If there was a place where Clinton’s message of building on the Obama legacy might click, might make converts, it was surely Minnesota, where unemployment had sunk below 4 percent and health-insurance coverage had reached 95 percent. It was surely Duluth and the Iron Range, with its critical mass of white, working-class voters holding union cards.
But that doesn’t appear to be happening. Instead, many voters are skeptical of just how good the Obama years have been for them. And they are disappointed in what they see as Clinton’s less-ambitious ideas about what is possible.
…Minnesota’s rapid transformation into a battleground echoes another thing that happened in Nevada: White voters there went for Sanders by two points; white voters who lacked college degrees went for him by eight points. Working-class voters who seemed friendly to Clinton are now seen as locked in for Sanders. Jeff Weaver, Sanders’s campaign manager, describes Minnesota as the place where the candidate will start winning the industrial Midwest.
8:52 PM EST
Integrity is a pass/fail kind of thing, and Clinton fails.
It’s really that simple.
She’s the wrong candidate.
5/21/2015 11:46 PM EDT
I am a life-long Democrat and a native of Arkansas. I know where the Clintons come from. Bill is classic poor white trash [exactly], with a veneer of education. Hillary is from somewhere up north and the personification of ambition and greed. Clem Snopes meets and marries Lady MacBeth. Two completely amoral persons. Only Chelsea turned out okay. I guess two negatives equals a plus. Note that Chelsea stays as far away from her parents as she can get. The fact that Hillary leads in the polls over not only the other Democratic candidates but the Republicans as well is appalling. This may be the nadir [exactly] of American politics. Surely there are better candidates out there in both parties than this mendacious woman. I have nothing against a female president. I would vote for Margaret Thatcher in a second if she were eligible. I would vote for Elizabeth Warren if she were to get the nomination. I would vote for Angela Merkel if she were eligible. Americans need to set a higher standard for presidential candidates. Persons who are almost surely guilty of felonies should not be considered.
Essay; Blizzard of Lies
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Published: January 8, 1996
Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar.
Hillary Clinton’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad answer on whether she’s ever lied
Lash out as she might, Clinton’s constantly changing email story is rapidly falling apart. First, Clinton claimed there was “no classified material” on her private server — which turned out to be untrue. Then she claimed none of the intelligence on her server was “classified at the time” — which also turned out to be untrue. Now, in a National Public Radio interview last week, Clinton said there was no information that was “marked classified.”
At a Democratic debate Wednesday evening, Clinton brushed off the question when asked by the moderator whether she would withdraw from the presidential race if faced with criminal charges.
Univision’s Jorge Ramos asked, “If you get indicted, will you drop out?” Clinton responded, “My goodness. That is not going to happen. I’m not even answering that question.”
She then added her now standard explanation that nothing she sent or received was marked classified at the time. While technically correct, the distinction appears misleading. The January 2009 classified information non-disclosure agreement signed by Clinton says she understood that classified information could be marked and unmarked, as well as verbal communications.
Classification is based on content, not markings.
The 22 “top secret” emails are not public…Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III notified Congress of the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies identifying “several dozen” additional classified emails — including specific intelligence known as “special access programs” (SAP).
“This was all planned in advance”…[Howard J. Krongard] says “the key” to the FBI’s investigation of Emailgate is determining how highly sensitive state secrets in the classified network, known as SIPRNet, ended up in Clinton’s personal e-mails.
“The starting point of the investigation is the material going through SIPRNet. She couldn’t function without the information coming over SIPRNet,” Krongard said. “How did she get it on her home server? It can’t just jump from one system to the other. Someone had to move it, copy it. The question is who did that?”
That reference to the drone strikes and [Cameron] Mr. Munter’s reaction included information that, like a couple of dozen other emails, should not have been sent through a nonsecured computer server, not even the State Department’s official though unclassified system, according to current and former officials from the department, Congress and law enforcement agencies.
The emails — as well as Mrs. Clinton’s initial decision to set up the server — are now the focus of investigations by the F.B.I., the inspector generals of the State Department and the intelligence agencies and by the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss inquiries involving classified information.
Twenty-two of the emails on Mrs. Clinton’s server have now been classified as “top secret” at the demand of the C.I.A. because they discuss the program to hunt and kill terrorist suspects using drone strikes, as well as other intelligence operations and sources. The emails contain direct and indirect references to secret programs, the officials said.
[Jacob] Mr. Sullivan was known as a principal conduit to the secretary. One career diplomat who served as an ambassador and who worked closely with Mrs. Clinton’s core staff at the time said that he did not have her email address and that if he needed to reach her, he went through Mr. Sullivan.
But government rules require senders of classified information to properly mark it. And the inspector general for the intelligence community has said that some of Clinton’s correspondence contained classified material when it was sent — even if it was not labeled.
At another town hall, on Feb. 18, a man in the audience pleaded, “Please, just release those transcripts so that we know exactly where you stand.” Mrs. Clinton had told him, “I am happy to release anything I have when everybody else does the same, because every other candidate in this race has given speeches to private groups.”
On Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton further complained, “Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else?”
The only different standard here is the one Mrs. Clinton set for herself, by personally learning $11 million in 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 for 51 speeches to banks and other groups and industries.
The president was wary about intervening, but Mrs. Clinton was persuasive. In the end, the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi left Libya a failed state.
Mrs. Clinton was won over. Opposition leaders “said all the right things about supporting democracy and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions, providing some hope that we might be able to pull this off,” said Philip H. Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. “They gave us what we wanted to hear. And you do want to believe.”
Why aren’t Hillary Clinton’s exaggerations of her life story bigger news?
Compare Clinton’s exaggerations — both the one we are sure of (Bosnia) and the one where recollections are hazy (Marines) — to the spate of recent stories about GOP front-runner Ben Carson and his recounting of his past.
Clinton’s campaign-finance hypocrisy
According to Hillary Clinton’s campaign Web site, “Hillary’s vision for America” includes “campaign finance reform” as an issue “she will fight for as president,” arguing that “we have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans.”
These are inspiring words as our democracy devolves into a plutocracy where the wealthiest have the power to select who governs us. But they are hard to square with the way Clinton is running her campaign.
Hillary Clinton Is Whitewashing the Financial Catastrophe
She has a plan that she claims will reform Wall Street—but she’s deflecting responsibility from old friends and donors in the industry.
By William Greider
YESTERDAY 3:11 PM
Hillary Clinton’s recent op-ed in The New York Times, “How I’d Rein In Wall Street,” was intended to reassure nervous Democrats who fear she is still in thrall to those mega-bankers of New York who crashed the American economy. Clinton’s brisk recital of plausible reform ideas might convince wishful thinkers who are not familiar with the complexities of banking. But informed skeptics, myself included, see a disturbing message in her argument that ought to alarm innocent supporters.
Candidate Clinton is essentially whitewashing the financial catastrophe. She has produced a clumsy rewrite of what caused the 2008 collapse, one that conveniently leaves her husband out of the story. He was the president who legislated the predicate for Wall
Street’s meltdown. Hillary Clinton’s redefinition of the reform problem deflects the blame from Wall Street’s most powerful institutions, like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, and instead fingers less celebrated players that failed. In roundabout fashion, Hillary Clinton sounds like she is assuring old friends and donors in the financial sector that, if she becomes president, she will not come after them.
The seminal event that sowed financial disaster was the repeal of the New Deal’s Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which had separated banking into different realms: investment banks, which organize capital investors for risk-taking ventures; and deposit-holding banks, which serve people as borrowers and lenders. That law’s repeal, a great victory for Wall Street, was delivered by Bill Clinton in 1999, assisted by the Federal Reserve and the financial sector’s armies of lobbyists. The “universal banking model” was saluted as a modernizing reform that liberated traditional banks to participate directly and indirectly in long-prohibited and vastly more profitable risk-taking.
Exotic financial instruments like derivatives and credit-default swaps flourished, enabling old-line bankers to share in the fun and profit on an awesome scale. The banks invented “guarantees” against loss and sold them to both companies and market players. The fast-expanding financial sector claimed a larger and larger share of the economy (and still does) at the expense of the real economy of producers and consumers. The interconnectedness across market sectors created the illusion of safety. When illusions failed, these connected guarantees became the dragnet that drove panic in every direction. Ultimately, the federal government had to rescue everyone, foreign and domestic, to stop the bleeding.
Yet Hillary Clinton asserts in her Times op-ed that repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it. She claims that Glass-Steagall would not have limited the reckless behavior of institutions like Lehman Brothers or insurance giant AIG, which were not traditional banks. Her argument amounts to facile evasion that ignores the interconnected exposures. The Federal Reserve spent $180 billion bailing out AIG so AIG could pay back Goldman Sachs and other banks. If the Fed hadn’t acted and had allowed AIG to fail, the banks would have gone down too.
These sound like esoteric questions of bank regulation (and they are), but the consequences of pretending they do not matter are enormous. The federal government and Federal Reserve would remain on the hook for rescuing losers in a future crisis. The largest and most adventurous banks would remain free to experiment, inventing fictitious guarantees and selling them to eager suckers. If things go wrong, Uncle Sam cleans up the mess.
Senator Elizabeth Warren and other reformers are pushing a simpler remedy—restore the Glass-Steagall principles and give citizens a safe, government-insured place to store their money. “Banking should be boring,” Warren explains (her co-sponsor is GOP Senator John McCain).
That’s a hard sell in politics, given the banking sector’s bear hug of Congress and the White House, its callous manipulation of both political parties. Of course, it is more complicated than that. But recreating a safe, stable banking system—a place where ordinary people can keep their money—ought to be the first benchmark for Democrats who claim to be reformers.
Actually, the most compelling witnesses for Senator Warren’s argument are the two bankers who introduced this adventure in “universal banking” back in the 1990s. They used their political savvy and relentless muscle to seduce Bill Clinton and his so-called New Democrats. John Reed was CEO of Citicorp and led the charge. He has since apologized to the nation. Sandy Weill was chairman of the board and a brilliant financier who envisioned the possibilities of a single, all-purpose financial house, freed of government’s narrow-minded regulations. They won politically, but at staggering cost to the country.
Weill confessed error back in 2012: “What we should probably do is go and split up investment banking from banking. Have banks do something that’s not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that’s not going to be too big to fail.”
John Reed’s confession explained explicitly why their modernizing crusade failed for two fundamental business reasons. “One was the belief that combining all types of finance into one institution would drive costs down—and the larger institution the more efficient it would be,” Reed wrote in the Financial Times in November. Reed said, “We now know that there are very few cost efficiencies that come from the merger of functions—indeed, there may be none at all. It is possible that combining so much in a single bank makes services more expensive than if they were instead offered by smaller, specialised players.”
The second grave error, Reed said, was trying to mix the two conflicting cultures in banking—bankers who are pulling in opposite directions. That tension helps explain the competitive greed displayed by the modernized banking system. This disorder speaks to the current political crisis in ways that neither Dems nor Republicans wish to confront. It would require the politicians to critique the bankers (often their funders) in terms of human failure.
“Mixing incompatible cultures is a problem all by itself,” Reed wrote. “It makes the entire finance industry more fragile…. As is now clear, traditional banking attracts one kind of talent, which is entirely different from the kinds drawn towards investment banking and trading. Traditional bankers tend to be extroverts, sociable people who are focused on longer term relationships. They are, in many important respects, risk averse. Investment bankers and their traders are more short termist. They are comfortable with, and many even seek out, risk and are more focused on immediate reward.”
Reed concludes, “As I have reflected about the years since 1999, I think the lessons of Glass-Steagall and its repeal suggest that the universal banking model is inherently unstable and unworkable. No amount of restructuring, management change or regulation is ever likely to change that.”
This might sound hopelessly naive, but the Democratic Party might do better in politics if it told more of the truth more often: what they tried do and why it failed, and what they think they may have gotten wrong. People already know they haven’t gotten a straight story from politicians. They might be favorably impressed by a little more candor in the plain-spoken manner of John Reed.
Of course it’s unfair to pick on the Dems. Republicans have been lying about their big stuff for so long and so relentlessly that their voters are now staging a wrathful rebellion. Who knows, maybe a little honest talk might lead to honest debate. Think about it. Do the people want to hear the truth about our national condition? Could they stand it?
C. Richard NY 15 hours ago
Really Gail. Who are the famous husbands/whatever behind:
etc. etc. etc. etc.
Yet you tout Hillary, whose resume includes:
- a mess of the job her husband gave her to reform health care
- a smoking ruin of the White House travel office
- snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in 2008 primary contest
- “ducking sniper fire in Kosovo” with her young daughter by her side
- totally mediocre record as carpetbagger Senator (not) from New York
- likewise as Secretary of State (aside: the only plausible reason Obama “asked” her to be SoS was to burnnish her foreign policy experience, of which she had none, due to a backroom deal with the Clintons in the face of who knows what threats.
There are so many reasons to wish she would just retire to a comfortable grandmotherhood The bad joke that she made Bill what he is is just cringeworthy.
Robert Earl here is an explanation:
Bill Clinton’s Loving Wife
If you happen to see the Bill Clinton 5-minute TV ad for Hillary in which he introduces the commercial by saying he wants to share some things we may not know about Hillary’s background, beware. As I was there for most of their presidency and know them better than just about anyone, I offer a few corrections.
Bill says: “In law school, Hillary worked on legal services for the poor.”
The facts are: Hillary’s main extra-curricular activity in law school was helping the Black Panthers, on trial in Connecticut for torturing and killing a federal agent. She went to court every day as part of a law student monitoring committee trying to spot civil rights violations and develop grounds for appeal.
Bill says: “Hillary spent a year after graduation working on a children’s rights project for poor kids.”
The facts are: Hillary interned with Bob Truehaft, the head of the California Communist Party. She met Bob when he represented the Panthers and traveled all the way to San Francisco to take an internship with him.
Bill says: “Hillary could have written her own job ticket, but she turned down all the lucrative job offers.”
The facts are: She flunked the DC bar exam; yes, flunked. It is a matter of record, and only passed the Arkansas bar. She had no job offers in Arkansas – none – and only got hired by the University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville because Bill was already teaching there. She did not join the prestigious Rose Law Firm until Bill became Arkansas Attorney General and was made a partner only after he was elected Arkansas Governor.
Bill says: “President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services Board of Directors and she became its chairman.”
The facts are: The appointment was in exchange for Bill’s support for Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy. Hillary then became chairman in a coup in which she won a majority away from Carter’s choice to be chairman.
Bill says: “She served on the board of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital.”
The facts are: Yes, she did. But her main board activity, not mentioned by Bill, was to sit on the Walmart board of directors for a substantial fee. She was silent about their labor and health care practices.
Bill says: “Hillary didn’t succeed at getting health care for all Americans in 1994, but she kept working at it and helped to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that provides five million children with health insurance.”
The facts are: Hillary had nothing to do with creating CHIP. It was included in the budget deal between Clinton and Republican Majority Leader Senator Trent Lott. I know; I helped negotiate the deal. The money came half from the budget deal and half from the Attorney Generals’ tobacco settlement. Hillary had nothing to do with either source of funds.
Bill says: “Hillary was the face of America all over the world.”
The facts are: Her visits were part of a program to get her out of town so that Bill would not appear weak by feeding stories that Hillary was running the White House. Her visits abroad were entirely touristic and symbolic and there was no substantive diplomacy on any of them.
Bill says: “Hillary was an excellent Senator who kept fighting for children’s and women’s issues.”
The facts are: Other than totally meaningless legislation like changing the names on courthouses and post offices, she has passed only four substantive pieces of legislation. One set up a national park in Puerto Rico . A second provided respite care for family members helping their relatives through Alzheimer’s or other conditions. And two were routine bills to aid 911 victims and responders which were sponsored by the entire NY delegation. Presently she is trying to have the US memorialize the Woodstock fiasco of 40 years ago.
Here is what bothers me more than anything else about Hillary Clinton: She has done everything possible to weaken the President and our country (that’s you and me!) when it comes to the war on terror.
1. She wants to close GITMO and move the combatants to the USA where they would have access to our legal system.
2. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qaeda phone calls to/from the USA .
3. She wants to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.
4. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of money transfers between suspected Al Qaeda cells and supporters in the USA .
5. She wants to eliminate the type of interrogation tactics used by the military & CIA where coercion might be used when questioning known terrorists even though such tactics might save American lives.
One cannot think of a single bill Hillary has introduced or a single comment she has made that would tend to strengthen our country in the War on Terror. But, one can think of a lot of comments she has made that weaken our country and make it a more dangerous situation for all of us. Bottom line: She goes hand in hand with the ACLU on far too many issues where common sense is abandoned.
Share this with every democrat you know. Ask them to prove Dick Morris wrong. Think about it — Dick Morris has said all of this openly, thus if he were not truthful he’d be liable for defamation of character! And you better believe Hillary would sue him.
Is America ready for a woman president?
Perhaps we are, but definitely NOT THIS one!
flojo san diego, ca 8 hours ago
the smoking gun came in the form of emails to her daughter and to two foreign officials that Bengazi was the result of a terrorist attack. the duties of the secretary do not include any responsibility for our security at home or in our embassies. likewise, it is not our job to rescue a drowning child or to call 911 when there is a car accident or a wounded dog lying on the street.
What kind of monster looks away and does nothing then lies about it? This is hillary’s crime! This was her chance to show real leadership and she failed miserably. Despite the fumbling of the Benghazi committee it doesn’t change the fact that she never lifted a finger to help the victims knowing they were being murdered. Someday life will hand her a bill and she won’t be able to pay it…not in this world anyway.
Robert Maine 7 hours ago
I knew I could count on you, Maureen, to throw some badly needed cold water the post hearing Hillary love fest. As you point out, this is where she’s at her best: in a hearing room, being bullied by a bunch of ill-prepared, less intelligent, white Republican men. The very situation makes her a victim, and she has become a master at standing up to them in a way that makes her seem sympathetic (not hard to do with such inept interlocutors). Her second most comfortable scenario is the political debate, where she has had more experience (and, no doubt, more high level coaching) than any other American politician.
Following these two performances (and that’s what they were), increasing numbers of hitherto discerning people seem to be lining up to declare her Madame President, all because the woman is a convincing actor. Apparently forgetting her vote on Iraq, the fact that her four major contributors are Wall St banks, her lifestyle of hobnobbing with the 1%, her unwillingness to reinstate Glass-Segall, her flip-flops on gay marriage, Keystone and TPP, etc. Suddenly, none of these things is important, because she is a good actor, and gave a couple of good performances. People seem to want her because she can appear tough and presidential, forgetting that she would put those formidable skills to work for the 1%, not for them. You’d think the voters had been fooled enough by politicians who give pandering stump speeches and then, when elected, do the opposite.
As a senator, she made a political vote to let W. invade Iraq. As much homework as she did to get ready for the Libya committee, she chose not to do her homework on Iraq in 2002 — neglecting to read the sketchy National Intelligence Estimate. She didn’t want to seem like a hippie flower girl flashing a peace sign after 9/11.
Then she urged President Obama to help topple Muammar el-Qaddafi without heeding the painful lesson of Iraq — that if America went into another nebulously defined mission, there would have to be a good plan to prevent the vacuum of power being filled by militant Islamic terrorists.
Since she was, as her aide Jake Sullivan put it, “the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya,” one of the Furies, along with Samantha Power and Susan Rice, who had pushed for a military intervention on humanitarian grounds, Hillary needed to stay on top of it.
She had to be tenacious in figuring out when Libya had deteriorated into such a caldron of jihadis that our ambassador should either be pulled out or backed up. In June 2012, the British closed their consulate in Benghazi after their ambassador’s convoy was hit by a grenade. A memo she received that August described the security situation in Libya as “a mess.”
When you are the Valkyrie who engineers the intervention, you can’t then say it is beneath you to pay attention to the ludicrously negligent security for your handpicked choice for ambassador in a lawless country full of assassinations and jihadist training camps.
According to Republicans on the committee, there were 600 requests from J. Christopher Stevens’s team to upgrade security in Benghazi in 2012 and 20 attacks on the mission compound in the months before the Sept. 11 siege.
In a rare moment of lucidity, Representative Mike Pompeo of Kansas said to Clinton: “You described Mr. Stevens as having the best knowledge of Libya of anyone,” but “when he asked for increased security, he didn’t get it.”
As Hillary kept explaining, that job was the province of the “security professionals,” four of whom were later criticized for providing “grossly inadequate” security at the Benghazi compound and removed from their posts.
…She seemed oddly detached about Stevens, testifying that he didn’t have her personal email or cell number, “but he had the 24-hour number of the State Operations in the State Department that can reach me 24/7.”
There were no call logs of talks between Stevens and Clinton, and she said she could not remember if she ever spoke to him again after she swore him in in May. “I was the boss of ambassadors in 270 countries,” she explained.
But Libya was the country where she was the midwife to chaos. And she should have watched that baby like the Lady Hawk she is.
Hillary Clinton: The fat cats’ favorite candidate
By Post Editorial Board
October 25, 2015 | 9:45pm
Fire-breathing scourge of Wall Street on the campaign trail — and reliable friend of Wall Street in the boardroom. That’s Hillary Clinton — and the big-money crowd thinks it’s in on the game.
For all her populist rhetoric against hedge-funders and the like, Clinton has received more donations from CEOs than any candidate in the GOP — you know, the party of the greedy rich.
More than 760 of Clinton’s presidential donors have listed their occupation as CEO or some variation, according to a Big Crunch analysis of federal election forms.
That’s as many as have given to Republican hopefuls Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz combined.
And it doesn’t even include people like hedge-fund CEO Robert Mercer, who prefers to list himself as a “financial consultant” — or those who’ve given instead to pro-Hillary super-PACs. (Or all the folks who’ve bought goodwill over the years by giving to the Clinton Foundation.)
Surprising? No. We’re talking about a woman who’s made millions from hefty six-figure fees for speeches to, among others, groups headed by those same CEOs.
She’s also raked in many millions more for her campaign from corporate lawyers, lobbyists and bankers.
Still, that hasn’t stopped her from declaring, “Wall Street, you’ve had your president. Now we need a president for Main Street.”
And never mind what that seems to imply about the guy in the Oval Office now. Or that just one of her speeches costs four times the average American’s salary.
Wall Street gets it. The fat cats figure she’s just saying what she must to placate her party’s Sanders-Warren hard-left wing.
As one hedge-fund manager told Politico: “Nobody takes it like she’s going after them personally.”
It’s just Hillary being Hillary. Which is to say, all things to all people.