Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

national news, political news

Counting down the days …

clinton-trump

A strange habit has grabbed hold of me.

I am finding myself counting down the days to Election Day. All that’s left is for me to put a short-timer’s calendar on the cabinet next to the desk in my home office.

We’ve got 86 days to go.

The last time I watched the calendar with such intensity, I believe, was when I was in the U.S. Army. The first calendar went up when I arrived in Vietnam in March 1969. Then I got home and I put another one up in Fort Lewis, Wash.

I haven’t been so anxious for the end of something as I was then.

This time, I am awaiting the end of this presidential election.

I am particularly tired of listening to Republican nominee Donald J. Trump say things that have nothing to do with public policy. His latest riff now is that the “only way I’ll lose” the election is if it’s “rigged.”

The culprit? Why, it’s “Crooked Hillary” Rodham Clinton, of course!

As for Clinton, I am weary of listening her try to avoid explaining why so many voters dislike her, why they distrust her.

My dear late mother used to warn me about “wishing your life away.” I would tell her, “Gee, Mom, I can’t wait for the weekend. I wish it would hurry up and get here.” That’s when she would issue the wise admonition.

Well, Mom? I’m at it again.

I cannot wait for this campaign to end.

Moreover, I just might put up that short-timer’s calendar.

national news, political news

Trump still not listening to advice

GettyImages-583518404

Eighty-seven days to go before Election Day.

Public opinion surveys are showing a clear trend: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is opening up a significant lead over Republican candidate Donald J. Trump.

The so-called “battleground states” are leaning increasingly toward Clinton.

So, where is Trump campaigning today? Is he in one of those battleground states battling Clinton tooth-and-nail?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-connecticut-why-is-he-campaigning-there-226959

No. He’s in Connecticut. The Nutmeg State hasn’t voted GOP since 1988. It won’t vote for Trump this time, either.

And this, I believe, sums up just why Trump is losing this campaign.

He’s got a campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who supposedly is an experienced hand. Is Manafort sending Trump into the belly of the beast? Does he actually believe Trump has a shot of winning Connecticut?

My guess: Probably not. Trump is continuing to march to his own cadence.

For someone who knows nothing about politics and even less about government, this is the “strategy” of a loser.

national news, political news

Big crowds don’t necessarily equal big votes

Unfiltered-Voices-From-Donald-Trumps-Crowds

I’m enjoying listening to and reading comments from Donald J. Trump’s fans — some of whom are friends of mine — boast about the size of the rallies he is attracting.

The Republican candidate for president’s rallies, they keep saying, are far bigger than those who listen to Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That’s proof, they say, that Trump is making a comeback. That he’ll win in the end and be elected the 45th president of the United States.

I feel the need to remind them all of this indisputable fact … which is that big crowds don’t necessarily translate into big vote totals.

* George McGovern drew big crowds in 1972. They were loud, boisterous, enthusiastic and dedicated to their man. I know. I was among them. He lost the election that year by 23 percentage points to President Nixon.

* Gary Hart drew big crowds, too, in 1984 as he campaigned for the Democratic nomination. His fans were zealous. He didn’t even get nominated. The Democrat who did, Walter Mondale, lost “bigly” to President Reagan.

* Twenty years earlier, Barry Goldwater had the fervent support of the GOP’s conservative movement. They packed auditoriums and stadiums to hear their guy. Goldwater lost the 1964 election to President Johnson; yep, that was a landslide, too.

* Bernie Sanders just this year was drawing huge crowds. The crowds loved him. Did he win the nomination? No. Clinton did.

This election will decided by which candidate has the better “ground game.” Who between them has an organization ready to mobilize voters? Who is better equipped to target voting blocs? Which of them is going to develop the better ad campaign?

Crowd size? Sure, it’s nice to speak to more than just family and friends. The size of the crowds or the decibel level of their cheers, though, do not guarantee a thing on Election Day.

national news, political news

It may be too late for Trump to ‘turn it around’

donald-trump

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s lead over Donald J. Trump is large — and it’s getting larger.

The pundit class, though, seems somewhat fixated on how the Republican Party’s presidential nominee can “turn it around” if he has a chance of defeating his Democratic Party opponent.

My own view is that Trump likely is well past the point of no return.

Will a speech do it? Does he need to embarrass Clinton at any of the three joint appearances scheduled? Forget about the VP encounter between Tim Kaine and Mike Pence; that won’t change a thing.

It looks for all the world as though Trump’s interminably long record of insults and his astonishing demonstration of ignorance about anything involving public policy has done him in.

How in the world does this buffoon/clown/carnival barker/con man/narcissist persuade voters now — at this point — that all that prior stuff was just a joke?

He cannot help himself. He cannot resist the urge to veer off into some nonsensical rant whenever he delivers what passes for a “campaign stump speech.”

He vows to “unify” the Republican Party, then he trashes the GOP leadership. Party hot shots are deserting him in droves. I heard last night that Trump was coming to Texas for a fundraiser, but the biggest donors in the state aren’t going to show up.

The only possible way for Clinton to lose this election would be for something truly terrible to come out about her. Or … she would have to drool all over herself or somehow revert to some form of Trump-like campaign stump-speech riff that makes as little sense as the stuff that’s been pouring out of Trump’s mouth for the past year.

Sure, the first thing is entirely possible. We might learn something egregious about Clinton. Then again, the most scrutinized and examined political candidate of the past quarter century has weathered lots of storms already.

I once wrote on this blog that the election figured to be a blowout. Then I thought Trump might make a race of it. I’m back to believing a rout is in the making.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/05/time-to-handicap-the-fall-election/

 

national news, political news

TV news ‘contributors’ need to come clean

hillary

Even as a longtime print guy — someone who earned his living writing for newspapers for more than three decades — I remain quite respectful of broadcast journalists and their craft.

I say that even as broadcast journalism is morphing into something few of us barely recognize from the days when we broke into journalism three, four, five decades ago.

The cable and broadcast news networks now are full of “contributors,” pundits who often come to their new calling from the partisan political world.

An online report brings to light a fascinating and troubling trend in the TV coverage of the presidential campaign. It is the absence of full disclosure by political pundits to the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/25/tv-pundits-praise-hillary-clinton-on-air-fail-to-disclose-financial-ties-to-her-campaign/

Viewers are listening to “contributors” such as, Stephanie Cutter, say that Hillary Clinton has done “nothing wrong” in her presidential campaign. They do not hear Cutter — or her employers at CNN — reveal that she has financial ties to the Clinton campaign.

CNN recently hired former Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski as a “contributor.” It didn’t reveal that Lewandowski was still getting paid by the Trump campaign even after he was let go as its campaign manager.

The broadcast and cable news outlets are full of these contributors, though, who have some form of financial connection to Clinton.

Honestly, I am troubled in the first place by all these political hacks who find themselves offering analysis on the state of the campaign. My own preference would be for the networks to rely more on think tank types, journalists who make their living offering such analysis and perhaps academics.

Sure, they need to be “telegenic” and be able to present themselves and their views in a cogent and understandable manner.

Does any of this pro-Clinton slant — and the financial connections to the candidate herself — doom or candidacy? Should it? No to questions.

Consumers of news and analysis, though, would be served far better if the contributors revealed their own financial interest in the candidate they are praising.

business news, national news, political news

Tax returns, Mr. Trump … tax returns

hillary

Hillary Rodham Clinton and her Democratic running mate, Tim Kaine, have released their tax returns.

Now it’s time for Donald Trump and his running Republican running mate, MIke Pence, to do the same.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-releases-2015-tax-return-prods-trump-to-do-the-same/ar-BBvyxbS?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

This issue will not go away. Nor should it as long as Trump continues to hide behind some kind of phony excuse about the Internal Revenue Service audit.

IRS officials say an audit doesn’t prevent someone from releasing returns to the public.

Here’s an interesting twist to the Trump refusal to do what other presidential candidates have been doing since 1976: it’s that he has been insisting that President Obama release his academic records at Harvard; he bitched about the president’s birth, insisting that he release his birth certificate to prove he actually was born in the United States.

Now, with the focus on his own tax returns — and his continuing boasts about how rich and successful he has been — Trump refuses to let us all in on what should be public knowledge.

How much is he really worth? How much has he given to charity? How much does he pay in taxes? What is the nature of his foreign investments?

We’ve seen Hillary Clinton’s returns. She and her husband made a lot of money this past year. They also paid a significant portion in taxes. They gave to charity, although most of that charitable giving went to their foundation.

It’s your turn, Donald Trump.

entertainment news, national news, political news

Natalie Maines asks: Where’s the outrage now?

chicks

Natalie Maines became the voice, the face and the symbol of something that had little to do with the music she and her bandmates, the Dixie Chicks, were making about a dozen years ago.

She had the audacity, the temerity, the unmitigated gall to grab a microphone during a concert in London and declare that she was “ashamed” that President George W. Bush was from Texas. Maines, a native of Lubbock, thought little of the Iraq War, so she decided to protest it.

For that she and the other Chicks were scorned. Country radio stations all around the nation banned them. How dare they speak ill of the president and condemn his war policy?

She poses an interesting question today, though.

She wonders: How is it that Donald J. Trump — the Republican presidential nominee — can all but order a hit on Hillary Rodham Clinton and still be revered by those who condemned her for speaking her mind?

Trump has said as well that Barack Obama “founded” the Islamic State and has continued to question whether Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve as president of the United States.

Does that bother those on the right?

Not in the least … apparently.

Why is that?

http://www.upworthy.com/natalie-maines-of-the-dixie-chicks-has-an-important-question-about-donald-trump?c=ufb1

Man, oh man. There’s so much about this current political climate that is very ugly.

Intgernational news, national news, political news, Sports news

Olympics provide welcome relief

BBvwYpw

Michael Phelps is such a refreshing respite from the vitriol and trash talk of Drumpf  …

Right there, I believe, lies the key to why the Rio de Janeiro Olympics have me so damn spell-bound.

It comes from a friend of mine’s social media post. You go, Jim!

It’s not just Michael Phelps’s quest for more Olympic swimming history, as if he hasn’t made enough of it already while splashing through the water for the United States of America.

And it’s not just Donald J. Trump’s trash talk that’s infuriated me as I watch this miserable presidential campaign unfold … although I admit that the GOP nominee has played the major role in that element of disgust.

Watching these young people compete has been quite joyful for me.

I didn’t expect it.

I instead expected most of the TV coverage to center on the dirty water, the Zika-virus-bearing bugs flying around Rio, the corruption of the Brazilian government and the crime that plagues one of the world’s great cities.

We keep hearing these great stories about Phelps conquering demons, about our U.S. female gymnasts living up to their huge hype and winning all that gold, about friendly rivalries that span the globe.

OK, so not all of it has been warm and fuzzy.

We’ve had the smack-down between a U.S. swimmer and her Russian rival over doping and the controversy associated with the entire Russian team’s participation in the Games; we’ve heard some criticism of one of our gymnasts for failing to put her hand over heart while the National Anthem was played during the medal ceremony; there’s been this and that on the sidelines seeking to distract us from the athletic competition.

It’s all diversionary material.

The presidential campaign awaits us after Labor Day.

Donald Trump will keep talking trash. Hillary Rodham Clinton will respond with her own brand of smack. Our disgust will mount. I am not looking forward to the final days of this campaign, as I’m sure they will bring out the worst in the candidates — not to mention the worst in voters who will work themselves into an all-out lather over what the “other” party’s candidate is saying.

I’m going to focus my attention for the next week on Rio.

The rest of it will be waiting when the Olympic flame goes out.

national news, political news

GOP’s ‘unifier’ needs to start, um, unifying the party

fd-letter-master768

I believe I’ve heard Donald J. Trump say — many times — that he is the great unifier among Republicans.

The GOP presidential nominee is going to bring the party together to rally behind his candidacy as he seeks to trounce the Democrats’ Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Didn’t he say that?

What’s going on with that?

Fifty senior Republican foreign-policy experts have signed a letter saying that Trump is a danger to the country. They say he’s unstable, and oh yes, “unfit” to become president.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us/politics/national-security-gop-donald-trump.html?_r=3&referer=

How does a unifying presidential candidate bring the party together when former GOP Cabinet members, advisers, senior counsels and various top guns among the GOP foreign-policy intelligentsia all say the candidate doesn’t know what he’s doing?

The letter is a scathing indictment of the nominee. It speaks quite directly and forcefully to his lack of understanding — of anything!

Trump’s answer? The signatories all got us into the trouble we’re in, he said. Think about that for a moment. The man who insists he can unify the party responds to the criticism by telling Republicans that these wise men and women are partly responsible for creating the dangers that Trump says threaten the United States.

From my perch, it looks as though the Republican Party’s rupture is widening, not closing.

national news, political news

Clinton and the foundation require serious answers

hillary

I’ve long believed the Clinton Global Initiative was founded to do good work around the world.

My faith in CGI’s intended mission, though, has been shaken with reports of favors being done for political allies of the former president and the current Democratic presidential nominee.

Hillary Clinton? You have some answering to do.

Some more of those pesky e-mails are surfacing to suggest that Hillary Clinton’s motives aren’t all that pure. She signed an ethics pledge when she became secretary of state in 2009. There are now suggestions that she has violated the spirit — if not the letter — of that pledge.

Is this a deal breaker? Does it suddenly swing yours truly into Republican nominee Donald Trump’s corner? Does the GOP now get my vote for president of the United States of America?

Not even close! Never!

It does, though, cause me serious heartburn.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-emails-state-foundation-226897

The e-mails suggest that CGI catered to donors to the foundation. What, though, does all this suggest were she to become president of the United States?

It’s been my understanding that Bill and Hillary Clinton well might disband the CGI or put it into some sort of blind trust if Hillary Clinton wins the election. Remember what President Carter did after he was elected in 1976? He put his peanut business into a blind trust, meaning that he couldn’t derive any income from it while he served as president.

Clinton pledged to stay away from the foundation for the time she served as secretary of state. It’s looking as though she didn’t make good on that promise.

As Politico reports: “Meredith McGehee, policy director for the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, said that the actual language of the pledge is ‘not surprisingly, very lawyerly … [and] there is an argument to be made that Clinton herself has not violated what was in the pledge.’

“’Whether she or her aides have violated the spirit of the pledge … yeah, of course they have,’ McGehee said. ‘The notion of continuing contact between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department — that was not supposed to happen.’”

We need answers, Mme. Secretary.