Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

media news

Media getting it from both sides

imrs

The media can’t buy a break, they can’t get any love these days.

Republicans hate ’em. Now the nation’s top Democrat, the president of the United States, has gone after the media.

Barack Obama held his final press conference of the year this past week and became animated precisely one time, as he was chiding the media for their coverage of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s losing presidential campaign.

He didn’t like the way the media obsessed over the e-mail story, how they kept reporting over and over the controversy that just wouldn’t go away.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/16/president-obama-isnt-a-big-fan-of-the-medias-coverage-of-the-2016-campaign/?postshare=6221481923285992&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.be51a74a5fb5

Democrats appear to be stealing some of the signals offered by Republicans. When things go badly for you, blame the messenger.

Donald J. Trump, I believe, actually loves the media. He is what we used to call politicians a “media whore.” He would use the media to his advantage whenever and wherever possible. He did so brilliantly during his winning campaign for president — even as he trashed the media for what he said was their failure to “tell the truth.” He called them “the most dishonest people.” Still, the media followed him around, giving him ample air time and print space.

Now he’s the president-elect and he’s still trashing the media.

At one level, I understand the president’s frustration with the media. Reporters did all the things he said they did with regard to covering Hillary Clinton’s campaign. However, the media didn’t make these circumstances up. They didn’t just fabricate them and then try to peddle made-up stories to the public. They were real.

The media were doing their job, just as they did when they finally began calling out Trump for lying continually about his foes, about what he allegedly witnessed.

The media are facing a changing environment. To be sure, they are full these days of opinion, commentary and punditry that is overtaking the straight reporting of just the facts.

There remain straightforward media organizations that do a good job of reporting the news fairly. The problem, though, develops when they become drowned out by the noise created among other outlets. Online “news” sites are putting “fake news” stories that the public is buying as real. The purveyors of fake news, moreover, are making money off the clicks they get from suckers who consume that crap.

If only the actual reporters who continue to do their jobs honestly, fairly and with integrity could be heard above the din.

I fear they’re being drowned out forever.

national news, political news

Let’s hear some national unity talk, Mr. President-elect

Dear Mr. President-elect:

You’ve concluded your “thank you” tour in those states you won while scoring a stunning victory in the presidential election.

In just 34 days, you’re going to raise your right hand and take an oath to the very first public office you ever sought. Congratulations on your victory.

aalgtwt

But something was missing from your victory tour: that unity talk you said you’d deliver after you won the presidency. We could hear the chants way out here in places you didn’t visit about “Lock her up!” Didn’t you say you weren’t going to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Rodham Clinton, that the FBI had ruled correctly in declining to seek indictments over the e-mail matter?

What about your pledge to become “president of all the people”? None of us heard any high-minded rhetoric that sought to heal the wounds that tore the nation apart during this contentious election campaign. Where has the outreach been? Why didn’t you take your victory tour to places that Clinton actually won?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/on-victory-lap-few-signs-trump-focusing-on-unified-nation/ar-AAlGS52?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

Why didn’t you reach out directly to those folks who voted against you? Surely I don’t need to remind you, Mr. President-elect, that more of us voted against you than voted for you.

This phase of your victory lap has concluded. I presume you’ll take a break with your loved ones to celebrate Christmas.

After that, though, you’ve still got more time to bind the wounds. Oh, and you also have to start boning up on actual governing. You have inherited the complicated and very detail-oriented job. You’ll need to spend some time hearing from presidential briefers on all manner of things — even those silly old national security intelligence matters you seem so willing to blow off.

While you’re still prepping for this big new job of yours, some noble oratory would be good to hear from you. You ought to tell us how you intend to unify the country that — in case you haven’t noticed — is more divided than at any time since, oh, the Civil War.

We’re all ears, Mr. President-elect. Talk to us. All of us. Not just your loyal partisan base.

As president, you’ll be making decisions that affect every single American. It’s time to use that bully pulpit of yours to bring us together.

national news, political news

FBI joins CIA in fingering Russian hackers

bbh9xcg

What do you know about that?

FBI Director James Comey has concluded that the CIA analysis is correct, that the Russians hacked into our nation’s electoral process and might have helped Donald J. Trump win the election over Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Oh, the irony is amazing.

Just to be clear, I am not going to suggest that Comey’s conduct near the end of the presidential campaign cost Clinton the victory most of us thought she would win. The letter to Congress about those e-mails may have contributed some to Hillary’s defeat. Was it decisive? Did it doom her campaign by itself? I don’t believe so.

But now we have the FBI climbing aboard the CIA hay wagon, endorsing the spook agency’s findings that the Russians sought to do the very thing Comey has been accused of doing.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fbi-backs-cia-view-that-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-election/ar-AAlEvfm?li=BBnb7Kz

I don’t know all the facts about how the FBI works. I damn sure know even less about the CIA and the work its agents and analysts do to compile intelligence information. I probably don’t want to know.

When two pre-eminent intelligence and law enforcement agencies draw the same conclusion, though, that’s a huge deal.

If only the president-elect would exhibit some respect for the work these professionals do every day, rather than dissing them while denigrating their findings.

Indeed, the candidate who himself questioned the integrity of the electoral process — remember how the president-elect proclaimed the system to be “rigged” against him? — ought to be among the loudest voices demanding a full accounting of what the Russians have done … allegedly.

national news, political news

Here’s a possible constitutional crisis of major proportion

electoral-college-banner

Those 538 men and women who are set to meet Monday to elect the next president of the United States are poised to make some serious history, one way or the other.

Most of them come from states that voted for Donald J. Trump, the Republican, over Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democrat. They comprise the Electoral College, which the nation’s founders established in the 18th century to choose the person who would govern the country.

Here’s the big-time catch: some of them are “faithless,” which means they aren’t necessarily bound by the dictates of their states’ majorities. Add to that some major-league questions about whether Russian intelligence agents and computer hackers influenced the outcome the election and you have a situation of monumental proportions brewing … possibly.

Enough of those electors might decide they can’t vote for Trump and, thus, deny the president-elect the 270 electoral votes he needs to take office in January.

What happens then if, say, not enough of them switch their votes to Clinton, making her the next president? The U.S. House of Representatives, controlled by the GOP, then gets to pick the next president.

I don’t believe this will happen. I believe Trump will collect enough votes from the Electoral College to take the oath on Jan. 20. He will become the 45th president of the United States; Mike Pence will become the vice president.

Trump likely will have the Cabinet chosen by then. The U.S. Senate committees charged with recommending whether these nominees should be confirmed will get to work and make those critical decisions.

But some of the electors have asked to be briefed fully by the U.S. intelligence apparatus on what the Russians did and whether they actually influenced the outcome of the election. Just suppose the spooks tell the electors that, yep, the Russkies succeeded in getting their man elected. What happens then if you’re an elector from a state that voted for Trump and you can’t in good conscience cast your vote for the winner?

Lots of answers yet to come forward before the big day next week.

This could be the most fascinating supposedly pro forma electoral procedure in the history of the Republic.

It could be …

International news, national news, political news

Here’s how you could have handled the Russia problem

President George W Bush visits CIA Headquarters, March 20, 2001.

Donald J. Trump didn’t ask me for my opinion on this, but I’ll give it to him anyway … not that it matters in Trump World.

CIA officials have concluded that Russian computer hackers had some impact on the 2016 presidential election. To what end, they haven’t disclosed; it’s highly classified at the moment.

They aren’t alone in that assessment. Other intelligence agencies and independent experts also have reached that conclusion.

So, what does the president-elect do? He dismisses the CIA’s findings. He says he doesn’t believe them. He says the Russians didn’t do what has been alleged. He blames Democrats for fomenting a false allegation. How does he know any of that? He doesn’t.

A better response would have been for Trump to do the following: Stand before the media and issue a statement.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the press. I want to issue a brief statement. There’ll be no questions.

The news from the CIA is troubling in the extreme. I hereby join President Obama in calling for a full review of the findings and a public disclosure — to the extent that it is possible — of what, if anything, transpired in the Kremlin that might have had an impact on the election.

I am acutely aware of my statements throughout the campaign that the election would be “rigged” in favor of my opponent, Hillary Clinton. As I’ve noted on other campaign-related matters, I said some things for “dramatic effect.” The “rigged election” allegation was one of them.

I did not envision the “rigged election” charge coming back on me and my campaign in this matter.

Do I believe the Russians tilted the election in my favor? No. But you shouldn’t just take my word for it.

I remain confident that a thorough review of the evidence and the facts will determine we would have won anyway.

But let’s find out the truth of what happened, starting with the review that the president has demanded from the intelligence community.

He didn’t say anything like that. Instead, he has denigrated the intelligence community, as he has done with many other facets of government.

Trump’s stubborn denial of any possible hanky-panky — and his stated disbelief in the work of the CIA’s professional intelligence officers — only darkens the clouds forming over his administration.

The questions only will deepen the distrust many Americans are expressing at this moment over what might have transpired on Election Day.

political news

‘Trump landslide’ becoming something quite different

voting

I keep looking at a website that tabulates election results.

A new number jumps out at me as I look at the unofficial vote count from the 2016 presidential election.

3 million.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s margin over Donald J. Trump is getting close to the 3 million mark. She has rolled up a vote total of 65.7 ballots, which is about what President Obama collected when he won re-election in 2012.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

Don’t remind me of what I know already: Hillary lost the election. Trump is the next president. He’ll take the oath of office on Jan. 20. Hillary will go back to working on the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative. She’s likely done as a national political candidate.

But it’s Trump’s careless use of language that continues to bug me.

He says he won in a “landslide.” No. He didn’t. He captured 306 electoral votes, which is a comfortable margin. A landslide victory? Far from it.

I just need to remind the president-elect that a popular vote deficit approaching 3 million ballots should give him pause as he continues to build his government leadership team.

national news, political news

Shocking! Trump was kidding about locking Hillary up

GRAND RAPIDS, MI - DECEMBER 9: President-elect Donald Trump waves to the crowd as he arrives onstage at the DeltaPlex Arena, December 9, 2016 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. President-elect Donald Trump is continuing his victory tour across the country. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Donald J. Trump didn’t mean it. He was kidding. He never intended to “lock up” Hillary Rodham Clinton over her use of a personal e-mail server.

Wow! Can you believe it? He said it was a ploy to win votes.

Interesting, yes? I think so.

Now I’m wondering what else the president-elect said just to sway voters to cast their ballots for him.

Does he really intend to build a wall across our southern border? Does he actually intend to ban Muslims from entering the United States of America? The “deportation force” is a joke, too?

Trump has acknowledged already that those hideous things he said about women were for “entertainment” purposes. Gosh, I still haven’t stop laughing. Thanks, Donald, for the hilarity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-clinton-lock-her-up_us_584b5b53e4b04c8e2bb01274?

This all seems to play into the narrative that developed not long after the election, which is that you can’t take Trump’s statements literally. When he said he knows “more about ISIS than the generals,” we’re supposed to brush it off as — what — just campaign rhetoric? When he called President Obama the “founder of ISIS,” that was meant to draw applause from those yuuuuge rallies?

As for the so-called pledge to toss Hillary Clinton in jail, many of his ardent supporters accepted as the gospel according to Trump. “Lock  her up!” they chanted repeatedly.

Oh, my. We’re going to have to parse the new president’s words with great care … and even greater skepticism.

national news, political news

Trump’s ‘thank you tour’ needs some diversity

trump_thankyoutour

Donald J. Trump proclaimed on Election Night his intention to be the president for “all Americans.”

He said so while he was declaring victory after being elected president of the United States. Trump said he intends to bind the deep political wounds that divided Americans.

Wise words. A wise message. Was it heartfelt? Was it sincere?

Consider this: The president-elect has embarked on a tour of locations where he was victorious over Hillary Rodham Clinton. He’s been to Wisconsin, to Iowa, to Ohio, to Pennsylvania. Today he was in Louisiana. He’s going to Florida.

Trump won all those states. He has spoken to cheering crowds. He has soaked up the love flowing from the cheering audiences.

However, I am wondering along with some other observers why he hasn’t scheduled any appearances in, say, California, or New York (his home state, by the way), or Illinois, or Minnesota. Those states all were won by Clinton.

Were the votes cast in those states for the former secretary of state unanimous? Of course not! It would seem that the next president could muster enough of a crowd at any location in any of the states that Hillary won to offer a word of thanks for those who did support him.

Imagine for just a moment what the reaction would be if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency and visited only those states where she had won and ignored those that went for her opponent.

I get that those would merely be symbolic steps. However, symbolism matters at times. It sends important messages.

This could be one of those times when the president-elect, still aglow from his stunning victory, tells Americans living in those states where most voters opposed him that, by golly, he’s their president, too.

national news, political news

Not yet time to ‘move on’

512501530-republican-presidential-candidate-donald-trump-speaks-jpg-crop-promo-xlarge2

Some of my social media friends and contacts are asking me a good question. It goes something like this:

“When are you going to quit bashing the new president and move on?”

My answer? Not anytime soon.

I’ll parse the question in two parts.

First, I don’t consider my criticism of the president-elect as a “bashing.” It’s been harsh at times. I’ve made no apologies for feeling deeply disappointed about the election outcome. I didn’t want Donald J. Trump elected. My preference was for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I’ve gone on and on in this forum about how unqualified and unfit Trump is for the office he is about to assume.

Enough said there.

Time to move on? Time to get on board? Not yet. Maybe not ever. It’s too early yet for me to make that call.

Trump’s lack of government experience has presented itself frequently as he has begun the transition from private business mogul to the most powerful man on Earth.

His Cabinet selections have been a mixed bag. That’s the best thing I can say for him. He’s a faux populist who’s filling his Cabinet with mega-rich folks. I get that he’s more comfortable with those who run in the same circles as he does. He’s also recommending individuals for some posts who quite possibly will seek to roll back many of the progressive reforms enacted during the past eight years.

Trump spoke by phone to the president of Taiwan and in the process tossed aside decades of diplomatic protocol by conversing with someone who governs a country with which we have zero diplomatic relations.

Will all of this — and more — produce an effective presidency? I hope it does. I also hope the president succeeds in doing whatever it is he wants to do. Then again, I am not yet sure what on God’s Earth he actually intends to do. Trump isn’t driven by any ideology I can identify, other than seeking to call attention to himself.

I’ll keep on being critical of Trump. I won’t call him names. I won’t hang labels on him the way, um, he has done to others.

If he does something good, I’ll say so.

Until then, I do, though, reserve the right — as a red-blooded American citizen, Army veteran and someone who pays his taxes every year — to criticize the man who’s about to become president of the United States of America.

The U.S. Constitution gives us all that right. I intend to exercise it with vigor.

International news, military news, national news, political news

One person’s ‘serious mistake’ is OK; another deserves to be ‘locked up’

petraeus

I’m trying to keep all this straight. Man, it’s a struggle.

David Petraeus, a retired U.S. Army general and former head of the CIA, admitted to sharing classified information with his mistress. He paid a hefty price politically for it; he resigned as the nation’s top spook.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, while serving as secretary of state, used a personal e-mail server. She was accused by her political foes of letting classified information get out where it shouldn’t belong. She lost the presidential election amid calls from Donald J. Trump, the man who defeated her, that she should be jailed for unspecified and unproven allegations of wrongdoing.

Petraeus, though, is now being considered for secretary of state by the very same man — Donald Trump — who said Clinton needed to be tossed into the slammer.

What gives?

I don’t doubt Petraeus’s tremendous service to the country while he wore the Army uniform. He commanded our fighting personnel in this difficult struggle against international terror organizations.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/petraeus-mishandling-classified-information-i-made-serious-mistake-n691721

I am just having difficulty processing how one person can admit to doing something illegal but still be considered for high office and other one can be only accused by her political opponents of breaking the law and be scorned.