« HC and Mark Shields on the Newshour - 8 July 2016 | Main | Sultan Tayyip is sincere? - I don't think so. »

10 July 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The Beaver


Re: Health

As an outsider looking in (and one who could and would be impacted by the Foreign policy of her administration), I was surprised to hear her repeat on different occasions that she is looking for a VPOTUS who could be president.
Scratching my head as to whether she believes that she would not be able to finish her term but is fighting to ensure that she goes in history as the first POTUS from the feminine gent.


If Jill Stein makes it into the debates, HC will indeed be burnt toast.



Any mention of this by the commentariat?


The Cold War will drag on in some ways just as the Civil War has. It was too big a deal, on many levels, not-to.
I think we have seen (going back at least to LBJ revealing the existence of the SR71) use by elected officials (both Exec & Legislative) of classified information & knowlege (even techniques) to further state policy &/or personal agendas. Is a President's authority to do so unlimited? Can he allow or direct others to do so? Are Congressmen & Senators restricted differently - should they be? Are "political" people different from civil service or the uniformed services people? Historical context of laws & behaviors might help us differentiate long-standing, on-going trends from specific actions by specific actors.


Comey carefully described how Clinton violated the letter of the law; that she knew what she was doing and indeed intended to do it. Yet, according to Comey, she did not have the correct type of "intent" in order to prosecute, notwithstanding the fact that "gross negligence" is by definition not intent. And, as a result, this precedent allows any federal employee to be negligent with sensitive information and escape criminal liability. There is now no deterrent in criminal law. That's malpractice from Comey, in my opinion. A lot of Americans are angry and confused right now, including myself.



In the Republican primary the majority voted against the status quo. Trump defeated all the establishment candidates who had far more resources and superior organizations. Even in California Trump got 1.6 million votes. In the Democrat primary a sizeable minority voted against the status quo. If we assume that Trump stepped down, we can be certain the GOP convention will nominate a status quo candidate. Is that what a significant number of voters want?

I understand that the Borg Queen is an immense danger to our safety and the thought of the Clintons and their well known cesspool of sleaze once again in the White House is too abhorent. With the entire big money, big media and the establishment of the duopoly actively campaigning for the Borg Queen the weakness of the Trump campaign is being magnified. But, the GOP establishment as savior. ...



Disagree as to your last line.

Jeb and Rubio were supposed to lose gracefully to HRC and only disagree with her on how much they love Israel. Then the RNC was supposed to push amnesty down our throats cause they decided that's why the Republicans lost. Jeb and all the others would have lost worst than Romney, only Trump's populist message is different than the same tired nonsense about acts of love and "invade 89th world invite the world" that the Republicans kept pushing.

Dukakis was much further ahead of Reagan at this point and time, and the media wasn't nearly as much in the bag for the Left as today.


..." and the media wasn't nearly as much in the bag for the Left as today."

imho... the "media" is in the bag for the 1% - who own them. There is no "Left" today.


Your last line nails it. I could have voted for any of the other candidates, except maybe Cruz. However, if he ran I just would not vote. With Trump I have to decide if I want to vote against him. While I am generally optimistic about most things, the fact that we managed to put up the two worst candidates in recent history up against each other at the same time is depressing.




Oh give me a break with the "no true Leftist" hand waving sophistry. The 1% is overwhelmingly in favor of more secular humanism including gay marriage, abortion on demand, open borders, and more globalisation.

Stop trying to pretend the Left is a bunch of scrappy underdogs. You're not. You are the Borg. Deal with it.


My take-away from Dowd's piece is this: "...that’s the corkscrew way things go with the Clintons, who are staying true to their reputation as the Tom and Daisy Buchanan of American politics." Those who read _The Great Gatsby_ will recall that Tom and Daisy were "careless people."

I would add that they are crudely cavalier and uncaring as well: "We came, we saw, he died.": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y


Hill and Bill have been on the fire for a long long time but when Mark Shields and Maureen Dowd are turning the spit you know they are almost done.

Edward Amame

Well, I agree with your last line anyway.


I'm going to have to disagree. No matter who the Republican nominee is, or who the Democratic nominee is, the most likely outcome is another 48% - 48% close race with the remaining 4% deciding the election. That's what we've seen since Reagan's landslide in 1984, with the only exception being the 1992 race where Perot got a significant percentage of the vote. I think that is likely to be the outcome this year as well, with Trumps numbers coming up in the fall.

As far as Dowd, she's been anti-Clinton since the 90s, so I wouldn't count on her for any kind of reasoned analysis.


Tyler, you forgot to mention Trump had spent slightly more than zero dollars on advertisements, yet won. I also think the media is biased because he does not talk policy wonkery, yet, many of his actual plans (I assume wall is a metaphor) are reasonable policy responses that make me not worried about the finger on the button.

Ex: Talk about bombing ISIS, but plan to let Russia handle the details. (Hmmm sensible).

HRC: Set up a no-fly zone in Russia and not worry about shooting down jets escalating to nuclear war.

Ex: Build our infrastructure from 3rd world to a 1st world level and default (Hmm, when Krugman suggested the Treasury print a 1 trillion dollar coin to retire debt, it was a serious policy).

HRC: Lets funnel more taxpayer money to wall street through naive students who expect a job waiting to pay their debts as a Walmart greeter or equivalent (our economy officially mostly generates bartender and waitress jobs the last few years - if you were to trust the official stats).

Edward Amame

The left is winning the culture wars, but in the process mostly ceded economic/labor issues to the 1%. First there was Howard Dean, now there are Bernie and Liz, who actually sound like Old Democrats in the liberal FDR tradition.

The days of indie local press with scrappy lefty reporters questioning the powers-that-be are gone. US media has been consolidated and corporatized and while it may trend left on social issues, the News Hour, networks and cable, like congress, all know which side the butter's on when it comes to economic/labor issues. The NY Times has always known.


I disagree there is a Left; however, the Left featured on the media are "useful Idiots" to the 1% (I.e., the media owners), excepting those who plug in at high levels in the Borg (they are servants of the Borg queen).



The Borg is neither Left or Right. I'm surpised you did not get that. The social conservatives and social liberals are fooling themselves they can make a difference fighting against each other. IMHO, the 1% are laughing at our ignorance.


no mention of the Michael Flynn business?


Seamus Padraig

"Dukakis was much further ahead of Reagan at this point and time ..."

That'd be G.H.W.Bush, not Reagan.



I agree that the number of voters that can be persuaded by either side is very small. Our recent elections hinge on who gets out to vote in the handful of swing states. California currently will only elect a candidate with DEM next to their name. Texas similarly will only elect a Republican. Partisanship runs deep and is a large lens through which we view politics. Those of us who traditionally never vote the duopoly are in a fringe minority. What I find ironic is how partisans will excuse the same behavior and policies that they decry in the other party. Many Democrat partisans were up in arms about Dubya's warmongering, yet they were very supportive of Obama-Hillary's destabilization into anarchy of Libya and Syria. One hardly hears them as Obama arms and funds Islamist extremists to overthrow Assad. There is a very limited constituency in America today for a non-interventionist policy in both foreign and domestic affairs. IMO, we are where we are precisely because of it.


"Tom and Daisy Buchanan". That's a scary adept. And following, he Trump is Gatsby? For sure.

Balint Somkuti

What r u winning?

Nothing my friend.

U r losing big time and it is only the matter of time and the world socialist or simply 'left' will be as despised as nazi.

Allen Thomson

The points ked raises would provide rich material for discussion in a graduate seminar on government. This probably isn't the place to pursue them, but they certainly should be kept in mind.

Balint Somkuti

Weren't you banned?

Why dont you get the funk outa here?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad