On the October 9 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly and Fox Business host Stuart Varney attacked Media Matters, labeling the organization a "hate site" and a "hate-filled propaganda machine." Media Matters has spent years chronicling rampant misinformation spread by the Fox hosts:

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/10/09/foxs-varney-and-oreilly-lash-out-at-hate-group/206085
(more)

TPM's Josh Marshall: Experts Agree Clinton Indictment "Chatter Is Just Plain Ridiculous." As reported by Talking Points Memo editor, Josh Marshall, law professors and former federal prosecutors have told him "to a person" that the chances of an indictment are a "far-fetched" idea and that "on the possibility of an indictment, most of this chatter is just plain ridiculous -- a mix of ignorance and tendentiousness":



[div style="border:1px solid #000000;" class="excerpt"] As a legal matter, the chances of Hillary Clinton facing any kind of indictment are very, very low.

Start with the fact that as far as we know, she is not actually even being investigated for anything, let alone facing a looming indictment. The simple facts, as we know them, just don't put her in line for an indictment. The first reason is the facts, which rest heavily on intent and reckless negligence. The second is tradition and DOJ regulations which make professional prosecutors very leery of issuing indictments that might be perceived or in fact influence an election. This was my thinking. But as the press coverage has become increasingly heated, I started trying to figure out if there was something I was missing - some fact I didn't know, some blindspot in my perception. So I've spoken to a number of law profs and former federal prosecutors - based on the facts we know now even from the most aggressive reporting. Not like, is this theoretically possible? Not, what the penalties would be if it happened. But is an indictment at all likely or is this whole idea very far-fetched. To a person, very far-fetched.

So why the press coverage? I think it's a combination of reasons. The most irreducible and perhaps most significant is simply prestige reporter derp and general ignorance of the legal system. Second is journalists' perennial inability to resist a process story. And third, let's be honest, wingnut page views. (TPM, 2/1/15)

NARUC Winter Meeting, Washington, D.C., February 16, 2016 — Wind energy installed more electric generating capacity last year than any other energy source in America.

The 8.6 gigawatts (GW) of wind power capacity installed last year surpassed the 7.3 GW of new solar photovoltaic capacity during 2015 and the 6 GW installed by natural gas, according to data from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and the recently released Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE) and Bloomberg New Energy and Finance (BNEF) 2016 Factbook. Wind accounted for more than 35 percent of new generating capacity, while all renewable resources together provided 68 percent of the new capacity, according to the Factbook.

“Wind’s growth is being propelled by cost reductions of two-thirds over the last six years, which now makes wind the lowest-cost source of new generation,” said Tom Kiernan, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), at the annual winter meeting of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), in the Renaissance Hotel, Washington, D.C..

“It’s one of the biggest, fastest, cheapest ways we can reduce U.S. carbon emissions, and the low-cost solution for power sector reductions. Utilities and other purchasers are turning to wind energy also because it provides stably-priced energy with no fuel price risk, and protects consumers by creating a more diverse energy portfolio,” Kiernan said.
(more)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Ash Carter used his personal email account for government business for nearly a year, until December 2015, when news reports revealed the practice, according to hundreds of Carter emails released by the Defense Department.

The 1,336 pages of emails and attachments from Carter's personal account were released late Friday in response to Freedom of Information Act requests by The Associated Press and other news organizations. None contained classified information, and most pertained to routine business such as scheduling and logistics.

The Pentagon has long banned the use of personal email for official business. Carter's use of his personal email account, starting when he took office in February 2015, was especially remarkable given the burst of public criticism that followed disclosures in March that Hillary Clinton had used a private email account exclusively to conduct government business while she was secretary of state.

When the New York Times was first to report Carter's use of a personal email account, on Dec. 17, Carter aides said his actions were a mistake and that he had quit the practice.
(more)

her willingness to corrupt our political system by allowing corporations to buy her and own her votes.

What I never knew is that there were so many sell outs and denial artists within our own party--who would cheerlead what we all once fought against. Democrats on DU were unified against the neocons and against corporate corruption. I always thought that it would be the Republicans and their followers who would lead us all into more wars and in the corporate takeover of our party.

It's hard not to love Bernie Sanders. He has proved to be a gifted and eloquent politician. He has articulated the raw and deep anger about the damage the big banks did to the economy and to so many people's lives. ....

~~

But it is not enough to be a candidate of anger. Anger is not a plan; it is not a reason to wield power; it is not a reason for hope. Anger is too narrow to motivate a majority of voters, and it does not make a case for the ability and experience to govern. ...

Hillary Clinton has an impressive command of policy, the details, trade-offs and how it gets done. It's easy to blame billionaires for everything, but quite another to know what to do about it. During his 25 years in Congress, Sanders has stuck to uncompromising ideals, but his outsider stance has not attracted supporters among the Democrats. Paul Krugman writes that the Sanders movement has a "contempt for compromise."

Every time Sanders is challenged on how he plans to get his agenda through Congress and past the special interests, he responds that the "political revolution" that sweeps him into office will somehow be the magical instrument of the monumental changes he describes. This is a vague, deeply disingenuous idea that ignores the reality of modern America. With the narrow power base and limited political alliances that Sanders had built in his years as the democratic socialist senator from Vermont, how does he possibly have a chance of fighting such entrenched power?

~~
~~

I keep hearing questions surface about her honesty and trustworthiness, but where is the basis in reality or in facts? This is the lingering haze of coordinated GOP smear campaigns against the Clintons — and President Obama — all of which have come up empty, including the Benghazi/e-mail whirlwind, which after seven GOP-led congressional investigations has turned up zilch.

Battlefield experience is hard-won, and with it comes mistakes but also wisdom. Clinton's vote authorizing Bush to invade Iraq 14 years ago was a huge error, one that many made, but not one that constitutes a disqualification on some ideological purity test.

~~
~~

Politics is a rough game, and has been throughout American history. Idealism and honesty are crucial qualities for me, but I also want someone with experience who knows how to fight hard. It's about social and economic justice and who gets the benefits and spoils of our society, and those who have them now are not about to let go of their share just because it's the right thing to do. And Clinton is a tough, thoroughly tested fighter.
(more)