Ahead of Her Time

You'll never guess who now sounds like Hillary Rodham Clinton.

It is Joe Rogan who, despite now channeling Hillary Clinton, still slams the left, endorsed Donald Trump in 2024, and doesn't suggest that he regrets opposing the Democrat in her unsuccessful race against Donald Trump in 2016. Speaking at an LGBT for Hillary fundraiser on September 9, 2016, Mrs. Clinton inelegantly remarked

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

Once you find yourself saying "to just be grossly generalistic," it's time to stop. Nonetheless, it would have been helpful to evaluate Clinton's reasons for considering them deplorable or suggest that she may have underestimated the number.  (Also, "generalistic" is not a word.)  Even more useful to voters would have been noting that the candidate added

... thankfully they are not America. But the other basket- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas- as well as, you know, New York and California- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out hope that their lives will be different. they won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

Innumerable authors, talk show hosts, pundits, and others have since made a career, some a successful and lucrative career, from "discovering" that Donald Trump tapped into widespread sentiment that Americans in the "heartland" have lost hope in government which has worked for the affluent and left them behind.  These individuals, we have been told incessantly the last several years, voted for a savior they believed would throw norms out the window, bust up tradition, and destroy the "deep state".

Hillary Clinton said the same thing. And now an ex-actor and extraordinarily successful podcaster to the dispossessed is saying roughly the same:

"Trump supporters are f---ing nuts, man," Rogan said on a new episode of his podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience. "They're rabid."

Rogan added that Trump "represents something other than just a person to them."

"He represents a leader that they wish they had, which is a real problem in our society in general with leaders," the host added.  "We look to them as if there's something different than every other person that's ever been a leader before. Like, "This is the one. This is the one that's going to save us, right?"

Rogan did do a couple of things differently than did Clinton. The latter said "half," refusing to imply that all Trump supporters were identical, whereas Rogan referred to "Trump supporters," suggesting his comments applied to all. Additionally, he used a profanity, which has become obligatory for politicians, podcasters, and others to prove their authenticity. 

It was ironic, then, that the remark of the then-Vice President had precisely the opposite moment. In a 2021 analysis, a Washington Post reporter noted that Jonathan Allen, author of the book "Shattered" about Clinton's 2016 campaign, said the remark

seemed to reveal a private thought that she had never dared state in public. In that way, it "ended up being symbolic of one of the things that her critics said they hated about her, which is that they believed that she's inauthentic. And oddly, I think that was a pretty authentic moment.

When Joe Rogan denounces Democrats for what he views as "open borders", "COVID mandates", "forcing people to get vaccinated", and of course, the existential issue of pronouns, he obviously does not sound like Hillary Clinton, whose insult became a rallying call for her GOP opponent.. Rogan's attack, accusing Trump supporters of being "nuts" and "rabid", also is more personal than was the candidate's assessment. Perhaps that was part of Clinton's problem- criticizing them thoughtfully and accurately and with an authenticity that could not go unpunished.

Share |

Not Again

As Tim Balk of The New York Times reported on Tuesday

Hillary Clinton suggested in a new interview that the Democratic Party’s loss in 2024 boiled down to a “terrible miscalculation” — President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s decision to run for re-election.

At an event in Manhattan on Monday, Mrs. Clinton told The New Yorker’s editor, David Remnick, that Mr. Biden had made a “terrible mistake for himself, his legacy and for the country” in trying to run again at age 81.

If Mr. Biden had decided to “pass the torch” and the Democratic Party had held a competitive presidential primary, Mrs. Clinton told Mr. Remnick, “whoever emerged from that contest — whether it was the vice president, or a governor, or a senator or anybody else — would have beaten Donald Trump.”

Chris Cillizza acknowledges that there has been a bit of a rivalry between Biden and Clinton but believes that the latter was correct to note that the President should have bowed out considerably earlier than he did. However, he argues also (at 7:20)

Now, would someone who emerged in an open primary process had Biden dropped out in the summer of 2023- would that person have definitely beaten Donald Trump in November of 2024?

No, I think there was sigificant unhappines with the state of the econnomy, with Democrats, with Joe Biden in particular, with how he had led the economy, how much he understood about the economy. So I don't think it would have- it's not just an easy fix, that they just nominate somebody else in an open primary process and that person beats Donald Trump. But the way that it played out by Biden staying too long, he should never have run for a second term, staying on for too long, the debate, the three weeks of is he going to stay on, is he going to get out- and eventually he gets out and Kamala Harris steps in without any primary or anyone voting on anything, that clearly doomed them, right?

Wrong.

Cillizza adds "I'm not sure the Democrats would have won anyway but the way that played out doomed them.

        "

Of course we don't know if the new candidate, assuming it was not the Vice President, would have won. And Cillizza, admittedly, reflects conventional wisdom, as does The Times' Balk, who wrote "Mr. Biden ultimately left the race in late July 2024, immediately putting his weight behind Ms. Harris, his vice president, but leaving her just three months to build her own campaign before Election Day."

Do you see what they're doing? In the case of Cillizza- a straight shooter- it is unintentional, and perhaps also in case of The Times. 

It's in the title of Harris' memoir about the general election campaign.  Whether it was the decision of the ex-candidate, the publicher or someone else, the title of the book was 107 Days, in part as an argument that the Vice President faced an uphill battle to win the election.

But she did not. Almost to the moment that Biden dropped out, the nomination of Harris was a fait accompli. In a review of her book, Vanity Fair explained that on that day

By 10 p.m. at the Naval Observatory, jigsaw pieces were still strewn across the kitchen table. But the puzzle of Harris’s nomination had been solved. She’d called more than 100 people. Not a single potential rival had challenged her. By Monday, Harris had the backing of a majority of Democrats in Congress. Within 48 hours she had the support of most delegates who would be at the convention. A senior adviser summed up Harris’s two-day marathon as a political tour de force: “A lot of people were like, ‘We need a process.’ Well, there is a process: getting the delegates to commit. We just needed to do it and we did it.”

Aside from incumbents, most candidates for a presidential nomination- especially in the Democratic Party- have to run a gauntlet before securing sufficient delegates. Not so, Kamala Harris, behind whom most prominent Democrats, including virtually any possible challenger, quickly lined up. The national convention was highly successful, Harris won her debate with Trump going away, the Party was united behind the nominee, enthusiasm was impressive, and victory seemed likely. However 

One hundred seven days later, as history will recount, Team Harris hit rock bottom. Yet it didn’t seem so as Election Day dawned. Though Harris was behind in the battleground states, her spokespeople were oddly upbeat. Appearing on MSNBC back on October 27, campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon had declared, “We are very confident we’re going to win this thing.” On Friday, November 1, senior adviser David Plouffe posted on X that late-​breaking undecided voters were going for Harris by more than 10 points.

A campaign has a gravitational pull, and chief of staff Voles was feeling it. “You get sucked into the momentum,” she said. “Like you believe it. I’ve been on winning ones and losing ones, and this felt more like [Bill] Clinton’s [in 1992] than [Michael] Dukakis’s [in 1988].” Voles wasn’t talking poll numbers or analytics, but intangibles. “The rallies were so big and so enthusiastic. People were lining the streets.” But Harris’s pollsters didn’t share the kumbaya cohesion.

Although Biden should have withdrawn from the race earlier, his failure to do so did not doom his replacement on the ticket- far from it. Harris had a great opportunity to win, especially given that the GOP had less timefor opposition research about her than it would have if it had been clear for months that she would be the nominee.  It was not the brief nature of the campaign nor the quality of her campaign; it was her.

After she lost to Donald Trump in 2016, Hillary Clinton could have opted to seek a rematch. However, she realized that she might not win the 2020 nomination and if she did, couldn't be certain that she'd win the general election. She understood the limits to her popularity and electability.

Individuals in or around Joe Biden in 2023 and the first half of  2024 refused to warn the President that he was old and appeared too feeble to mount a successful campaign for re-election. Now Harris, she of  the "107 days," is reportedly eyeing a run for the 2028 presidential nomination.  Self-awarness is not her strength. The Democratic Party cannot afford another loss. For the good of the Party, someone needs to read Kamala Harris the riot act. 

Share |

Deplorable

On Sunday, a tweeter on X with more than 189,000 followers commented

All I have seen is people being shocked and saddened by Rob Reiner's murder. You will always get some lunatic posting but I haven't seen one person on the right say something nasty.

This is a tragedy. He was a massively talented man.

On Tuesday, after he was criticized for "pretending" those conservatives "don't exist to protect your feelings," the tweeter responded "What are you talking about? Since last night I have seen a couple of stupid posts but the vast majority have been respectful. Now do the Charlie Kirk murder."

Unfortunately, he spoke a little too soon

Regardless of how you felt about Rob Reiner, this is inappropriate and disrespectful discourse about a man who was just brutally murdered. I guess my elected GOP colleagues, the VP, and White House staff will just ignore it because they’re afraid? I challenge anyone to defend it. pic.twitter.com/j3dvzRxLQJ

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) December 15, 2025

When Charlie Kirk was murdered, Rob Reiner was asked by Piers Morgan "what was your immediate reaction?" The actor turned director and producer replied

Well, horror. Absolute horror. And I unfortunately saw the video of it and it's beyond belief. What happened to him. And that could never happen to everybody. I don't care what your political beliefs are, that's not acceptable. That's not a solution to solving problems and I felt, like what his wife said at the service, at the memorial they had, was exactly right, totally. And I believe- I'm Jewish but I believe in the teachings of Jesus and I believe in doing to others. I believe in forgiveness and what she said to me was beautiful and absolutely she forgave his assassin and I think that's, that is admirable.

How about this? pic.twitter.com/OWNYesnI5G

— Dede Watson (@Dede_Watson) December 15, 2025

I would have added a point and kept a couple out, and "I believe in doing to others" was inartful. However, the argument was sensitive and generous and its thrust, spot-on: "I don't care what your political beliefs are, that's not acceptable. That's not a solution to solving problems...."

Steve M. lists numerous comments from Trump supporters on the Fox News and Breitbart websites who "pat themselves on the back for not being haters while.... being haters." I've similarly been bombarded on my X timeline by MAGAts with no sense of irony. They blame the left for allegedly "celebrating" (in the word of a few) Charlie Kirk's murder and blaming the right for condoning the murders of Rob Reiner and his wife. Then they themselves admit not a whiff of regret about the latter crime.

Giving credit where credit is due, US Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Mike Lawler of suburban new York also criticized the President for his classless and cruel remark on Truth Social.  Surely, there will be many more. 

Surely, I'm joking. Although events have proven then-presidential nominee Hillary Clinton correct- though injudicious- in realizing half of Trump's supporters should be put into a "basket of deplorables," less blame should go to the President's fans than to prominent Republicans, especially members of Congress who remain silent and Donald himself.  

Among random liberals and progressives, there were very few individuals who even with the anonymity of social media expressed pleasure at the assassination of Charlie Kirk, whatever his hostile views toward the LGBTQ+ community and black women. There were even very few who pointed out the irony that he was an opponent of gun safety laws. 

That can be contrasted with the views of Trump supporters toward this past weekend's murders in Los Angeles. Even if their response were far more empathetic , however, that would not make a hill of beans difference without condemnation from Republicans on Capitol Hill.  More than any, they are the real deplorables. 

Share |

A Call to Extinction

In the clip below, Hillary Clinton asks about college students from around the world "Where are they getting their information?" She found in speaking to college students

They were getting their information from social media, particularly TikTok. That is where they were learning about what happened on October 7th. What happened in the, you know, days, weeks, and months to follow that is a serious problem. It's a serious problem for democracy, whether it's Israel or the United States. It's a serious   problem for our young people.

Though she recognizes a particular obstacle to understanding the Middle East, Clinton realizes it's a serious problem for understanding current events generally. Oddly- or maybe not so oddly- some people disagree.

Hillary Clinton has crawled out of her cave to accuse young people of not knowing the truth about Israel because of “social media.”

She is full of shit.

Social media didn’t drop the bombs on Gaza. Israel did & the U.S. supplied them.

FREE PALESTINE. pic.twitter.com/63e9dL4N5B

— Power to the People ☭🕊 (@ProudSocialist) December 2, 2025

A few days ago, Pew Research Center reported

Adults under 30 are much more likely to get news on social media than older adults. There is a 48 percentage point gap between the shares of Americans ages 18 to 29 and those 65 and older who get news on social media at least sometimes (76% vs. 28%).

Compared with older adults, young adults are especially likely to get news from Instagram and TikTok. The difference is stark even between those ages 18 to 29 and the next oldest age group, ages 30 to 49.

The tweeter isn't primarily concerned with whether young people get most of their information about current events from social media. However, it is a major part of this argument because, were he to concede social media's impact, he's have to acknowledge the effect of an incredible (in the correct sense of the term) source.

The former Senator and Secretary of State continued

I was talking to (Bush 43 Secretary of State) Condi Rice and you know, she said in an interview that I did after the 2-point peace plan came out, she and I were in CBS and she said when people were chanting "from the river to the sea," she would ask the students "what river, what sea" and they didn't know. I had the same experience.

It's impossible to determine the veracity of the claim that many students Rice and Clinton spoke to didn't know what river and what sea the chant pertained to. Nonetheless, there is plenty of reason to believe that this was their experience and that it was not coincidental. In a poll commissioned in late 2013- after the Israel/Hamas war began- the Wall Street Journal commissioned a poll which found that 86% of students supported the chant.  However

less than half (47%) were able to name the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea as the boundaries that the controversial chant was talking about.

Other students polled gave answers including the Nile and the Euphrates rivers, the Dead Sea and even the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean.

They didn't know what the chant pertained to, yet they supported it. They didn't know that if there is a Palestinian state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, it would encompass the occupied territory of the West Bank, the territory known as the Gaza Strip, and Israel proper.

It's likely, therefore, that they didn't know that Gaza was controlled by Hamas, elected in 2006 and at the time serving in the 17th year of their four-year term. It is even less likely that they understood that Arabs in Israel proper enjoy more rights than they do in any other nation in the Middle East.

And it is a safe bet they didn't know that the "Palestinian" is a term originating relatively recently for political purposes. Nor would they understand that Israelis, living on the historical land of Palestine, are Palestinians while "Palestinians" living in the diaspora are not Palestinian but Arabs who are residents of Jordan or other nations. 

But it's likely they do understand that "from the river to the sea" is a shortened version of "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." Thus, most of the pro-"Palestine" crowd know that a "free Palestine" would amount to a "no more Israel."  They do know that Israel is the designated Jewish state, created because of past wrongs committed against Jews, especially in Nazi German. (Jews did not generally fare well in most of the Arab world, either, but anyone under 60 or so can be forgiven for not knowing that.)

In late September, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Australia, and Portugal recognized a state of Palestine announced plans to recognize "Palestine." Soon afterward, Israel launched a military strike against Qatar, ostensibly to kill Hamas officials who were meeting there. Shortly afterward, Israel and Hamas agreed to a cease-fire, euphemistically referred to as a "20-point peace plan."

France apparently defined "Palestine" as including the West Bank and Gaza. Great Britain referred to the "occupied territories," presumably the West Bank and Gaza, which is governed by Hamas.  The United Nations currently gives "permanent observer" status to the Palestinian Authority, which is the governing authority in the West Bank and only the West Bank. 

This is a muddled situation because "Palestinians" has become an operative term only in the past few decades, as it has become politically useful messaging. However, the ancient land of Palestine encompassed everything from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. The slogan "from the river to the sea" or "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" pertains to the entire area and evisceration of the State of Israel.

As usual, Hillary Clinton was right, in this case about two things:. the ignorance of many college students about a Palestinian state and about social media's impact. And that is a much greater problem.  

Share |

Waiting for James Carville to Say "It's the Assault Weapon, Stupid"

Piers Morgan and Cenk Uygur do not see eye-to-eye.

"Piers, you're totally guilty... YOU'RE guilty!"

Cenk Uygur blows his top discussing the assassination attempts on Donald Trump with Piers Morgan.

Watch more: 📺 https://t.co/PkhSOAFHlV@piersmorgan | @cenkuygur pic.twitter.com/cPc6OR4zKP

— Piers Morgan Uncensored (@PiersUncensored) September 18, 2024

Hillary Clinton would like a word On August 9, 2016

Repeating his contention that Mrs. Clinton wanted to abolish the right to bear arms, Mr. Trump warned at a rally here that it would be “a horrible day” if Mrs. Clinton were elected and got to appoint a tiebreaking Supreme Court justice.

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

Last September the former President was peeved that Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Mark Milley had taken a call from Mainland China and assured that nation that it was in danger of imminent attack. he He characterized Milley's behavior as "an act so egregious that in times gone by, the punishment would be death!" However, Trump usually does not recommend assassination, although

CREW analyzed over 13,000 of Trump’s Truth Social posts from January 1, 2023 to April 1, 2024, and found that while Trump has recently backed off some of his more violent rhetoric, threatening political opponents has been a consistent fixation for Trump. Since the start of last year, Trump has issued direct or implied threats on Truth Social to use the powers of the federal government to target Joe Biden during a second Trump administration 25 times. Specifically, Trump has threatened him with FBI raids, investigations, indictments and even jail time.

But Biden is not Trump’s only target. He’s also threatened or suggested that the FBI and the Department of Justice should take action against senators, judges, members of Biden’s family and even non-governmental organizations.

This doesn't faze Piers Morgan, though he himself isn't "guilty" of much of anything. However, Cenk Uygur, while blowing his top, nevertheless raised a forgotten point. He stated "I'm asking you a question. Do you not consider for a moment that within forty-eight hours you're still saying 'monster, dictator, blah, blah, blah?'" A moment later, he referred to the "shooter at the golf course, specifically in his social media post, parroting Kamala Harris saying essentially that he was an existential threat to demoracy in America. You're doing the same . Does nothing make you pause?

Notwithstanding blowing his top, Cenk rationally explained

Trump does it two thousand times worse... Your great idea is Democrats shouldn't campaign against Donald Trump because some moron, mentally unstable guy, took a shot at him- one or two them did. You know what? I can protect Donald Trump- ban assault weapons. That'll protect Donald Trump wa more than any of, oh, say nice nice things about him now that some lunatic took some shots at him.

Here, let me be super clear: if you're on the left- I know the right-wingers love their guns, Second Amendment remedy, it's what they've been riled up to do, violence nonstop. But if you're on the left and you do any violence, you're not one of us. You're a stupid person who does nothing but make a worthy cause look immoral with your insanity.

Twice someone tries to kill their hero and conservatives still won't acknowledge the need for gun safety, let alone gun safety legislation.

It seems it's not only conservatives, though. During the presidential debate in Philadelphia, Kamala Harris was asked about her support for "a government-run health care system" in 2017 and two years proposal in 2018 for a plan including a private insurance option." Before pivoting to the Affordable Care Act she considers a panacea, she slammed "this business about taking everyone's guns away. Tim Walz and I are both gun owners. We're not taking anybody's guns away."

Reversing her position in favor of a mandatory assault weapon buyback program is sensible and believable. But, oh please:

In the span of 4 years, Kamala has gone from campaigning on gun confiscation to telling Oprah “if someone breaks into my house, they gettin’ SHOT”

This just shows how strongly the American people reject Kamala’s radicalism

She’s in total pandering mode pic.twitter.com/czR1st11PH

— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) September 20, 2024

Five years ago, as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, Harris favored mandatory assault weapons buyback, tantamount to confiscation. 

 

Today, the presidential nominee is promoting herself for the Charles Bronson role if there is any remake of Death Wish. Fortunately, she probably still supports some form of gun safety legislation. Unfortunately, it's likely that it's nothing to which she is committed, especially compared to Cenk Uygur. However, her electoral opponent is Donald Trump who, even after two attempts on his life, is still firmly in support of guns in the hands of dangerous individuals. As on other things, it's a very bad choice but still an easy one.

Share |

Passionately Wrong

With only 140 or so shopping days to go before Christmas, there is something Lawrence O'Donnell could be given as a holiday gift. That would be  a dictionary (or would be, if there was no online dictionary). Incensed that the media telecast Donald Trump's entire liefest, then ignored Kamala Harris' rally afterward, O'Donnell remarked (at 3:07 of the video posted by this journalist)

It's 2016 all over again. The same mistakes are being made3 all over again. I've never seen an industry slower at learning from their own stupid mistakes than the American news business and you cannot expect them in the next 89 days to figure out what they haven't been able to figure out in nine years- how to cover a Trump for President campaign...

On October 28, 2016 we learned "Emails in Anthony Weiner Inquiry Jolt Hillary Clinton's Campaign." Three days later, we were treated to the New York Times headline "Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia." That article included the now literally incredible report

Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

There is no telling whose those "intelligence officials" were because a few days before Trump became President, an Intelligence Community Assessment acknowledged

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election. Russia's goas were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary (Hillary) Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.

The irony is startling, given that on nine occasions in the closing days of the 2016 campaign, Trump stated a variation of, as he said in Michigan, "if Hillary is elected, she will be under protracted criminal investigation followed by the trial of a sitting president."

These statements were rarely questioned by the media, which Lawrence O'Donnell correctly points out failed in 2016.  "All over again" does not, however, adequately characterize a media which paved the way for a Trump victory then and is fawning over his opponent eight years later.

O'Donnell continued

Donald Trump gets credit from the people he lied to today for lying to them. They appreciate it. Reporters understandably and incorrectly believe that the most important thing a candidate can do is to answer their questions. But they don't know what an answer actually is. Words spoken after their question marks are not necessarily answers and are never answers when they come from Donald Trump.

Trump isn't getting credit from individuals in the media for lying to them. He's getting credit- understandably and correctly- for appearing before them and answering questions, which his opponent, Kamala Harris, is noticeably avoiding doing.

It's no small thing to answer questions, even if most of the answers are dishonest, which is typical for Trump (which makes the dishonesty no more acceptable). And notwithstanding O'Donnell's claim that "they don't know what an answer is," Merriam-Webster defines "answer" as "something spoken or written in reply to a question."

The news show host added

There are rumblings in the news media now that Kamala Harris as a presidential candidate not doing what Donald Trump did today- stand up in front of reporters and take their questions and some of their timid minds in the news media can't wait to give credit to Donald Trump for standing up and lying in response to every question they ask. A lie is not an answer. Donald Trump never answers reporters' questions. Never.

Again: A lie, if in response to a question, is an answer. Donald Trump is very generous with his answers, viewing each as an opportunity to twist a tale. If he periodically told the truth, Donald Trump would not be Donald Trump and never would have been elected President. Lying is an art which many successful politicians including Presidents such as Reagan and Clinton, successfully practiced but never perfected. (Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden were not good at it; a pattern, perhaps?)

Still wrong, O'Donnell followed with

Anyone in the news world who tells you Donald Trump has answered reporters' questions and Kamala Harris hasn't is lying to you and they're too stupid to know that they're lying to you because they don't know what an answer is.

Lying and stupid, a twofer. By contrast, as Collins Dictionary notes, "a lie is something that someone says or writes which they know is untrue." Therefore, if someone is "too stupid to know they're lying to you," he or she is not lying. The individual is not fully aware the statement is untrue. 

The only rationalization for claiming that Kamala Harris hasn't "answered reporters' questions" is that Kamala Harris has been asked very few questions by the media. That is not by accident, in part because the vice president has proven to be very bad at that. And in the alternative, broadcast media will show adoring and rapturous crowds at packed rallies. Harris remembers that  Hillary Clinton answered reporters' questions and never became President Hillary Clinton,  That is not coincidental and the current nominee does not want history to repeat.

The problem with covering Donald Trump's campaign is not that it is covered. It is insufficient fact-checking. When the former President- or his opponent, when she does- hold a news conference, it should be broadcast. In general, candidates should answer, honestly, questions which the news media poses, or wishes to pose, to them.

Lawrence O'Donnell does not agree. He also doesn't know the meaning of simple English. What do they teach at Harvard, anyway?

 

"It was 2016 all over again today ... the same mistakes are being made" -- @lawrence 🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/CxfddzLjuX

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 9, 2024

Share |

Recognizing Donald Trump

She knew.

After Donald Trump was convicted in New York City, NY on Thursday on all 34 counts of business fraud, he told told reporters "this was a rigged, disgraceful trial. The next day, he gave a speech declaring of the court "they are in total conjunction with the White House and the DOJ. Just so you understand, this is all done by Biden and his people."

Hillary Clinton on Trump in 2016: When he lost the Iowa caucuses, he said the Republican primary was rigged. When his fake university was sued for fraud, he said the courts were rigged. When he didn’t get an Emmy for The Apprentice, he claimed the Emmys were rigged. pic.twitter.com/0mNtyqne9I

— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) May 31, 2024

In September of 2007, Mrs. Clinton unveiled a health care plan, more progressive than the Affordable Care Act later implemented by President Obama, which would have provided universal coverage for Americans.  In August of 2016, responding to the Zika virus prevalent in Miami, As she described it, Clinton proposed

a Public Health Rapid Response Fund, with consistent, year-to-year budgets, to better enable the CDC, HHS, FEMA, state and local public health departments, hospital systems, and other federal agencies to quickly and aggressively respond to major public health crises and pandemics. I will also ensure that our government has strong leadership and is organized to better support and work with people on the ground facing public health challenges....

In addition, we need to do more to boost our preparedness for biological threats and bioweapons; to support research for new diagnostic tests, therapeutic treatments, and vaccines for emerging diseases; to build capacity in public health departments; to train the next cadre of public health professionals and ensure that public health and environmental health practices are standard to the educations of medical students; and to provide resources for states and local governments to plan for complex, multi-faceted public health threats, like the impacts of climate change, and build more resilient communities.

So Hillary Clinton understood Donald Trump was corrupt and, as Bill Maher would go on to describe him, whiny little bitch. She probably knew, too, that if Trump were elected President, he would reduce funding for the Centers for Disease Control and "dismantle a National Security Council directorate at the White House charged with preparing for" a likely pandemic.  When asked in March, 2021 about shutting down the global health unit, the President replied "this is something that you can never really think is going to happen."

Well, he may have thought it wouldn't happen. A President Hillary Clinton thought otherwise and would have been in a position to halt the spread of Covid-19, saving  perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives. 

But there was the matter of that one email on her server which was marked in the middle of a paragraph with a lower-case "c" which, then- FBI Director James Comey admitted, would not have been recognized by even classification experts. One e-mail sort of marked classified and sort of mishandled vs. tens, perhaps, hundreds of thousands of American lives. 

Hillary Clinton wasn't right about everything. But about health care, and especially, Donald Trump, she was.

Share |

Take a Hike, Pal

There are "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" and "even a blind squirrel finds an acorn"; others, probably.  And when not talking about the Middle East, Mehdi Hasan is almost always right.

Every Democrat should be publicly demanding Trump drop out of the race, and every reporter should be insisting to Republicans that they explain why he shouldn't have to drop out. https://t.co/U8MK7f30EX

— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) May 30, 2024

There is not a snowball's chance in Hell that reporters will demand Republicans explain why Donald Trump shouldn't have to drop out of the presidential race. As economist Dean Baker would put it, "the major media outlets are owned and controlled by people who will pay lower taxes with Donald Trump back in the White House." 

There is a snowball's chance in Hell that most Democrats will demand that Trump drop out of the race. But only a snowball's chance.  In an article article noting that the Biden Administration is determined not to address the corruption of Supreme Court Associate Justice Sam Alito, Politico writes

Biden has publicly warned that Republicans are undermining democratic norms and threatening its institutions. But he is reluctant to extend that argument to the judicial branch, aides say, fearful it could be cast as politically motivated and undermine his broader effort to portray himself as a champion for strengthening democratic institutions. They believe it’s crucial to maintain a clear contrast with Donald Trump, who has readily attacked an independent judiciary for political gain.

“The central pushback should come from the legislative branch, and not the executive branch,” said Anthony Coley, a former senior official in the Biden Justice Department, arguing that Congress has wide-ranging investigatory authority. “That’s the right place where we should be seeing aggressive oversight, and right now they are not meeting the moment.”

In a development as startling as, oh, Derek Jeter being inducted into the Hall of Fame or snow falling in winter in Siberia, Senate Judiciary Committee chairperson Dick Durbin has decided against holding hearings on Alito.

But if Democratic politicians as usual- are downplaying the importance of the Supreme Court, they cannot ignore the NYC, NY jury's verdict on Trump. They should be pushing in the media the argument that Trump should drop out of the race. If the mainstream media is at all consistent, it will like this idea because it assumes that someone more reasonable and prone to obeying the law and established norms would replace him. Of course, the businessman turned actor turned politician would not step aside but it would remind voters that they are being asked to vote for, and Republicans champion, a crook.

And reporters have their own responsibility which, as Hasan recognizes, is to ask each Republican they can get hold of why Donald Trump should not drop out. When the Republican gets angry or pivots to inflation, gas prices, immigration, or whatever, they should ask again. Again... and again.... and again until they get an answer or time arrives for a commercial break.

In the last week of the 2016 presidential election, as Donald Trump was closing in on Hillary Clinton, the Republican mad a powerful (though dishonest argument argument.  "Hillary is likely to be under investigation for many years, probably concluding in a criminal trial." Two days later he asserted "She'll be under investigation for years. She'll be with trials. Our country, we have to get back to work." There were other, similar remarks but my favorite came two days later when the criminal (as he was then, albeit not yet charged) remarked "Hillary Clinton will be under investigation for a long, long time for her many crimes against our nation, our people, our democracy, likely concluding in a criminal trial."

Democrats could blister the media by pointing out the irony of it all. But they cannot do so without publicly insisting that Donald Trump take a hike, and not wait until Election Day to do so. And they can insist that every reporter explain why he or she won't ask Republican guests and interviews whether they will replace Mr. Trump with a candidate without a criminal record. 

There is a 40+-year-old joke joke asking "what do you call a thousand lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean" with the answer "a good start." But just as there are many more than 1,000 lawyers in the USA, this is a good start- but only barely, and must be only the beginning:

                  

           

Share |

Lay Off the Truth, Lady

"This sort of haughty dismissal" is exactly right. (A different kind of haughty dismissal would be right on target. The "haughty dismissal" is unnecessarily provocative. Nevertheless, the respondent knows the score:

 

We can’t acknowledge the poor shape of US pub ed and then assume most young protestors have a real handle on the history of Israel/Palestine. It’s a cultural conflict based in religious tradition & dogma. They get right/wrong, but they don’t likely get the nuance, which is key.

— Cornell Woolridge (renaissancexm on BlueSky)🦄 (@RenaissanceXM) May 11, 2024

It is more than nuance which goes unrecognized by most of the protestors. However, it is largely "a cultural conflict based on religious tradition and dogma" and Mrs. Clinton's assessment, albeit accurate, should have gone unstated.

Of course, the anti-Israel hysteria has been fed by an ignorance of Middle East history, peppered with a failure to comprehend the nature of the struggle between East and West. Clinton's statement thus bears a resemblance to a more infamous one she made eight years ago. You'll remember when the Democratic presidential nominee in September of that year stated the reasonably obvious:

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

She couldn't have been more accurate unless she had added "insurrectionists and their supporters." Nevertheless, there is a time to hold your tongue as Clinton de facto acknowledged ("just to be grossly generalistic") even before she uttered those words.

Mrs. Clinton could have thrown caution to the wind and fully embraced political incorrectness. Ida Bae Wells argues "Did BLM protestors have to know the entire story of policing to protest what happened to George Floyd?"

They didn't, but they did need something which the campus protestors also needed. That essential element was good timing- favorable weather.

The massive, black lives matter protests were provoked by the murder of George Floyd by police officer Derek Chauvin on May 25, 2020.  However, the ubiquitous and massive outpouring would not have occurred had the crime occurred four or five months earlier, early in winter or in the dead of winter. 

They transpired at a time in which people had begun to realize that Covid-19, which had kept the populace unusually sheltered in late winter and spring, was far less a threat outdoors than indoors. Moreover, good weather was- as it always is with protests- can be a powerful motivator. 

By contrast, in bad weather, less-motivated persons will conclude that there probably will be few attendees, the event will be insignificant, and they may even be subject to discomfort. The spark that lit the flame was the Chauvin/Floyd confrontation- but conditions were especially ripe for associating with like-minded individuals. Or as James Carville would put it, "it's the weather, stupid."

Of course, no Democratic, and perhaps no Republican, politician or official could point to that obvious factor without blowing up his or her career. That's "blowing up" as in destroying, not merely harming. It's the dirty little secret which cannot be expressed without accusations of racism, and there would be very few defenders of the offender.

And so Hillary Clinton cites the historical ignorance of many of the protestors of Israeli and American policy in Gaza. As with the infamous "deplorables" observation, she was simultaneously right and politically inept.

Share |

Not Too Late

As Fox News White House correspondent, Peter Doocy is often an annoyance to President Biden or his press secretary, past or present. He was no different on Thursday night when, following up on the President's  response to a question of his, Doocy asked "how bad is your memory and can you continue as President?"

The President sarcastically responded "my memory is so bad I let you speak."

What in the name of the Almighty was he talking about? No one laughed because, obviously, it was neither funny nor clever. And it made no sense.

Biden was responding to yesterday's release of the Special Counsel, who has investigated the classified documents found in the President's Delaware home (garage, offices, and basement den) and his office at Penn Biden Center in Washington, D.C. in December of 2022 and the following month. Robert (not Ben) Hur, appointed to the position by Attorney General Merrick Garland, had served as US Attorney in Maryland during the Trump administration. Recommending that Biden not be prosecuted

"It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness," Hur wrote. In the report, he said that during interviews Biden couldn't remember when he was vice president, and had to ask when his first term ended and began. The report added that Biden did not remember, "even within several years," when his son Beau died of brain cancer in 2015.

Still, Democratic Party operatives were anxious to spin furiously:

Let's be clear--the special counsel isn't a dummy and we should be very careful not to take the bait after Comey pulled this in 2016. Hur, a lifelong Republican and creature of DC, didn't have a case against Biden, but he knew exactly how his swipes could hurt Biden politically.

— Jim Messina (@Messina2012) February 8, 2024

 

This matter is substantively, significantly different than Comey/Clinton. Hur is not the Attorney General, but a special counsel who was given the task of investigating the retention of documents and making a recommendation to the Attorney General. He

"uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified information after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen," the report said.

"These materials included (1) marked classified documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan, and (2) notebooks containing Mr. Biden's handwritten entries about issues of national security and foreign policy implicating sensitive intelligence sources and methods," said the report.

The FBI reviewed 33,000 Clinton emails individually and found only three emails- later corrected to one- which contained a lower-case "c" in the middle of a paragraph. Not even classification experts would recognize that as "classified" without a header which would immediately expose the report as classified.

Nonetheless, Comey announced to the nation on July 5, 2016 that "Hillary Clinton and her colleagues" were "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." As of that date, every Democratic primary (or caucus) had been held and Mrs. Clinton already had, safely, declared herself winner of the nomination. She was the presumptive- and certain- Democratic nominee. Whether or not there was interest, there no longer was the opportunity for any primary voter to change his or her vote.

 

By contrast, this is only January and only one party-sanctioned primary (South Carolina) has been held. There is still plenty of time to prevent the Hur report from having a significant effect on the general election- if the candidate is not Joe Biden.

He has mistaken Mexico for Egypt and the deceased Helmut Kohl for Angela Merkel, failed to recall when he became Vice-President or vacated the office, confused the war in Ukraine and Iraq, forgotten the year of death of the beloved son he often refers to with great pride... and more. It doesn't suffice that he will be running against Agent of the Devil Donald Trump, with his own, severe, cognitive problems.

Opinions of Donald Trump are largely baked-in. Therefore, if the President's condition gets progressively worse- as is likely- and Trump's condition also declines, voters will be alarmed only by Biden's deterioration. Moreover, in the unlikely event Biden is re-elected, it he probably would not be able to finish out his second term, either through death or incapacitation. And given the 25th Amendment, that would be a tragedy.

 

Share |

And Imagine Such a President

Someone here is very naive, and someone not. The first Indian-American woman to serve in the United States House of Representatives, she is not vile and pro-terrorist, unlike fellow progressives Ilhan Omar, Cori Bush, and Rashida Tlaib.  And appearing on Sunday's Meet the Press, Washington State's Pramila Jayapal explained

Well, look, Kristen, first of all, nobody has any love for Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization that has deprived the Palestinian people, absolutely, of many, many things in the time of their rule. And let's not forget that the last election, where Hamas was elected, was 16 years ago. Half of Palestinians are children. They were not part of that. And Hamas is not Palestinians. And Palestinians are not Hamas. We have to be very clear about that.

"Hamas is not Palestinians." Not only is that accurate, Jayapal she is one of very few people- politicians, pundits, journalists, whomever- who will acknowledge that. The people of Gaza are not the Palestinians of Israel proper, nor of the West Bank, nor of Jordan, the nation more than half of whose residents are ethnic Palestinians. There is a difference between the Gazans and the other peoples, unless all of life now is race and genetics, with no account for citizenship, national lineage, or anything else.

It is true, moreover, that the misguided individuals who voted Hamas into power did so many years ago and many changes occur over time, including the death of individuals and the birth of so many more.

However, reality mourned when Jayapal remarked (moments earlier)

.... we need immediate sustained humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza. We need the bombings – and, you know, you can call it a humanitarian truce, as 140 countries said in the resolution that was passed at the United Nations. The United States was one of only 14 countries to oppose that resolution. Call it a humanitarian truce. Use that time to make sure we get the hostages out, both American hostages and Israeli hostages....  And I think this is the moment for us to de-escalate, to call for cessation of hostilities, and to allow humanitarian aid through and the negotiators to work to get the hostages released.

Calling a truce, then expecting hostages to be released and Hamas to cool its heels is almost as naive as John Lennon's "Imagine," in which bad music was paired with lyrics so unrealistic as to be silly:  "Imagine no possessions. I wonder if you can. No need for greed or hunger; a brotherhood of man."

Without regard to Lennon or Jayapal, a wise and balanced remark: 

In a conversation with @NorahODonnell, Secretary Hillary Clinton on those calling for a ceasefire:

“People who are calling for a ceasefire now do not understand Hamas, that is not possible. It would be such a gift to Hamas because they would spend whatever time there was a… pic.twitter.com/cCcL1JusCU

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) October 30, 2023

She also proposed a Public Health Rapid Response Fund to deal with pandemics... in 2016. But oh, those emails!

Share |

Especially on Gaza, Prescient

As long as Joe Walsh says he agrees with "every single word that Hillary Clinton spoke here," let's go the videotape to unveil her entire statement.

I agree with every single word @HillaryClinton said here. Every single word. Have a listen.👇 https://t.co/rCNyeVy4MC

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) October 23, 2023

In a primary debate on April 14, 2016 in Brooklyn, New York, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Senator Bernard "Bernie" Sanders"

Senator, let’s talk about the U.S. relationship with Israel. Senator Sanders, you maintained that Israel’s response in Gaza in 2014 was, quote, “disproportionate and led to the unnecessary loss of innocent life.” What do you say to those who believe that Israel has a right to defend itself as it sees fit?"

Sanders agreed that Israel had a right to defend itself (bold!) but asserted that the Israeli attack was indeed "disproportionate."  The argument (with the applicable remark in italics and bold) continued

Blitzer: Thank you. Secretary Clinton, do you agree with Senator Sanders that Israel overreacts to Palestinians attacks, and that in order for there to be peace between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel must, quote, "end its disproportionate responses"?

Clinton: I negotiated the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in November of 2012. I did it in concert with President Abbas of the Palestinian authority based in Ramallah, I did it with the then Muslim Brotherhood President, Morsi, based in Cairo, working closely with Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli cabinet. I can tell you right now I have been there with Israeli officials going back more than 25 years that they do not seek this kind of attacks. They do not invite the rockets raining down on their towns and villages.

They do not believe that there should be a constant incitement by Hamas aided and abetted by Iran against Israel. And, so when it came time after they had taken the incoming rockets, taken the assaults and ambushes on their soldiers and they called and told me, I was in Cambodia, that they were getting ready to have to invade Gaza again because they couldn't find anybody to talk to tell them to stop it, I flew all night, I got there, I negotiated that.

So, I don't know how you run a country when you are under constant threat, terrorist attacks, rockets coming at you. You have a right to defend yourself.

That does not mean that you don't take appropriate precautions. And, I understand that there's always second-guessing anytime there is a war. It also does not mean that we should not continue to do everything we can to try to reach a two-state solution, which would give the Palestinians the rights and the autonomy that they deserve. And, let me say this, if Yasser Arafat had agreed with my husband at Camp David in the late 1990s to the offer then Prime Minister [Ehud] Barak put on the table, we would have had a Palestinian state for 15 years.

Blitzer: Thank you, go ahead, Senator.

Sanders: I don't think that anybody would suggest that Israel invites and welcomes missiles flying into their country. That is not the issue.

And, you evaded the answer. You evaded the question. The question is not does Israel have a right to respond, nor does Israel have a right to go after terrorists and destroy terrorism. That's not the debate. Was their response disproportionate?

I believe that it was, you have not answered that.

Clinton: I will certainly be willing to answer it. I think I did answer it by saying that of course there have to be precautions taken but even the most independent analyst will say the way that Hamas places its weapons, the way that it often has its fighters in civilian garb, it is terrible.

I'm not saying it's anything other than terrible. It would be great -- remember, Israel left Gaza. They took out all the Israelis. They turned the keys over to the Palestinian people.

And what happened? Hamas took over Gaza. So instead of having a thriving economy with the kind of opportunities that the children of the Palestinians deserve, we have a terrorist haven that is getting more and more rockets shipped in from Iran and elsewhere.

Later in the transaction, Sanders would note "There comes a time- there comes a time when if we pursue justice and peace, we are going to have to say that Netanyahu is not right all the time." Clinton had never suggested or implied that the Israeli prime minister was right all the time, but Sanders' words should reverberate when he recognize the role of Netanyahu's self-centered, possibly even corrupt, leadership, that helped enable Hamas to commit the massacre of 10/7/23 massacre.

The Vermont senator remarked also "all that I am saying we cannot continue to be one-sided. There are two sides to the issue." However, as recent events have demonstrated, there is only one side and, if anything, American foreign policy 

As recent issues have demonstrated, there are not the two sides- Israel and the Palestinians/Hamas- which Sanders thought there were. There are three sides- Israel, Hamas, and the Palestinians who are not part of the ruthless terrorist group ruling Gaza. Clinton obviously understood this when recommended the USA

continue to do everything we can to reach a two-state solution, which would give the Palestinians the rights and... the autonomy that they deserve. And let me say this,if Yasser Arafat had agreed with my husband at Camp David in the 1990s to the offer then-Prime Minister Barat (sic) put on the table, we would have had a Palestinian state for 15 years.

When "Israel left Gaza," the then-Secretary of State explained, "they took out all the Israelis. They turned the keys over to the Palestinian people" and now "we have a terrorist haven that is getting more and more rockets shipped in from Iran and elsewhere."

That's the current situation- laid out over seven years ago- in a nutshell. And prior to the Middle East, Clinton had been asked about the reliance upon the USA of funding for NATO and replied

.... we have to work out the financial aspects of it, but let’s not forget what’s really happening. With Russia being more aggressive, making all kinds of intimidating moves toward the Baltic countries, we’ve seen what they’ve done in Eastern Ukraine, we know how they want to rewrite the map of Europe, it is not in our interests. Think of how much it would cost if Russia’s aggression were not deterred because NATO was there on the front lines making it clear they could not move forward.

In the 2016 primary, I voted for Sanders over Clinton, for reasons completely unrelated to foreign policy. Moreover, Clinton never actually has claimed to be psychic. But she evidently understood, better than Senator Sanders and President Obama, the threat posed by Vladimir Putin's Russia. And on the matter of Palestinians, the terrorist subset known as Hamas, and of Israel, she told us in 2016 what was going on. It's not only unfortunate but dangerous that even now, so many people across the world cannot see, or refuse to see, what she saw then.

Share |