The 2016 Presidential Race Begins: Iowa caucuses are today

The first step of the 2016 election starts today.

Video:

The Story via Fox News:

As Iowans prepare to cast the first votes in the presidential nominating process Monday, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders hoped to defy the polls and pull off upset victories in Monday night’s caucuses.

After months of campaigning and more than $150 million spent on advertising, the race for supremacy in Iowa is close in both parties.

Among Republicans, the latest polls show real estate billionaire Donald Trump holding a slim edge over Cruz. Cruz, who became the first major candidate from either party to enter the presidential race 315 days ago, has pinned his hopes to a sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation. Cruz has also modeled his campaign after past Iowa winners, visiting all of the state’s 99 counties and courting influential evangelical and conservative leaders.

“If you had told me 10 months ago that the day before the Iowa caucuses we’d be in a statistcal tie for first place I would have been thrilled and exhilarated,” Cruz told Fox News late Sunday.

The Republican caucus is also the first test of whether Trump can turn the legion of fans drawn to his plainspoken populism into voters. The scope of the billionaire’s organization in Iowa is a mystery, though Trump himself has intensified his campaign schedule during the final sprint, including a pair of rallies Monday.

I predict that Trump will come in first, with Cruz second and Rubio third on the Republican side. On the Democrat side, I think that one could be a surprise. Sanders has a good deal of support, while Hillary has the name and the money. So, that one is a toss. It will be interesting to see to say the least.

Bernie Sanders can hang it up, NYT endorses Hillary Clinton

I figured this was coming:

For the past painful year, the Republican presidential contenders have been bombarding Americans with empty propaganda slogans and competing, bizarrely, to present themselves as the least experienced person for the most important elected job in the world. Democratic primary voters, on the other hand, after a substantive debate over real issues, have the chance to nominate one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.

Hillary Clinton would be the first woman nominated by a major party. She served as a senator from a major state (New York) and as secretary of state — not to mention her experience on the national stage as first lady with her brilliant and flawed husband, President Bill Clinton. The Times editorial board has endorsed her three times for federal office — twice for Senate and once in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary — and is doing so again with confidence and enthusiasm.

Mrs. Clinton’s main opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist, has proved to be more formidable than most people, including Mrs. Clinton, anticipated. He has brought income inequality and the lingering pain of the middle class to center stage and pushed Mrs. Clinton a bit more to the left than she might have gone on economic issues. Mr. Sanders has also surfaced important foreign policy questions, including the need for greater restraint in the use of military force.

In the end, though, Mr. Sanders does not have the breadth of experience or policy ideas that Mrs. Clinton offers. His boldest proposals — to break up the banks and to start all over on health care reform with a Medicare-for-all system — have earned him support among alienated middle-class voters and young people. But his plans for achieving them aren’t realistic, while Mrs. Clinton has very good, and achievable, proposals in both areas.

The third Democratic contender, Martin O’Malley, is a personable and reasonable liberal who seems more suited for the jobs he has already had — governor of Maryland and mayor of Baltimore — than for president. Source: Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination – The New York Times

It is basically over now for Barnie; the NYT carries a good deal of weight with the establishment left. I just do not see Barnie Sanders beating Clinton now.

Others: JustOneMinute, Politico, The Daily Caller, Advocate, Business Insider, The Slot, Mediaite, New York’s PIX11, The Week and Washington Post

Audio: Obama talks about Iowa, Hillary, Sanders and 2016

The full audio:

The Story via Politico:

Barack Obama, that prematurely gray elder statesman, is laboring mightily to remain neutral during Hillary Clinton’s battle with Bernie Sanders in Iowa, the state that cemented his political legend and secured his path to the presidency.

But in a candid 40-minute interview for POLITICO’s Off Message podcast as the first flakes of the blizzard fell outside the Oval Office, he couldn’t hide his obvious affection for Clinton or his implicit feeling that she, not Sanders, best understands the unpalatable pragmatic demands of a presidency he likens to the world’s most challenging walk-and-chew-gum exercise.

“[The] one thing everybody understands is that this job right here, you don’t have the luxury of just focusing on one thing,” a relaxed and reflective Obama told me in his most expansive discussion of the 2016 race to date.

Iowa isn’t just a state on the map for Obama. It’s the birthplace of his hope-and-change phenomenon, “the most satisfying political period in my career,” he says — “what politics should be” — and a bittersweet reminder of how far from the garden he’s gotten after seven bruising years in the White House.

The caucuses have a fierce-urgency-of-now quality as Obama reckons with the end of his presidency — the kickoff of a process of choosing a Democratic successor he hopes can secure his as-yet unsecured legacy, to keep Donald Trump or Ted Cruz or somebody else from undoing much of what he has done. And he was convinced Clinton was that candidate, prior to the emergence of Sanders, friends and associates have told me over the past 18 months.

“Bernie came in with the luxury of being a complete long shot and just letting loose,” he said. “I think Hillary came in with the both privilege — and burden — of being perceived as the front-runner. … You’re always looking at the bright, shiny object that people haven’t seen before — that’s a disadvantage to her.”

He also spoke of Bernie Sanders:

Obama didn’t utter an unkind word about Sanders, who has been respectfully critical of his administration’s reluctance to prosecute Wall Street executives and his decision to abandon a single-payer health care system as politically impractical. But he was kinder to Clinton. When I asked Obama whether he thought Sanders needed to expand his horizons, if the Vermont senator was too much a one-issue candidate too narrowly focused on income inequality, the presidente didn’t dispute the assertion.

Gesturing toward the Resolute Desk, with its spread-winged eagle seal, first brought into the Oval Office by John F. Kennedy, Obama said of Sanders: “Well, I don’t want to play political consultant, because obviously what he’s doing is working. I will say that the longer you go in the process, the more you’re going to have to pass a series of hurdles that the voters are going to put in front of you.”

Then he added: “As you’ll recall, I was sitting at my desk there just a little over a week ago … writing my State of the Union speech, and somebody walks in and says, ‘A couple of our sailors wandered into Iranian waters’” — and here he stopped to chuckle in disbelief — “that’s maybe a dramatic example, but not an unusual example of the job.”

As much as I hate to say it; President Obama is correct about that one. The office of the President of the United States is a very difficult job and it requires someone who can handle the job. While Bernie Sanders might be a respectable person and all; if I were voting in a Democratic Primary, there is no way that I would vote for Bernie Sanders, I would most likely vote for Hillary Clinton. Because she has already been there and she seems, for a Democrat, a bit more reasonable, than Bernie Sanders.

Needless to say, being an ideologue is great; if you are an activist or even maybe a Senator. However, when you are the commander and chief, that is a whole other ballgame and there is a certain amount of pragmatism is required in that office, if you actually want to succeed at the job. You have to remember, when you are President; you are President of the people of the United States of America, not just the President of the people who voted for you. You have to take into account everyone, not just those who voted for you. This is why I am not too keen on Ted Cruz; he is an extreme ideologue on the right, where Bernie Sander is an extreme ideologue on the left.

This is where I think Donald Trump might just be the more pragmatic candidate, who might just be able to get things done in DC and put aside some of this partisan rancor that has become so terrible under Bush and Obama. Now, if we could just work on his humility and get him to stop retweeting stuff like this here.

Other Bloggers: Vox, The Daily Beast, USA Today, Yahoo Politics, John Hawkins’ Right Wing News, Mother Jones, Talking Points Memo, Hot Air, The Daily Caller, Washington Post, ABC News, Shakesville, Slantpoint and The Week – Via Memeorandum

Bernie Sanders and DNC reach “an accord”

Well, that was quick. I guess the lawsuit and big dust up were avoided.

Washington Post reports:

The presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont filed a lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee on Friday, arguing that the party had unfairly suspended the campaign’s access to key voter information. After several tense hours, both sides announced a deal had been reached.

The suit came shortly after campaign manager Jeff Weaver acknowledged at a Washington news conference that Sanders staffers had improperly reviewed information gathered by rival Hillary Clinton earlier in the week. But he accused the DNC of overreacting to the breach by suspending the Sanders campaign’s ability to access the computer system containing information about Democratic-leaning voters, including data the campaign has gathered about its own supporters.

After midnight, Sanders and the DNC put out statements that both indicated the impasse had been resolved but that put remarkably different spins on the outcome. Sanders’s campaign said the DNC had “capitulated” and that Sanders would soon regain access to the data. The DNC said what happened was “completely unacceptable” and that it would continue to investigate the circumstances even as Sanders regained access to the valuable information.

I have two theories about why the DNC decided to settle. One is that the DNC is about broke and going to war with Sanders, who is obviously no pauper; would have bankrupted the Party. Two, is that if Sanders had been shut out; He would have ran as an independent, which would have resulted in chaos and would have ruined the Democrats ability to even win the election – thereby ruining Hillary’s chances. You have to realize, Bernie Sanders is getting the support of the disillusioned Obama supporters who feel that Obama and Democrats sold them up the river.

Believe me when I tell you this; I know all about that feeling of being sold up the river. I have mentioned this before; but, my Father is a retired G.M. worker and a member of the local UAW chapter here in Detroit. Back in the 1990’s when NAFTA was signed into law, by Bill Clinton; there were many people around these parts, who felt that the Democrats and Clinton, had sold them up the river. I and my family were one of those people.

So, I totally understand how they feel. I also know that this feeling was one of the motivations for me giving up on the Democratic Party. I mean, I honestly felt sold up the river; as a white guy, of southern heritage being called a “slope-headed racist,” It just made me think that my family and myself were sold up the river at the cost of getting Obama elected. Which is pretty ironic, considering the fact that Obama has basically sold most of the people, that elected him, up the river – in the name of global trade.

Which is precisely why I am at the political stance that I am now. I am conservative on social issues: Abortion is murder, homosexuality is morally wrong. You have to realize, that back, as recent as 30 years ago; these positions were pretty much mainstream Democratic Party positions; needless to say, that has changed, quite a bit in the last 30 years. The question is: What changed? It was not me, that is for sure. What changed: They did. The Democrats changed, not me. They are the ones who moved further to the left; not me.

I also, since filing for bankruptcy in 2004; have become a bit of a fiscal conservative too. Losing one’s livelihood will do that to a guy.

Either way, I am glad they settled; I would like to see Hillary fight for her quest to become the DNC’s nominee. To see it just handed to her, is against what that party supposedly stands for.

Others: Associated Press, TalkLeft and Power Line (via Memeorandum)

The DNC figures out a way to kneecap Bernie Sanders

I figured this was coming, I just didn’t know how they were going to do it.

Washington Post reports:

Video:

Story:

Officials with the Democratic National Committee have accused the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders of improperly accessing confidential voter information gathered by the rival campaign of Hillary Clinton, according to several party officials.

Jeff Weaver, the Vermont senator’s campaign manager, acknowledged that a staffer had viewed the information but blamed a software vendor hired by the DNC for a glitch that allowed access. Weaver said one Sanders staffer was fired over the incident.

The discovery sparked alarm at the DNC, which promptly shut off the Sanders campaign’s access to the strategically crucial list of likely Democratic voters.

The DNC maintains the master list and rents it to national and state campaigns, which then add their own, proprietary information gathered by field workers and volunteers. Firewalls are supposed to prevent campaigns from viewing data gathered by their rivals.

NGP VAN, the vendor that handles the master file, said the incident occurred Wednesday while a patch was being applied to the software. The process briefly opened a window into proprietary information from other campaigns, said the company’s chief, Stu Trevelyan. He said a full audit will be conducted.

The DNC has told the Sanders campaign that it will not be allowed access to the data again until it provides an explanation as well as assurances that all Clinton data has been destroyed.

Having his campaign cut off from the national party’s voter data is a strategic setback for Sanders — and could be a devastating blow if it lasts. The episode also raises questions about the DNC’s ability to provide strategic resources to campaigns and state parties.

It looks like the DNC is bound and determined to have Hillary Clinton be the nominee for President of the United States for the Democrats and they will stop at nothing to get her elected; including have a vendor purposely allow the Sanders campaign access a database, then penalize him for it.

It is a passive way to getting the old man to just leave the race, without resorting to being rude or worse, being labelled an anti-Semite. However, don’t you think that the Jewish media isn’t watching this; because they are, very much so. Needless to say, this should be very, very, interesting to watch play out in the media.

Something tells me however, that Sanders won’t reach for the Semite card at all. This is not to say that some of his surrogates will not. As you see the video above, lawsuits are already being threatened. As they say in lawyer speak, discovery is a bitch.

Others: Talking Points Memo, ABC News, blog.ngpvan.com, Bloomberg Business,Guardian, Engadget, addictinginfo.org, Hot Air, Politico, New York Times, Common Dreams,Syracuse Post-Standard, CNN, The Daily Caller, Raw Story, Jewish Telegraphic Agency,NBC News, Shakesville, Althouse, abc13.com, Business Insider and U.S. Uncut (Via Memeorandum)

Is the DNC trying to stifle the Democratic debates?

It sure seems that way.

The neocon Weekly Standard writes:

Bill Hyers, a senior strategist in the Martin O’Malley presidential campaign, is calling the new Democratic debate schedule “less democratic.”

“By inserting themselves into the debate process, the DNC has ironically made it less democratic. The schedule they have proposed does not give voters—nationally, and especially in early states—ample opportunity to hear from the Democratic candidates for President. If anything, it seems geared toward limiting debate and facilitating a coronation, not promoting a robust debate and primary process,” Hyers writes.

“Rather than giving the appearance of rigging the process and cutting off debate, the DNC should take themselves out of the process. They should let individual and truly independent news, political, and community organizations create their own debates and allow the Democratic candidates for President to participate. There is a long, proud tradition of voters in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire getting to hear early and often from candidates for President—the DNC schedule kills that tradition, and we shouldn’t stand for it.”

The Democrats have only six debates scheduled.

There is a reason for this; and I have to explain this one a bit. There are two factions in the Democratic Party, as in the Republican Party. There is the grassroots left, which is made of the normal people, who actually vote and are involved with progressive politics on the ground and the other faction —- the establishment or corporate left.

Hillary Clinton is the establishment candidate, she is seen as the electable one for the Democratic Party. She has money, funding and name recognition. Needless to say, the Party will be totally behind her. For the record, Barack Obama was seen as a grassroots candidate, when he was running. However, as time went on, it was very clear to many on the left; that he was just another establishment type.

Bernie Sanders however, is a grassroots progressive, he is not a part of the corporate left or establishment left. Bernie Sanders has tapped into the grassroots left, who feel that the Democratic Party establishment has sold them out. Donald Trump is doing the same very thing in the Republican Party with the conservative grassroots.

Martin O’Malley has a point and a very good one. However, if you think that the Democratic Party is going to stand by and risk loosing an election to some no-name candidate or some grassroots candidate, you are very highly mistaken. The Democrats have much to lose in the election. They already know that they are going to take hits in some red states; so, they are going to do everything they can to put forward the best candidate for the general election. The Democrats learned their lessons from 1968 and they are not about to implode again like they did then.

Bernie Sanders will not make it to the general election, I can assure you of that. The gatekeepers in that party will see to that; you watch and see. Neither will Donald Trump, as the GOP has too much to lose; they screwed it up last time, they will not do it again.

Two reasons why Hillary Clinton will never be President

For one, Hillary Clinton seems to want to be able to control the press or at least, her press.

The story via CNN:

Gorham, New Hampshire (CNN)Hillary Clinton’s campaign used a rope to keep journalists away from the candidate on Saturday while she walked in this small town’s July Fourth parade.

The ensuing photos of journalists, including a CNN reporter, being somewhat dragged by a thin white rope as Clinton walked down Main Street caught fire online.

Initially, Clinton’s campaign was not using a rope to corral the press, allowing journalists to get close to her and ask her questions.

But campaign aides said they brought the rope out because they feared the press scrum of around a dozen reporters and photojournalists would obstruct the view of New Hampshire voters attending the parade.

The rope was held by two of Clinton’s advance staffers, who at times walked ahead of reporters, seemingly pulling them along the parade route.

“You guys, we are going to do 10 yards and a little more organized,” said one of the advance staffers after breaking out the rope.

In explaining why they were using the rope, the staffer said, “so maybe a voter could see her, that kind of thing.”

Clinton’s Secret Service detail also urged journalists to abide by the mobile rope line.

“You are not going fast enough,” one agent said when the rope tightened around a reporter’s waist.

When Hillary Clinton is not trying to control the press covering her; she is outright lying about her record. Case in point:

Via Politico:

HANOVER, N.H. — Hillary Clinton arrived in this liberal New England enclave with a message for anyone thinking about voting for Sen. Bernie Sanders of next-door Vermont: “I take a backseat to no one when you look at my record in standing up and fighting for progressive values.”

Sanders, according to the latest New Hampshire polls, is trailing Clinton by just eight points. And at the first stop of her two-day swing through the early-voting state, Clinton highlighted contrasts with her main Democratic rival without mentioning him by name.

“We have to take on the gun lobby one more time,” said Clinton, speaking without notes or a teleprompter in front of a crowd of about 850 Dartmouth students and native Granite Staters. “The majority of gun owners support universal background checks, and we have to work very hard to muster the public opinion to convince Congress that’s what they should vote for.”

She said it was the “height of irresponsibility not to talk about it.” Sanders, who represents a pro-gun constituency, has voted against the Brady Bill, which required federal background checks for gun purchasers, as well as other major bills supported by gun-control advocates.

She also signaled that she would have no problem defending President Barack Obama’s domestic agenda.

Well, there is only one problem with that little statement, it, like most everything that comes out of Hillary Clinton’s mouth, is a bald-faced lie. Ron Chusid at Liberal Values Blog explains and I am going to quote the thing, links and all. Hopefully, he does not mind:

Hillary Clinton said, “I take a backseat to no one when you look at my record in standing up and fighting for progressive values.” Quite a lie, but not surprising coming from a candidate who the majority of voters agree is dishonest in recent polls.

Clinton believes she needs to make such false claims now that Bernie Sanders is posing a serious threat in Iowa and New Hampshire, but she will hardly convince Sanders supporters that she has ever been progressive. The former Goldwater Girl has maintained conservative values throughout her career, except that Barry Goldwater was more socially liberal than Clinton.

In February Truth-Outhad a post on Five Reasons No Progressive Should Support Hillary Clinton, which is worth reading–and there are several more reasons besides what is in that article.

Besides the economic differences which have dominated the campaign so far, it was Sanders who, reviewing the same intelligence as Hillary Clinton, voted against the Iraq war. Hillary Clinton not only voted for the war, she went to the right of other Democrats who voted to authorize force in falsely claiming there was a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. She showed she did not learn from her mistake when she continued to advocate for increased military intervention as Secretary of State.

In an era when the nation is becoming more liberal on social issues, Hillary Clinton’s long-standing conservatism on social/cultural issues also make her too conservative to be the Democratic nominee. This was seen when she was in the Senate when she was a member of The Fellowship, being influenced on social issues by religious conservatives such as Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback. Clinton’s affiliation with the religious right was seen in her support for the Workplace Religious Freedom Act , a bill introduced by Rick Santorum andopposed by the American Civil Liberties Union for promoting discrimination and reducing access to health care, along with her promotion of restrictions on video games and herintroduction of a bill making flag burning a felony. Her social conservatism is also seen in her weak record on abortion rights, such as supporting parental notification laws andstigmatizing women who have abortions with the manner in which she calls for abortion to be “safe, legal and rare.” Clinton was speaking out against same-sex as recently as 2013.

Clinton has disappointed environmentalists in supporting fracking and off-shore drilling. Her views on the Keystone XL Pipeline is just one of many controversial issues where Clinton has refused to give her opinion. The vast amounts of money she has received from backers of the pipeline lead many environmentalists to doubt that Clinton can be counted on to oppose the pipeline, or take any positions contrary to the wishes of the petroleum industry.

Bernie Sanders voted against the Patriot Act while Clinton supported it. Sanders has spoken out against the illegal NSA surveillance while Clinton has remained quite, and has an overallpoor record on civil liberties. Clinton’s failures to archive her email as required when she was Secretary of State and disclose donations to the Clinton Foundation as she had agreed to are just the latest examples of her long-standing hostility towards government transparency.

Saying she is a progressive is not going to win over progressives after she has spent her career opposing liberal values.

Not to mention that Hillary’s hubby sold out the American worker, when he signed the NAFTA Bill in the 1990’s. Speaking of unions, the AFL-CIO just sold its members up the river too:

Richard Trumka has a message for state and local AFL-CIO leaders tempted to endorse Bernie Sanders: Don’t.

In a memo this week to state, central and area divisions of the labor federation, and obtained by POLITICO, the AFL-CIO chief reminded the groups that its bylaws don’t permit them to “endorse a presidential candidate” or “introduce, consider, debate, or pass resolutions or statements that indicate a preference for one candidate over another.” Even “‘personal’ statements” of candidate preference are verboten, Trumka said.

The memo comes amid signs of a growing split between national union leaders — mindful of the fact that Clinton remains the undisputed favorite for the nomination — and local officials and rank and file, who are increasingly drawn to the Democratic Party’s growing progressive wing, for whom Sanders is the latest standard-bearer.

The South Carolina and Vermont AFL-CIOs have passed resolutions supporting Sanders, and some local AFL-CIO leaders in Iowa want to introduce a resolution at their August convention backing the independent senator from Vermont. More than a thousand labor supporters, including several local AFL-CIO-affiliated leaders, have signed on to “Labor for Bernie,” a group calling on national union leaders to give Sanders a shot at an endorsement.

So much for standing for the American worker eh? Oh, there’s more:

The AFL-CIO’s constituent unions — as distinct from divisions of the federation itself — remain free to make endorsements however they wish. But they can’t make those endorsements acting through local and regional divisions of the AFL-CIO, as Trumka reminded everyone in the memo.

His message wasn’t anything new for the federation’s state leaders: They know that endorsement decisions belong to the national leadership. Still, it was unusual for Trumka to call them out in a memo. “I’m not sure I’ve ever seen one before like this,” said Jeff Johnson, the president of the AFL-CIO’s Washington state labor council.

Johnson agreed that it was important for the AFL-CIO to speak with a single voice. But “there’s a lot of anxiety out there in the labor movement,” he said, “and we’re desperately searching for a candidate that actually speaks to working-class values. The Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders camp is very, very attractive to many of our members and to many of us as leaders, because they’re talking about the things that need to happen in this country.”

Similarly, Massachusetts AFL-CIO President Steven Tolman said he agreed that Trumka had to lay down the law. More tellingly, though, he added: “Bernie Sanders has spent his life actually fighting for working people. He’s made no secret of it, and he’s used it as his mantra. And that I respect very much.” When asked about Clinton’s candidacy, Tolman was less effusive: “Who? Who? Please. I mean with all respect, huh?”

Other state-level union leaders affiliated with the AFL-CIO didn’t bother to give Trumka and his memo lip service. “I was disappointed by it,” said UPTE-CWA Local 9119 organizing coordinator Lisa Kermish, of Berkeley, California. “I think that local unions and national unions, while it’s important to work together for strength, I think that this is in some ways truncating dialogue. And I find that very unfortunate.”

The memo surfaced a day before top staffers for Clinton and Sanders participated in a meet-and-greet with AFL-CIO political directors Thursday morning in Washington. A person who attended the meeting said those present included Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook, Clinton labor liaison Nikki Budzinski, Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver and top Sanders strategist Tad Devine.

If I were the President of the UAW right about now; I would be calling an emergency meeting and holding a vote to leave the AFL-CIO ASAP. No wonder the teamsters left them after the 2004 election. The AFL-CIO does not give a tinker’s damn about the American worker. They simply care about power and money; and believe you me, they get plenty of it. This is proof of that.

This my friends, is one of the many, many examples why I stopped voting for Democrats. Social issues were a secondary reason. My primary reason is of stuff like this; how the progressive left is chock full of liars and corruption. There was a time in America, when the organized labor movement was something of integrity that stood for those who they represented. Sadly, those days ended long ago. Now, before any says it; are there liars and corruption in the Republican Party? Yes, there is. I never said there was not. But, this sort of blatant control of press and supporters; is like nothing I ever saw before.

Video: The Hillary Clinton Presser on EmailGate

(Via Memeorandum)

The video on Emailgate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho7D2mUu0hQ

Needless to say, not many people on the right; including AllahPundit over at HotAir.com:

This whole presser was her own personal expression of the “who gives a sh*t” non-spin that Democrats have been pushing for the past week. There’s no defense to what she did. She did it to evade accountability, at great risk to national security, and everyone understands it. The plan here isn’t to explain it away; there’s no explanation. The plan is to feign accountability by giving a presser, even if it’s a trainwreck, and then wait for the media to get bored in the knowledge that voters, supposedly, will simply say “who gives a sh*t.” She might as well have walked out there today, said that, and then walked off. If Democrats can’t field a primary challenger to her after this disaster, they deserve her.

I’m now moving the 2016 election from “likely Democratic” to “toss-up.” At least Bill is a good liar.

I am going to watch this video, and I’ll give you my thoughts in an update to this blog posting.

Update: Okay, I watched the video. Here is my opinion on this: This is a nothing-burger. If she is telling the truth, then Republicans, if they are smart, will let this drop. To me, this is beginning to look like a partisan witch hunt.

I mean, just look at Allahpundit’s remarks here:

Her team had a week to cook up some spin and this diarrhea is what they came up with?

It got worse. She admitted that she deleted e-mails — lots of them, although she insists that they were personal ones and therefore she wasn’t required to turn them over to State. For instance, she said, sometimes she e-mails with Bill. How do we know she’s telling the truth about that? We don’t. You’ll have to trust her. (Incidentally, Bill says he doesn’t use e-mail. Oops!) Will she turn over her server for independent analysis and verification that there’s nothing on there? Nope. “The server will remain private.” You’ll have to trust her. How do we know she was telling the truth today when she said most of her e-mails were to fellow State Department employees, which means they’re already in the archives? And why does that matter given that, even if it’s true, it still means we’re potentially missing every exchange she had with other private accounts, whether operated by other State employees, foreign leaders, etc?

You’ll have to trust her. Even though she’s one of the least trustworthy people in American political life and gave you zero reason today to adjust that opinion. In fact, the first question she took was from a Turkish reporter who asked her, surreally, whether a similar fuss would be made over her e-mails if she was a man. That may have been the only honest moment at the presser: It was so nakedly a planted question, designed to reinforce her opening pander about celebrating women’s rights to the UN — code to progressives watching that they should cut the First! Woman! President! some slack on this — that it didn’t even qualify as subterfuge. It was just Hillary and her sympathizers playing cynical games to distract from the fact of her own corruption.

Again, I ask the same question that I asked the last time I wrote about this subject; was AllahPundit this upset, when it discovered that Bush Administration officials were doing the same very thing? I think not. I am not defending Hillary Clinton at all; in fact, I loathe the woman and her idiot husband and believe me, I have many reasons why I do.

I just believe that the right should really play this carefully, because we really do not want to give the left anymore ammo, than they already have to paint conservatives as being sexist, anti-women types and ruin our chances in 2016.

On Hillary Clinton and EmailGate

I have a few questions on this little matter. But, first the story:

WASHINGTON — In 2012, congressional investigators asked the State Department for a wide range of documents related to the attack on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. The department eventually responded, furnishing House committees with thousands of documents.

But it turns out that that was not everything.

The State Department had not searched the email account of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton because she had maintained a private account, which shielded it from such searches, department officials acknowledged on Tuesday.

via Using Private Email, Hillary Clinton Thwarted Record Requests – NYTimes.com.

Here are my questions:

Where were all of these concerned Republicans and so-called “Conservatives”, when the officials from Bush Administration were discovered to be using private e-mail accounts for Government business? Busily defending them and trying to downplay the issue, that’s what!
Perhaps one of the most important questions of them all: If Hillary Clinton had black skin; would this even be an issue? I mean seriously; this looks more like a Neo-leftist attack on a New-leftist old White Woman, by supporters of a neo-leftist black man. Just sayin’… 🙄 …and yes, I am going there.
Is this a legit story for the left to be even covering or is this an actual media hit job on Hillary Clinton which is being coordinated by the White House, in retaliation for the Clinton Machine tactics against the Obama campaign in 2008? (Like the Birther thing, which started in Clinton camps…)

I mean, I can see the right attacking Hillary on this issue; the right made quite cottage industry for itself attacking Bill Clinton in the 1990’s. This continues to this day and to a degree; their attacks have merit. However, for the left to attack Hillary over this issue here; smacks of political retribution of the ugly sort and could be seen as a sexist attack on a woman; on the part of supporters of a neo-leftist black man.

This my friends, would spell trouble for the Democratic Party. There are some that think that this is simply the Democrats holding a door open for Elizabeth Warren; I dissent, I believe this could leave an opening for the Republicans to appeal to the soccer mom’s and they will be able to say, “See how the Democrats treat older white women?” This could backfire on the media and badly.

Just my opinion.

Others: (Via Memeorandum) Washington Post, Politico, USA Today, “The Lid”, Hinterland Gazette,Correct The Record, New York Magazine, John Hawkins’ Right Wing News, neo-neocon, Washington Free Beacon, Hot Air, Poynter, Bloomberg View, Associated Press, Gawker, JustOneMinute, Taylor Marsh, Common Dreams, Truth Revolt,Ghosts of Tom Joad, Slate, The Week, Balloon Juice, Guardian, Bloomberg Business,Capital New York, NO QUARTER USA NET, Agence France-Presse, Addicting Info,Power Line, Rush Limbaugh and The Hill, more at Mediagazer », Washington Free Beacon, Bloomberg Business, The Atlantic Online,Washington Post, Bloomberg View, mrctv.org/videos, Politico, Commentary Magazine, RealClearPolitics Videos, Engadget, The Gateway Pundit, Mediaite, The Verge, Jezebel, VodkaPundit, The Daily Beast, Shakesville, Power Line, Talking Points Memo, BuzzFeed, ABC News, Twitchy, Mashable and Arkansas Online,

This right here could totally derail Hillary Clinton’s presidential plans

This is part one of a three part series:

Top Pentagon officials and a senior Democrat in Congress so distrusted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2011 march to war in Libya that they opened their own diplomatic channels with the Gadhafi regime in an effort to halt the escalating crisis, according to secret audio recordings recovered from Tripoli.

The tapes, reviewed by The Washington Times and authenticated by the participants, chronicle U.S. officials’ unfiltered conversations with Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s son and a top Libyan leader, including criticisms that Mrs. Clinton had developed tunnel vision and led the U.S. into an unnecessary war without adequately weighing the intelligence community’s concerns.

via Hillary Clinton undercut on Libya war by Pentagon and Congress, secret tapes reveal – Washington Times.

Go read the rest of that, it makes for some interesting reading. This could be used against her by other Democrats and especially by the Republicans.