Hillaryites are dancing because she has pat answers, but generally it's all hot air.


Too big to fail? Yes. And no.

Free College? Yes. And no.

Sincerity? Yes. And No.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/stasi-hillary-clinton-talks-lot-article-1.2594740

The weathervane spins madly!

Republicans hard at work suppressing the vote--

In late January, against prior policy, the commission’s (Election Assistance Commission)
new executive director, Brian Newby, granted the requests of three states — Kansas, Georgia
and Alabama — to include the proof­of­citizenship requirement for state
elections as a state­specific add­on to the federal form. He did this without
consulting any of the three commissioners.
Before joining the commission, Mr. Newby was a county elections official
in Kansas, where he was a close ally of Mr. Kobach. In 2014, Mr. Newby’s
predecessor at the E.A.C. rejected the requests by Kansas and other states for a
proof­of­citizenship requirement because they failed to show a need for
heightened proof. She also noted that the Federal Court of Appeals for the 10th
Circuit upheld that decision, and the Supreme Court declined to review it.
Mr. Newby’s defense of his action is hard to take seriously. He said that
his reversal of the commission’s precedent was merely an administrative fix
and therefore did not need a vote of the commissioners.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/opinion/republicans-hijack-an-election-agency.html?emc=edit_th_20160411&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=70251688

That's what the current attacks on Bernie seem to be aimed at proving. It's going to be an uphill for Hillary however since she has the highest negative ratings in history of presidential candidates except for Trump. And he just squeaks by in that matchup.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/28/hillary-clintons-claim-that-doma-had-to-be-enacted-to-stop-an-anti-gay-marriage-amendment-to-the-u-s-constitution/



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/09/hillary-clintons-claim-that-90-percent-of-her-emails-were-in-the-system/



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/16/clintons-claim-that-40-percent-of-guns-are-sold-at-gun-shows-and-over-the-internet/



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/05/11/clintons-claim-that-illegal-immigrants-pay-more-in-taxes-than-some-corporations/



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/03/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-claims-meet-press-wall-street-atta/

In one of the most bizarre segments on Fox News you’ll ever see, Bill O’Reilly sent his interviewer to Princeton to say the word “ghetto” to black students — and it went pretty much as you’d expect.
Jesse Watters, who often interviews people on the street for The O’Reilly Factor, visited the school’s campus and asked students of different races if they were offended by various loaded words and phrases, such as “ghetto,” “black crime,” “slum,” “Islamic terrorism,” and “white privilege.”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/04/08/3767823/fox-news-interview-ghetto/

 There aren’t a lot of certainties left in the US presidential race, but here’s one thing about which we can be absolutely sure: The Clinton camp really doesn’t like talking about fossil-fuel money. Last week, when a young Greenpeace campaigner challenged Hillary Clinton about taking money from fossil-fuel companies, the candidate accused the Bernie Sanders campaign of “lying” and declared herself “so sick” of it. As the exchange went viral, a succession of high-powered Clinton supporters pronounced that there was nothing to see here and that everyone should move along.

The very suggestion that taking this money could impact Clinton’s actions is “baseless and should stop,” according to California Senator Barbara Boxer. It’s “flat-out false,” “inappropriate,” and doesn’t “hold water,” declared New York Mayor Bill de Blasio. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman went so far as to issue “guidelines for good and bad behavior” for the Sanders camp. The first guideline? Cut out the “innuendo suggesting, without evidence, that Clinton is corrupt.”

That’s a whole lot of firepower to slap down a non-issue. So is it an issue or not?

--more--

http://www.thenation.com/article/the-problem-with-hillary-clinton-isnt-just-her-corporate-cash-its-her-corporate-worldview/

Mason Receives $30 Million in Gifts, Renames School of Law After Justice Antonin Scalia

...The gift includes $20 million that came to George Mason through a donor who approached Leonard A. Leo of the Federalist Society, a personal friend of the late Justice Scalia and his family. The anonymous donor asked that the university name the law school in honor of the Justice. "The Scalia family is pleased to see George Mason name its law school after the Justice, helping to memorialize his commitment to a legal education that is grounded in academic freedom and a recognition of the practice of law as an honorable and intellectually rigorous craft,” said Leo.

The gift also includes a $10 million grant from the Charles Koch Foundation, which supports hundreds of colleges and universities across the country that pursue scholarship related to societal well-being and free societies.

http://www.law.gmu.edu/news/2016/scalia_school_of_law_announcement

And in my survey, I asked the following simple question: When should Hillary Clinton release her transcripts? While 37% answered ASAP, a total of 59% answered she shouldn’t have to.

Furthermore, the comments were along the lines of asking her to release the transcripts is a “witchhunt.” Or that what she said, behind closed doors, to a group of bankers was none of my, or anyone’s business (e.g., “She was a private individual doing business in a private capacity, it’s none of your business.”)

To some of this, I had said, essentially, that Hillary Clinton is running for president. It is most certainly our business to know what she said in these speeches. So, here is my sincere question, directed primarily to Hillary’s supporters (but anyone else can also take a shot at answering). What was your reaction when you learned about Mitt Romney’s scornful comments about the 47%? Were you — as I was — both outraged and unsurprised at Romney’s cluelessness while at the same time excited that this could be used as a campaign weapon against Romney as 1%-er? If, as I am assuming, you thought it was fair game to respond to Romney’s comments, once the videotape of him speaking was released, then wouldn’t consistency mean that Clinton’s speeches also fall under the umbrella of information that the public might have an valid and legitimate interest in knowing?https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/4/1510222/-A-genuine-question-for-Hillary-supporters-who-don-t-care-if-she-doesn-t-release-speech-transcripts

Clinton said, "I'm the only candidate in the Democratic primary, or actually on either side, who Wall Street financiers and hedge fund managers are actually running ads against."

Wall Street financiers and hedge fund managers are running ads against Clinton. But to say she’s the only one being attacked by people associated with the financial sector is preposterous.

The financial sector has contributed to both sides of the aisles, including to Clinton’s own campaign. Groups backed by Wall Street have run attack ads against virtually every candidate.

Clinton’s claim rates Pants on Fire!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/03/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-claims-meet-press-wall-street-atta/

So imagine now the Democratic National Convention this July. Presiding over it will be, yes, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, tribune for a party of incumbency, money and crony capitalism. Follow her as she makes the rounds of private parties where zillionaire donors, lobbyists and consultants transact the real business of politics. Watch as she and Hizzoner Rahm Emanuel of Chicago greet and embrace. Then imagine those thousands of young people outside the convention hall who have arrived from long months of campaigning earnestly for reform of the party they see as an instrument of their future, as well as members of Black Lives Matter and other people of color for whom Rahm Emanuel is the incarnation of deceit and oppression.

This is why Emanuel and Wasserman Schultz must go. To millions, they are enablers of the one percent, perpetuators of the Washington mentality that the rest of the country has grown to hate. What a message such servants of plutocracy send: Democrats — a bridge to the past.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_its_time_for_these_two_democrats_to_go_20160323

Hillary's silence on these bums speaks volumes about the type of Democratic candidates that she will be supporting.