate—and the reverse. But they generally do not focus on the characteristics of the nation’s elite political donor class, which for the most part share a pro-corporate economic agenda but differ on social issues. Sanders wants to underscore that his campaign is the grassroots revolution America has been waiting for—a people-funded movement championing greater dignity and fairness for the middle- and working-classes, and for America’s poor.

“We’ll see just how many Wall Street execs contributed how many millions of dollars to prop up the corrupt system that helps them get rich,” he said. “What they’re not counting on is our political revolution. Let’s show that the number of people and the number of contributions people make is just as important as the money raised from the billionaire class.”



House Democrats Get Their Revenge By Telling Boehner HE'S ON HIS OWN WITH COUP

"...House Democrats have bailed Boehner out of numerous Republican caused crisis over the years, but Democrats were given nothing in return. House Democrats saved Boehner’s hide for the good of the country in the past, but the Ohio Republican’s ingratitude means that Democrats are more than happy to let Boehner figure this one out on his own...."

Speaker of the House John Boehner ignored House Democrats for years, and now they are not going to help him fight off a coup attempt from his fellow Republicans. House Minority Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) made the first comment by Democratic leadership on the potential toppling of Boehner, “It’s not our responsibility to try to solve their divisions.” The chairman of the Democratic Caucus, Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) let it be known that Democrats aren’t going to take sides in the Republican Party’s civil war, “Like the Syrian Civil War, I’m not sure it’s easy to discern which side anyone is on.”

If Democrats stay out of the vote to topple Boehner, the Speaker of the House might be seriously screwed. Boehner needs House Democrats to at least vote present on a measure to require him to vacate the chair because it would lower the number of votes required for the Speaker to keep his position. Democrats are in no hurry to help Boehner because he has ignored their help and ideas for years. Speaker Boehner only came knocking on the Democrats’ doors when he needed votes to pass bills that he didn’t have enough support on his own to pass.



The Email Story Returns for Hillary Clinton

Since she apologized for having a personal email system, Hillary Clinton has had a pretty good last two weeks. She's talked policy on health care; she's racked up key endorsements; she's had a long, serious conversation with the Des Moines Register's editorial board; and she's had fun on "Ellen" and Jimmy Fallon. So it looked like she was turning the corner -- until new stories surfaced about her email system. Here's the Washington Post, calling into question her initial explanation why she turned over her emails: "Throughout the controversy over her use of a private e-mail system while she was secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton has described her decision last year to turn over thousands of work-related e-mails as a response to a routine-sounding records request... They said the request was not simply about general record-keeping but was prompted entirely by the discovery that Clinton had exclusively used a private e-mail system." And here's Bloomberg: "The FBI has recovered personal and work-related e-mails from the private computer server used by Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, according to a person familiar with the investigation." Bottom line: This entire story has continued to drip-drip for her, and Clinton's next best chance to try to COMPLETELY put it behind her is next month during her testimony before the House Benghazi committee.

The two central email questions to consider

Yet given the drip-drip nature of the entire email story -- Will we see Hillary's private emails? Does her past words match up with the actual record of events? -- as well as the constant leaks, it's important to keep these two central questions in mind:

Did Hillary Clinton and her top aides knowingly and willfully mishandle classified information?

Did hackers or foreign governments obtain classified information from her private server?

The answers to those two questions are what the FBI is looking at. If "yes," then this email story could truly jeopardize her chances of winning the White House -- let alone the Democratic nomination. If "no," then it's more than possible she can put the story behind her. But these are the two questions we should all be asking. Of course, there's one other question she hasn't sufficiently answered: Beyond convenience, why did she set up this system?


Carly Fiorina's $4 BILLION JOB SCAM

"...Today she wants to spend half a trillion to boost our military. But during wartime, she lobbied hard for a bill that hustled the government out of billions with false promises of new jobs..."

Had Donald Trump been talking about Carly Fiorina’s essence rather than her appearance, he might have had a point. Not that it should matter one way or the other, Fiorina has an altogether pleasant physical presence, markedly more so than does Trump. But a blind person could see that Fiorina was the very face of corporate greed and income inequality during her five-year tenure as CEO of Hewlett-Packard. Take, for example, the cynically named Homeland Investment Act of 2004. The bill was passed as part of the equally cynically named American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 after intense lobbying with Hewlett-Packard in the forefront. The purported aim of the legislation was to generate economic growth and therefore jobs at home by according corporations a one year “tax holiday” on billions in overseas profits they had stashed offshore. The result was a $265 billion corporate giveaway.

The windfall was supposed to go toward research and development, and other job-creating endeavors. Instead, almost all of it was put into stock buybacks as a way of funneling cash to stockholders, these prominently including CEOs. Never mind that the bill prohibited such buybacks. And all that talk about putting more Americans to work did not stop the corporations from cutting as many as 100,000 American jobs in the name of even great profits. Hewlett-Packard saved more than $4.3 billion and put more than $4 billion into stock buybacks. It laid off 14,500 workers. To make it all even uglier, Hewlett-Packard lobbied for the Homeland Investment Act as a member of something called the Homeland Investment Coalition—this at a time when the “war on terror” was intensifying and the word “Homeland” made everyone think of national security. The Department of Homeland Security had been founded in 2002. We had invaded Iraq in March 2003. And there was Fiorina four months later, party to using “Homeland” to hustle the government out of billions with false promises of new jobs.

That may not be treason, but it is close enough to turn the stomach, coming in the midst of our longest war, when some of our very best young people were returning home in coffins. And it is no less ugly because numerous other corporations were part to the scam, these including fellow tech outfits such as Microsoft and Apple, as well as pharma giants such as Pfizer and Merck. What does make Fiorina worse than the other CEOs who pushed The Homeland Hustle is her appearance at this month’s Republican debate, during which she called for a $500 billion-plus boost in military spending. “We need the strongest military on the face of the planet, and everyone has to know it,” said this erstwhile perpetrator of a wartime con. One current presidential candidate who cannot take Fiorina to task is Hillary Clinton, who voted for the bill when she was in the Senate. Clinton did so when even the Bush administration saw through the scam and opposed the legislation. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers warned that the bill ”would not produce any substantial economic benefits.”


Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »