The Hillary Clinton thread

[Rip]

What, no accompanying picture of her looking at a shelf?

[Pyperkub]

The inspector general for the intelligence community has informed members of Congress that some material Hillary Clinton emailed from her private server contained classified information, but it was not identified that way.

Because it was not identified, it is unclear whether Clinton realized she was potentially compromising classified information.

The IG reviewed a "limited sampling" of her emails and among those 40 reviewed found that "four contained classified [intelligence community] information," wrote the IG Charles McCullough in a letter to Congress.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/ ... index.html

Seems like the whole story was leaked by folks desiring to mislead people.

It appears that your reporters relied on leaks from the Gowdy committee to suggest that Clinton was involved in some kind of criminal malfeasance around the emails. The subsequent walk backs have not been effective, or encouraging. ..

...The reporters had what Mr. Purdy described as “multiple, reliable, highly placed sources,” including some “in law enforcement.” I think we can safely read that as the Justice Department.

The sources said not only was there indeed a referral but also that it was directed at Mrs. Clinton herself, and that it was a criminal referral. And that’s how The Times wrote it initially.

“We got it wrong because our very good sources had it wrong,” Mr. Purdy told me. “That’s an explanation, not an excuse. We have an obligation to get facts right and we work very hard to do that.”

By Friday afternoon, the Justice Department issued a terse statement, saying that there had been a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information, stating clearly that it was not a criminal referral. Mr. Purdy says he remains puzzled about why the initial inaccurate information was confirmed so clearly.

[Moliere]

Benghazi!!
Trailer for the new Michael Bay movie.

[Jaymann]

Benghazi!!
Trailer for the new Michael Bay movie.

Hey, hey hey! I was still playing that chess game!

[Rip]

Benghazi!!
Trailer for the new Michael Bay movie.

Trailer gave me goosebumps.

Will be seeing this for sure.

[El Guapo]

I assume that there will be a ton of negative movie-goer comments on rotten tomatoes when the movie (presumably) fails to show a cackling Hillary order the marines to stand down.

[Max Peck]

Is it time for Hillary Clinton to panic?

Benghazi! Falling approval ratings! Email-gate! Lately the headlines have been full of gloom for Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, prompting a spate of columns and commentary about whether her campaign is Officially in Trouble. "Both her and her campaign are in trouble," pollster John Zogby said in a recent television interview. "She is frankly sinking like a rock." But is it really so? Here are some reasons why - and why not - the former secretary of state should be concerned about her presidential prospects.

[El Guapo]

John Zogby thinks that Hillary is in trouble! I can't believe that he of all people would think that.

[AWS260]

John Zogby thinks that Hillary is in trouble! I can't believe that he of all people would think that.

Zogby!

[Rip]

Ronald Kessler, a former investigative journalist at the Washington Post, writes in “The First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal the Hidden Lives of the Presidents” about the alleged affair.

“He has a blonde, busty mistress, and she’s been code named Energizer by agents. This is unofficially, but that is what they call her…She comes in to the Chappaqua [New York] home whenever Hillary leaves,” Kessler told Talk Radio 1210 WPHT. “The details coordinate to make sure they don’t cross paths. She, unlike Hillary, is very nice to the agents. She’ll bring cookies.”

Kessler also alleged that Hillary Clinton treats the agents that protect her with “contempt.”

“In fact, she’s so abusive to agents, that being assigned to her detail is considered a form of punishment,” he told the talk radio station.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07 ... s-not-all/

[Rip]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiZFXkmofgI

[hepcat]

Ah, Mark Dice. The poor man's Jon Stewart. He's still trying to make a career out of the same schtick, eh?

[Moliere]

Howard Stern, Jimmy Kimmel, et al have these street interviews to show people saying silly things. Not really that interesting or surprising to see this one about Hillary.

[Kraken]

I've seen a couple of videos from this Dice character. Always makes me wonder how many smart and accurate interviews he had to dump for each moron he finds. Based on polling in general, 20% of the populace are morons about any given topic...I wonder if the ratio is richer on the beaches and boardwalks where he always does his schtick.

[hepcat]

Hillary posed for a selfie with Kim Kardashian during the Fox GOP debate last night. If I didn't have a reason to dislike her before, I certainly do now.

[geezer]

John Zogby thinks that Hillary is in trouble! I can't believe that he of all people would think that.

Zogby!

Benzogby!!

[Kraken]

Hillary posed for a selfie with Kim Kardashian during the Fox GOP debate last night. If I didn't have a reason to dislike her before, I certainly do now.

The more she acts to broaden her demographic, the more respect she loses. That might be something new to this election cycle if it proves to be true.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Dems near Clinton panic mode:

Democrats are worried that the furor surrounding Hillary Clinton’s private email server will be prolonged and intensified after her sudden move to hand it over to the FBI.

The Clinton campaign’s decision to give up the server and a thumb drive containing backup copies of emails left Democrats scratching their heads as to why the former secretary of State had resisted for months turning over the server.

Coupled with new polls that suggest Clinton is vulnerable, Democrats are nearing full-on panic mode.

“I’m not sure they completely understand the credibility they are losing, by the second,” said one Democratic strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “At some point this goes from being something you can rationalize away to something that becomes political cancer. And we are getting pretty close to the cancer stage, because this is starting to get ridiculous."

[El Guapo]

Why would democrats (as opposed to Clinton supporters) be panicking? This would probably be a panic moment if this was August 2016 (say). But if this blows up over the rest of this year, then it will just mean that someone other than Clinton would be nominated.

[Fitzy]

Why would democrats (as opposed to Clinton supporters) be panicking? This would probably be a panic moment if this was August 2016 (say). But if this blows up over the rest of this year, then it will just mean that someone other than Clinton would be nominated.

Who?

Sanders is the Democrat's equivalent of a Tea Party candidate. Chances are he can't win the general election. (unless running against the previously mentioned Tea Party candidate).

Plus there's the issue of how long does she hang on? How much damage does she to do to the other candidates in the mean time? I can see why democrats would be worried.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Why would democrats (as opposed to Clinton supporters) be panicking? This would probably be a panic moment if this was August 2016 (say). But if this blows up over the rest of this year, then it will just mean that someone other than Clinton would be nominated.

From the aforementioned article:

Even if Clinton is vulnerable, she remains the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic nomination.

Trippi said another Democrat might well get into the race, but that beating Clinton was a very different proposition.

“I don’t think Joe Biden has given up on his desire to run for president and I’m sure there are others out there who want to get into this race. I just don’t see a path yet for how you get to the nomination,” he said.

Trippi also raised the issue of whether a more left-wing candidate such as Warren could end up making a Clinton coronation more likely, rather than less likely, given that she would almost certainly divide the progressive vote with Sanders.

“Why is he now going to bow and curtsy to Elizabeth Warren?” Trippi asked. “And if he isn’t going to move aside, doesn’t she actually divide that 30 or 40 percent?”

That leaves many Democrats in a painful place: Believing that, in the end, Clinton will be the nominee but worrying that her vulnerabilities could negate the many advantages — from demographics to the electoral college map — that they believe the party nominee should enjoy.

[El Guapo]

Why would democrats (as opposed to Clinton supporters) be panicking? This would probably be a panic moment if this was August 2016 (say). But if this blows up over the rest of this year, then it will just mean that someone other than Clinton would be nominated.

Who?

Sanders is the Democrat's equivalent of a Tea Party candidate. Chances are he can't win the general election. (unless running against the previously mentioned Tea Party candidate).

Plus there's the issue of how long does she hang on? How much damage does she to do to the other candidates in the mean time? I can see why democrats would be worried.

Sanders could absolutely win a general election. He's a "severe liberal" (as Romney would put it), but he's credible enough - at most he's like a Scott Walker or a Ted Cruz-type (both of which might have a tougher time with moderates, but who could both credibly win a general election).

Plus I would expect that if Hillary implodes Biden (and possibly others) would probably enter the race.

I mean, it does concern me, and if Hillary's campaign is going to implode over this it would be better for it to be sooner rather than later, but panicking about this right now is silly.

[Jaymann]

No need for panic, it's all part of the master plan for team Bernie:

In a stroke of genius, Bernie starts paying his interns $15 per hour.
Bernie wins a few early primaries and starts building momentum.
Clinton fatigue sets in and the big money gravitates to Bernie.
The ABT (Anybody But Trump) faction of the Republicans kicks in to deny Trump the nomination.
Trump goes independent and siphons off the bigoted warmonger vote.
Bernie wins in a reverse-McGovern landslide.

[Grifman]

Hmm, a Trump 3rd party, Sanders, Republican X campaign three way could be very interesting. Could anyone win a majority of the Electoral College?

[Pyperkub]

Sanders is the Democrat's equivalent of a Tea Party candidate. Chances are he can't win the general election. (unless running against the previously mentioned Tea Party candidate).

Sanders is not the equivalent of a Tea Party candidate - he is very liberal, and much of his base is the base which is fed up with the corporate control of the Democratic Party, but his approach and stances are nowhere near as knee-jerk, destroy everything as the Tea Party is.

It's a subtle difference, but a very important one - Sanders is interested in actually Governing.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Sanders is the Democrat's equivalent of a Tea Party candidate. Chances are he can't win the general election. (unless running against the previously mentioned Tea Party candidate).

Sanders is not the equivalent of a Tea Party candidate - he is very liberal, and much of his base is the base which is fed up with the corporate control of the Democratic Party, but his approach and stances are nowhere near as knee-jerk, destroy everything as the Tea Party is.

It's a subtle difference, but a very important one - Sanders is interested in actually Governing.

Those who take socialism seriously disagree; they see Sanders as merely playing the role of political sheepdog, to help palliate disgruntled left-wing voters and keep them from rocking the boat for Hillary Clinton:

Ashley Smith, a board member of the International Socialist Review who also sat on the Sanders panel, has criticized Sanders not only for his generally conventional policy preferences but also for the likely political outcome of his campaign. “Sanders refused to consider an independent presidential campaign not because he had little chance of winning, but because he didn't want to compete for votes with the Democrats' eventual nominee,” Smith wrote in an article for the Socialist Worker, pointing out that insurgent Democratic campaigns frequently end up merely corralling critics of mainstream Democratic politicians into support for the eventual mainstream candidate. As Smith writes, “by steering liberal and left supporters into a Democratic Party whose policies and politics he claims to disagree with, Sanders—no matter how critical he might be of Hillary Clinton—is acting as the opposite of an ‘alternative.’”

This phenomenon is often referred to as “sheepdogging,” a term suggesting that candidates like Sanders simply function to capture left-wing unhappiness within the party and subdue it. (Indeed, it isn’t difficult to find images depicting Sanders as a literal sheepdog, herding voters toward Clinton, in online left-wing communities.) In a scathing piece for Black Agenda Report, the essential journal of radical black politics, Bruce A. Dixon writes, “Bernie Sanders is this election’s Democratic sheepdog…. Sheepdogs are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party.” The Sanders candidacy, according to Dixon, will simply redound to the benefit of inevitable nominee Clinton, and in so doing turn activist energy into just more politics as usual.

[Pyperkub]

Sanders is the Democrat's equivalent of a Tea Party candidate. Chances are he can't win the general election. (unless running against the previously mentioned Tea Party candidate).

Sanders is not the equivalent of a Tea Party candidate - he is very liberal, and much of his base is the base which is fed up with the corporate control of the Democratic Party, but his approach and stances are nowhere near as knee-jerk, destroy everything as the Tea Party is.

It's a subtle difference, but a very important one - Sanders is interested in actually Governing.

Those who take socialism seriously disagree; they see Sanders as merely playing the role of political sheepdog, to help palliate disgruntled left-wing voters and keep them from rocking the boat for Hillary Clinton:

Ashley Smith, a board member of the International Socialist Review who also sat on the Sanders panel, has criticized Sanders not only for his generally conventional policy preferences but also for the likely political outcome of his campaign. “Sanders refused to consider an independent presidential campaign not because he had little chance of winning, but because he didn't want to compete for votes with the Democrats' eventual nominee,” Smith wrote in an article for the Socialist Worker, pointing out that insurgent Democratic campaigns frequently end up merely corralling critics of mainstream Democratic politicians into support for the eventual mainstream candidate. As Smith writes, “by steering liberal and left supporters into a Democratic Party whose policies and politics he claims to disagree with, Sanders—no matter how critical he might be of Hillary Clinton—is acting as the opposite of an ‘alternative.’”

This phenomenon is often referred to as “sheepdogging,” a term suggesting that candidates like Sanders simply function to capture left-wing unhappiness within the party and subdue it. (Indeed, it isn’t difficult to find images depicting Sanders as a literal sheepdog, herding voters toward Clinton, in online left-wing communities.) In a scathing piece for Black Agenda Report, the essential journal of radical black politics, Bruce A. Dixon writes, “Bernie Sanders is this election’s Democratic sheepdog…. Sheepdogs are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party.” The Sanders candidacy, according to Dixon, will simply redound to the benefit of inevitable nominee Clinton, and in so doing turn activist energy into just more politics as usual.

Whether that's true of Sanders or not, I'd argue that's not what the Tea Party has done to the GOP however. Just look at the field.

[Moliere]

Anyone who can flip burgers on a grill must be a good Presidential candidate, right? She almost looks like she has seen a bbq before.

[Smoove_B]

She's in violation of NJAC 8:24-2.4 (c) 1 and I don't like it one bit. I don't know what kind of crazy laws they have in Iowa but in NJ that wouldn't be tolerated.

[LawBeefaroni]

I don't know what kind of crazy laws they have in Iowa but in NJ that wouldn't be tolerated.

I hear they let people pump their own gas too!


And you know I had to look it up, jerk.

8:24-2.4 Hygienic practices...

c) The following requirements shall apply to hair
restraints:
1. Except as provided in (c)2 below, food
employees shall wear hair restraints such as
hats, hair coverings or nets, beard restraints,
and clothing that covers body hair, that are
designed and worn to effectively keep their
hair from contacting exposed food, clean
equipment, utensils, linens; and unwrapped
single-service and single-use articles.

2. This subsection does not apply to food
employees such as counter staff who only
serve beverages and wrapped or packaged
foods, hostesses, and wait staff if they present
a minimal risk of contaminating exposed food;
clean equipment, utensils, and linens; and
unwrapped single-service and single-use
articles.

Her flipping partner may be in violation of NJAC 8:24-2.4 (a), but then I'm not a professional.

(a) The following requirements shall apply to eating,
drinking, or using tobacco:

1. Except as provided under (a)2 below, an
employee shall only eat, drink, or use any form
of tobacco, in compliance with the New Jersey
Smoke-Free Air Act at N.J.S.A. 26:3D-55
through 3D-64 and the rules promulgated
thereunder, in designated areas where the
contamination of exposed food, clean
equipment, utensils, linens, unwrapped single-
service and single-use articles, or other items
needing protection cannot result.

2. A food employee may drink from a closed
beverage container if the container is handled
to prevent contamination of the employee's
hands, the container, exposed food, clean
equipment, utensils, linens, and unwrapped
single-service and single-use articles.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Whether that's true of Sanders or not, I'd argue that's not what the Tea Party has done to the GOP however. Just look at the field.

Just to clarify, I wasn't really addressing the Tea Party comparison; just pointing out that plenty of left-wingers take issue with your statement that "Sanders is interested in actually Governing."

[Kraken]

Whether that's true of Sanders or not, I'd argue that's not what the Tea Party has done to the GOP however. Just look at the field.

Just to clarify, I wasn't really addressing the Tea Party comparison; just pointing out that plenty of left-wingers take issue with your statement that "Sanders is interested in actually Governing."

Well, I'm not a wingnut and neither are my best friends, but I have to wonder where they think they will go if Bernie doesn't herd them back to the Dems. It seems to me that trying to transform the party from within is more prudent than trying to defeat it from without.

As long as we have winner-take-all elections, we will have a two-party system.

[Defiant]

As long as we have winner-take-all elections, we will have a two-party system.

Ironic, considering Bernie isn't wasn't a member of either party.

[Fitzy]

Sanders is the Democrat's equivalent of a Tea Party candidate. Chances are he can't win the general election. (unless running against the previously mentioned Tea Party candidate).

Sanders is not the equivalent of a Tea Party candidate - he is very liberal, and much of his base is the base which is fed up with the corporate control of the Democratic Party, but his approach and stances are nowhere near as knee-jerk, destroy everything as the Tea Party is.

It's a subtle difference, but a very important one - Sanders is interested in actually Governing.

Yeah sorry. I don't think Sanders is using the tactics of the tea party. However, I do think he is as far left as the Tea Party is right. I just don't see socialism as a winning issue in the general election.

[Defiant]

However, I do think he is as far left as the Tea Party is right.

I would probably agree with this if it were clear to me exactly where exactly on the political map they are. It seems to me that apart from "Kick the bums out" there viewpoint has seemed inconsistent (or reactive) to me. Or maybe they're just too vaguely defined as a group.

[Max Peck]

However, I do think he is as far left as the Tea Party is right.

I would probably agree with this if it were clear to me exactly where exactly on the political map they are. It seems to me that apart from "Kick the bums out" there viewpoint has seemed inconsistent (or reactive) to me. Or maybe they're just too vaguely defined as a group.

I see it more as an issue of electability than position on the political spectrum. Would Sanders be any more likely to win the general election against a mainstream Republican candidate (barring an independent run by Trump) than would a Tea Partier against a mainstream Democrat? From my seat on the sidelines, it seems unlikely that either Sanders or a Tea Party candidate would be elected unless that was the actual choice. In that sense, comparing Sanders and the Tea Party makes sense (to me).

[Fitzy]

I would probably agree with this if it were clear to me exactly where exactly on the political map they are. It seems to me that apart from "Kick the bums out" there viewpoint has seemed inconsistent (or reactive) to me. Or maybe they're just too vaguely defined as a group.

I see it more as an issue of electability than position on the political spectrum. Would Sanders be any more likely to win the general election against a mainstream Republican candidate (barring an independent run by Trump) than would a Tea Partier against a mainstream Democrat? From my seat on the sidelines, it seems unlikely that either Sanders or a Tea Party candidate would be elected unless that was the actual choice. In that sense, comparing Sanders and the Tea Party makes sense (to me).

That's exactly what I was trying to say. Only in a more round about, never quite getting the point kind of way.

[Grundbegriff]

[hepcat]

Sanders is the Democrat's equivalent of a Tea Party candidate. Chances are he can't win the general election. (unless running against the previously mentioned Tea Party candidate).

Sanders is not the equivalent of a Tea Party candidate - he is very liberal, and much of his base is the base which is fed up with the corporate control of the Democratic Party, but his approach and stances are nowhere near as knee-jerk, destroy everything as the Tea Party is.

It's a subtle difference, but a very important one - Sanders is interested in actually Governing.

Yeah sorry. I don't think Sanders is using the tactics of the tea party. However, I do think he is as far left as the Tea Party is right. I just don't see socialism as a winning issue in the general election.

Sadly, this. While I agree more with what Bernie stands for than I do any of the other candidates, I honestly don't think the U.S. is ready for his kind of politics.

[Rip]

Hillary Clinton’s email scandal should disqualify her from the Oval Office.

At least so says former CIA operative and CNN national security analyst Bob Baer, who is not known for being a political partisan.

“If this was on her server and it got into her smart phone, there’s a big problem there,” Baer said during an appearance on CNN International Saturday, noting that the sensitivity of the information reportedly found on Clinton’s private server was likely more secret than what Edward Snowden pilfered.

“Seriously, if I had sent a document like this over the open Internet I’d get fired the same day, escorted to the door and gone for good — and probably charged with mishandling classified information,” Baer said.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/15/cnn-n ... ent-video/