January 21, 2016

Politico: Bill Clinton questions Hillary's Super Tuesday plan

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-super-tuesday-2016-election-218052

Bill Clinton is getting nervous.
With polls showing Bernie Sanders ahead in New Hampshire and barely behind, if at all, in Iowa, the former president is urging his wife to start looking toward the delegate-rich March primaries — a shift for an organizing strategy that’s been laser-focused on the early states.

Bill Clinton, according to a source with firsthand knowledge of the situation, has been phoning campaign manager Robby Mook almost daily to express concerns about the campaign’s organization in the March voting states, which includes delegate bonanzas in Florida, Illinois, Ohio and Texas.

Many Clinton allies share the president’s desire for more organization on the ground; they see enthusiasm that’s ready to be channeled, but no channel yet in place. “Iowa matters a ton but it seems to be the campaign’s only focus," said one person close to the campaign's operations in a March state — one of nearly a dozen Clinton allies POLITICO spoke with for this article. "It’s going to be a long primary, and the campaign seems less prepared for it than they were in 2008.”

The good news for Hillary is that a real president is getting involved to straighten out a campaign she apparently couldn't manage very well.

January 21, 2016

After what happened last time with Obama, to let history happen again ...

I don't think anyone would describe a candidate who does that as shrewd and ready to be president. Have to face facts: to be in this situation a second time, she really hasn't learned from her mistakes.

The lying and deception she's jumped to the minute she's come under pressure, I'm beginning to wonder if she has some psychological issues. Maybe it's as simple as "I saw my husband do it so why can't I" but she's not as sharp as her husband nor as good a liar because she gets caught much more frequently - often on silly or needless stuff. The email mess as another example, seriously poor lying in her first press conference helped to give that scandal real legs in the media. She gets caught there and folks think there's a reason for the lying -> trying to cover something up. So the media sharks smell blood in the water and thrash around looking for what the candidate is hiding. She didn't play it smart and brought a bunch of that crap on herself.

There is an air about her. Kind of like she's a self anointed queen of American political aristocracy who was about to take her self perceived place in the coronation she felt was inevitable. What seems to be happening ... the campaign kind of falling apart ... is almost a real live Shakespearean tragedy playing out on live tv. And they're adding to it as they scurry and scramble, making pea brained management decisions to lie and deceive that everybody sees through except themselves, desperately trying to salvage their sinking ship. That to me is kind of amazing and entertaining.

When I step back from it though, I kind of see it as a blessing. Though the lying is bad, I don't think she's a completely terrible person but this woman is proving to everyone else except herself (because she can't see it) that she's not going to be a very good president. She's simply not that able. Even if she wins, she's shown again in a tight spot, she can't rise above it to calmly see the issues, develop a vision to move forward and manage the problem at a high level. All she can do is panic and mindlessly react with simplistic poor and desperate lying and deception.

When that happens, I sigh with some relief that the campaign was a good enough test to expose it and in spite of all the campaign money, I get some assurance that some parts of the democracy continue to work.

January 21, 2016

This is hard to comprehend:

“Bernie Sanders already has staff in all 11 of the Super Tuesday states. Those are the states that vote on March 1. Hillary Clinton does not,” Seitz-Wald said. “They have disproportionately put their resources in Iowa, even at the expense, a little bit, of New Hampshire.”

She had the money.

I saw Bernie had 11 offices in Nevada.
https://berniesanders.com/nevada/
Could only find seven for Clinton as of Jan 11th

Bernie's Busy Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/NevadaForBernie/

Sanders cracks Clinton's Nevada firewall
Hillary Clinton has been vigilant but the state that was supposed to stop Bernie Sanders' momentum might be in pla
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-nevada-217432#ixzz3xrRYqCmc

I think that state will become very competitive. Bernie could go 3 - 0 to start

January 21, 2016

I don't think that's very smart

This man McCullough is still investigating as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. If he encounters one of those coin toss judgments (or less), he might as well nail Hillary as she's impugned his reputation and if she's elected, he won't have a job. She hasn't made a bad situation any better because she's drawing attention to the above letter - which doesn't look good on Hillary no matter what is said or why. Apparently one of the SAP classified emails is about drones - and the public will largely find that the rules are the rules when it comes to top secret documents about drone strikes (as much as many don't like them).

I thought Hillary was supposed to be smarter than that.

If she's worried about the timing of this coming out, well, I have a feeling we haven't seen anything yet compared with what is to come and the timing. For example, they could announce Bryan Pagliano immunity deal just before Super Tuesday. Awful timing for her for sure and politically motivated for sure but there's nothing she can do about it. She put herself in this position.

It's why I continue to think she's going to have a very tough time getting elected if she wins the primary. They have volumes of stuff like this they can use to taint her candidacy.

January 21, 2016

I think that's the march in Selma

link to Selma to Montgomery March google images

http://www.politico.com/magazine/gallery/2015/07/bernie-sanders-the-early-years/002279-032662.html?ml=po_g#.VqA4eZowhiw

(Bernie) also traveled to Washington—his first time in D.C.—to hear Martin Luther King speak at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

link to march on washington for jobs and freedom 1963 google images

no flags prominent ...

Can't find anything on Bernie marching from Selma

Some might find this two year old video interesting - on how Bernie is working to make some of MLK's dream happen:

January 21, 2016

When I see stuff like this, it helps make the case for why she shouldn't be president

She has very flawed ethics and loyalty. Of late, the lies seem to be coming at us daily.

January 21, 2016

Sadly, it's just more dishonesty from Hillary that's becoming too routine in this campaign

But she's been deceiving her entire career. She didn't score high in the untrustworthy polls for nothing!!

This one is particularly ugly because she kicked Bernie in the nuts for helping her husband keep the government open. That's stooping pretty low to score political points.

January 20, 2016

Allegation: "Proof that Ted Cruz did not become a US citizen at birth"

I put the "allegation" in front of the title because I do not regard the article as "proof".

Having said that, maybe the article or parts of it have merit. I don't know for sure. It didn't strike me as totally bonkers but I'm not a constitutional law expert nor up on the laws on both sides of the border. I'm tossing it out there for interest/discussion - not to smear Cruz as a Canadian like a birther. It raises some points I was unaware of and I'm curious to what others might have to say about it. Ignoring that I don't care for Cruz as a candidate, it might be a really interesting or complicated legal case if and when this stuff gets mixed in.

http://www.examiner.com/article/proof-that-ted-cruz-did-not-become-a-us-citizen-at-birth

According to the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946, also referred to as the "Act of 1947" because of its effective date, Canada did not allow dual citizenship.
...
In order for Ted Cruz to have "become" a US citizen at birth in 1970, his mother would have had to retain exclusive citizenship to the US and filed a CRBA (Consular Report of Birth Abroad) to "obtain" exclusive US citizenship at the time for her son Ted and renounced his automatic "naturally acquired" Canadian citizenship. The process in itself is considered a very abbreviated form of "naturalization", thereby making such persons born outside of the OFFICIAL territories of the United States absolutely ineligible to become President of these United States in at least this one circumstance alone. Given that Canadian law did not allow dual citizenship at the time, then IF his mother filed a CRBA in 1970, his Canadian citizenship would likely have needed to be renounced before a new US citizenship could be granted.

Ted's Father has publicly admitted he became a Canadian citizen in 1968. If his mother's first husband with surname of "Wilson" was also a Canadian citizen (unconfirmed), she would have become a citizen before his father. Even if her first husband was not Canadian, according to Canadian law, she would still have automatically become a Canadian citizen in 1969 after having a Canadian spouse (Ted's Father) and residing in Canada for 1 year. This information substantiates the reports claiming that both of his parents appeared on the Canadian voter's rolls. There is now an unconfirmed claim that someone has supposedly verified that they indeed both voted in the October of 1972 federal Canadian election.

If both of Ted's parents became exclusive citizens of Canada by 1969, then even if his mother tried to file a CRBA, she would not have been able to confer US citizenship to her son as she was no longer a US citizen herself. Even if she somehow retained US citizenship, Ted could not have been granted dual citizenship as it was against Canadian law. The only thing that is certain is that Ted Cruz automatically became a Canadian citizen the instant he was born on Canadian soil and that fact is absolutely irrefutable. Likewise, the release of his mother's birth certificate certainly settles absolutely nothing.

there's more - I can't quote more without breaking the site rules.

I do not agree with everything in the article.

An important point the article doesn't address is jurisdiction. Canada has it's laws on citizenship. And the US has it's laws on citizenship. Canada's laws on citizenship are not going to have jurisdiction in the US and vice-versa. So Canada might think Ted was a Canadian at birth and maybe the US thinks Ted was natural born for all I know. On that basis, ignoring that important point maybe some of the article is quite suspect.

Maybe someone will nuke this thing out of hand. Please - no shooting the messenger themselves - shoot the messenger's facts or ideas.

January 19, 2016

Watchdog: Clinton's server had classified material beyond 'top secret'

Source: Politico

...
In a copy of the Jan. 14 correspondence obtained by POLITICO, Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III told both the Senate Intelligence and Senate Foreign Relations committees that intelligence agencies found messages relating to what are known as “special access programs,” or SAP. That’s an even more restricted subcategory of sensitive compartmented information, or SCI, top secret national security information derived from sensitive intelligence sources.

“To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community agency],” the letter reads. “These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the [intelligence community agency] to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels. According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified [intelligence community agency]sources.”
...
The letter suggests that the universe of highly sensitive documents that passed through Clinton’s unsecured server goes beyond what was previously known. During the Clinton email release process, State has designated more than 1,300 of Clinton's emails at the “confidential” level or beyond, though Clinton and State say none were marked classified at the time. Six of those have been flagged as “secret,” a step below “top secret.”
...
The FBI, meanwhile, is still investigating whether Clinton’s server put national security at risk and whether top State staffers sent around classified information via unclassified means, which is in many cases illegal.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985

---

I do not think this is going away any time soon folks.

NBC and Mediaite have also picked up the story along with the right wing media.

January 19, 2016

Sanders 91% favorable 7% unfavorable

Holy sh*t!! That's flirting with unreal.

It climbs from June 66% favorable 11% unfavorable to the above.

Likewise, in June 35% Sanders, 43% Clinton flips to 60% Sanders 33% Clinton

"Which candidate is the least honest?" In June, Clinton leads handily with 28%. Today Clinton leads handily with 55%. Only 2% think Bernie is the least honest steadily over that time.

No wonder the Clinton campaign is scared. They'd already be seeing that in their internal polling.

I'm so happy for Bernie and his supporters. Win or lose, they should be proud of results like that given where they started and given what they've been up against (a DNC Clinton basically owns)