Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

national news, political news

Teleprompters and tweets will be the ‘highlight’

Teleprompter_Lectern

I guess we’ll have to call the 2016 presidential campaign a battle of Teleprompters and tweets.

It all kind makes me wish for more “horse-race” coverage with media pundits fixated on who’s up and who’s down as the race for the White House unfolds.

Not this time … maybe.

Much of the coverage over the past few hours of Republican nominee-to-be Donald J. Trump’s Richmond, Va., rally speech dealt with how he ditched the Teleprompter and veered wildly “off script.”

Trump used the device in a previous speech after he won all those primary battles the same night that Democratic presumptive nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton clinched her party’s nomination.

The punditry critiqued Trump’s Teleprompter performance as “staid,” “uninspired” and a few other not-too-flattering terms.

So, he went on the attack again — free-wheeling it without the device. It wasn’t “staid.” It was typical Trump, full of stream-consciousness riffs about the success of his businesses and his various name-calling, referring to Sen. Elizabeth Warren as “Pocahontas,” and of course to “Crooked Hillary.”

He’s becoming the Twitter champ as well.

The day that Clinton gave that blistering critique of Trump’s supposed “foreign policy,” she mentioned how he likes to send out tweets and said he probably was doing so as she spoke. Sure enough, that’s what he did.

Sen. Warren also is pretty swift with the Twitter method of communicating. Clinton’s probably going to get the hang of it, too.

The deal with the Teleprompter analysis, though, is that Trump brought it up. He’s the one who keeps chiding other candidates for relying on the device. Some are good at using it. Others are, well, not so good. Trump is one of the latter category of public speakers.

Then again, his aimless, scatter-shot extemporaneous delivery of his applause lines aren’t so hot, either.

Let the campaign continue.

national news, political news

But … senator, you cast your vote in secret

Image

dole

Bob Dole says he just cannot support Hillary Rodham Clinton’s quest for the presidency.

The former Republican U.S. senator from Kansas said he’s been a Republican all his life. Donald J. Trump, his party’s presumed presidential nominee, is “flawed,” according to Dole, but he’s getting his vote anyway.

“I have an obligation to the party. I mean, what am I going to do? I can’t vote for George Washington. So I’m supporting Donald Trump,” Dole explained Friday on NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

I think I want to reset this for just a moment.

I have great respect and admiration for Sen. Dole. I admire him for his valiant service to the country in the Army during World War II, for his years in the Senate and for his ability to reach across the aisle to work with Democrats; he and fellow World War II hero Sen. George McGovern, for example, were great personal friends and occasional legislative partners, particularly on programs involving agriculture.

He said, though, that he has to put party first and he must support Trump in his upcoming fight against Clinton.

The reset is this: Sen. Dole can say it all he wants — until he runs out of breath — that he’s going to vote a certain way.

But one of the many beauties of our political system is that we get to vote in private. It’s a secret. We all can blab our brains out over who we intend to vote for, but when the time comes we can change our mind.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bob-dole-endorses-donald-trump-000000912.html

I think of Bob Dole as more of a patriot than a partisan.

He had been involved with government for many decades. He ran for president himself in 1996, losing in an Electoral College landslide to President Bill Clinton.

I don’t intend to sound cynical about what Bob Dole is going to do when the time comes to cast his vote. However, his party’s presidential nominee is like a volcano waiting to erupt.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Sen. Dole changes his mind over the course of the next few weeks and perhaps decide to keep that spot on his ballot unchecked.

A part of me would like to prove it.

national news, political news

Unity usually wins these elections

la-1463522501-snap-photo

It’s almost a lead-pipe cinch that the political party that’s unified going into a presidential election is the one that wins.

The two major parties now have presumptive nominees for the presidency.

Donald J. Trump reached that milestone first in the Republican Party primary. It’s been, shall we say, a rocky ride ever since. Republicans in Congress are offering all kinds of qualifiers in suggesting that they’ll vote for Trump, but they cannot yet “endorse” him.

Hillary Rodham Clinton then clinched the Democratic Party nomination. The chatter all across the nation has been that the party is now ready to rally behind her. Bernie Sanders says he’ll keep fighting, but bet on this: He won’t take the fight all the way to the finish line. Not only that, the president of the United States today endorsed Clinton, as did progressive champion U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Ladies and gents, we have a serious fight on our hands.

We keep hearing things about the disarray within the Trump campaign team. Clinton delivered that blistering foreign policy critique of Trump the other day, but Trump didn’t respond in any significant way.

Today, Warren delivered an equally ferocious attack on Trump’s fitness for the job. The GOP candidate’s response once again was muted.

It’s a political truism that unity wins elections. Republicans and Democrats both have learned that lesson the hard way. Democrats in 1968 and again in 1972 were split between hawks and doves; Republicans united behind their ticket and won both times, with the 1972 election being a 49-state blowout. Republicans in 1976 found themselves split at their convention, while Democrats rallied behind Jimmy Carter; Democrats won that campaign.

We’ve still got 150-some days before the 2016 election. The dynamics might change. Then again, the unified party — the Democrats — might ratchet up the pressure beyond Republicans’ ability to withstand it.

I’m betting, though, that everyone’s other prediction about this campaign will stand.

It’s going to be negative … in the extreme.

national news, political news

Obama endorses ‘most qualified’ candidate for POTUS

barack-obama-and-hillary-clinton-2012

I admire President Barack Obama.

His two terms as president of the United States will be judged ultimately as a success, no matter what his critics keep harping at today with statements of his alleged “failed presidency.”

Thus, I accept his endorsement today of Hillary Rodham Clinton as a potentially decisive event in the upcoming election.

He called his fellow Democrat Clinton the “most qualified” person ever to seek the presidency.

Right there, Mr. President, I will beg to differ.

The most qualified individual ever to seek — and hold — the office is a Republican … in my humble view.

That would be George H.W. Bush, the 41st president.

I’ve taken note before about President Bush’s sparkling pre-presidency credentials: Navy combat aviator during World War II; successful businessman; member of Congress; special envoy to China; CIA director; Republican Party chairman; U.N. ambassador; vice president of the United States.

I don’t want to quibble too much with the president over this. Indeed, Hillary Clinton is supremely qualified to be president and commander in chief. Her resume includes first lady of the United States, U.S. senator and secretary of state.

“Most qualified,” though, is a stretch. Her record is stellar, but not as stellar as the one compiled by President Bush.

Partisan politics being what it is, though, a Democratic president isn’t going to offer credit to someone from the other party while endorsing a member of his own party to become the next president.

The credit that extends across the aisle is left to be handed out by those of us out here in the proverbial peanut gallery.

Thus, I am doing so here.

national news, political news

Political tradition may be in jeopardy

The American political system produces many memorable traditions.

One of them involves an event in which the candidates for president of the United States gather in New York to honor a memorial fund established in memory of the late New York Gov. Alfred E. Smith.

The candidates poke fun at each other, and at themselves.

These two clips are from the 2012 event featuring President Obama, the Democratic nominee, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for president.

It is absolutely hilarious! As is the 2008 event with U.S. Sens. Obama and John McCain.

My question today is this: Is this tradition in jeopardy in light of the obvious disdain that the current presumptive nominees — Republican Donald J. Trump and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton — have for each other?

I’m trying to imagine Trump shrugging off “good-natured” barbs being thrown at him by Clinton. I’m also having difficulty imagining Trump being able to muster up the kind of delivery it takes to sling a zinger at Clinton, who then would laugh out loud.

I’ve noted already what NBC News political director Chuck Todd has observed, that neither Clinton or Trump offered words of congratulations to each other the other night after they secured their respective parties’ nominations.

That omission speaks to what looks to a lot of us as a precursor to the kind of campaign no one wants to see.

One of the beauties of our political system — and the people who participate in it — is that they’ve always found time to put the daggers back in the scabbard long enough to speak with good humor to some common good.

Is that tradition in jeopardy this year?

 

national news, political news, State news

A vote is not an ‘endorsement’ … Hmmm

004_Flores_jpg_800x1000_q100

Can we split this hair any more finely than this?

Put this another way: How can a vote for a candidate be seen anything other than endorsement?

U.S. Rep. Bill Flores is a Republican from Bryan, Texas, who says he’s going to vote for Donald J. Trump for president of the United States … but he isn’t going to “endorse” him.

While I scratch my head over that one, I’ll just ask out loud: Didn’t he just endorse the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee?

Flores is angry at Trump over the candidate’s suggestion that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel cannot preside over a case involving Trump University because of his Mexican heritage.

As the Texas Tribune reported: “I was incredibly angry to see Mr. Trump question a judge’s motives because of his ethnicity,” (Flores) added. “Like tens of millions of Americans, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton and desire to vote for a bold, conservative leader. Mr. Trump can be that leader, and we are ready to help him when he focuses on vision instead of inappropriate attacks.”

But … no endorsement, right?

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/08/texas-republican-congressman-refuses-endorse-donal/

The Republican Party political class is facing this difficulty across the nation. A lot of pols seem willing to acknowledge they’ll vote for Trump, but they won’t endorse him.

I guess that means they won’t stand on a campaign stage and hoist their presidential nominee’s hand in the air. They won’t introduce him to crowds with glowing praise.

Is it interesting to anyone — other than yours truly — that the Democrats don’t appear to have this problem with their presumed presidential nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton? Are we hearing Democratic politicians say things that Rep. Flores is saying, that they’ll vote for Clinton but won’t endorse her?

Yes, I’ve seen the polls that suggest a lot of Democrats who currently support Bernie Sanders will defect to Trump if Clinton gets the party nomination.

We’ll see, though, whether that defection rate holds up as the general election campaign moves forward.

Meantime, I’ll be watching other Republican political leaders try to explain how a commitment to vote for Donald Trump isn’t an endorsement of his presidential candidacy.

national news, political news

Yep, here comes the negativity

1 Comment

clinton trump

NBC News anchor Lester Holt asked a straightforward question.

“Are you going to campaign insult for insult against Donald Trump?” Holt asked presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

“No,” she answered, “He can run a campaign on insults. We’re going to campaign on the issues.”

What, pretell, are those issues? She said she’s going to keep reminding voters that Trump is “temperamentally unfit to be commander in chief.”

Sigh.

There you have it. Clinton said she’s going to campaign “on the issues,” and then spoke candidly about her presumptive Republican opponent’s temperament.

Is that an “issue”? Yes.

The question now facing the Republican Party brass that is gritting its teeth over whether Trump is capable of keeping his cool is: How is he going to respond?

They fear — with good reason — that Trump is fully capable of flying off the rails. He’s shown that propensity all along the campaign trail so far.

Here’s a scenario that could repeat itself. Longtime observers of Texas politics will remember when this happened.

The year was 1990. Democratic gubernatorial nominee Ann Richards was campaigning against Republican nominee Clayton Williams.

The two of them shared a dais at an event late in the campaign. They each spoke to the crowd. Then as the event drew to a close, Richards walked over to Williams and extended her hand.

Williams refused to shake it. He called Richards a “liar.”

News photographers and TV cameras picked up the snub and reported all over Texas. How did the optics play? Not well … at all!

Williams’s refusal to “shake the hand of a lady” insulted a lot of Texans vicariously.

Richards defeated Williams to become the state’s governor.

Something tells me — if Clinton keeps talking “issues” relating to Trump’s temperamental fitness — that Donald Trump is fully capable of repeating Claytie’s mistake.

national news, political news

Bernie wins while losing

sandersclinton_040116getty

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders has lost the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

However, he’s also won the argument within the Democratic Party.

How? By pulling presumptive nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton closer to his end of the political spectrum than she was at the beginning of this campaign.

Sanders is expected eventually to end his campaign. He’ll throw his support behind Clinton. He’ll join President Obama and other party dignitaries in campaigning hard for Clinton against Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

Sure, he still says he’ll fight “all the way to the convention” in Philadelphia. That’s what they all say. Ted Cruz said it the day before he dropped out of the GOP race. So did John Kasich. It’s just brave talk.

Sen. Sanders will take away from this campaign the satisfaction that he’s not got Clinton talking about income inequality, corruption on Wall Street and stricter international trade policies.

Do not expect Clinton to declare herself a “democratic socialist,” which Sanders proclaimed throughout his campaign with great pride

What the defeated Democratic presidential candidate cannot determine, though, is whether a President Clinton would carry that message forward once she takes the oath in January.

As of today, though, he’s changed the dialogue within the Democratic Party.

That, folks, is no small victory.

 

national news, political news

What they didn’t say is most instructive

Horserace

I wish I could take credit for making this observation, but I cannot.

I’ll give credit to Chuck Todd, moderator of “Meet the Press” and NBC News’s chief political correspondent.

Last night, after their big victories in their respective presidential primaries, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton spoke to their faithful followers.

Todd noted a great unspoken from both of them: They didn’t “congratulate each other” for becoming their parties’ presumptive presidential nominees.

Todd noted that going back to the 2000 election season, candidates have reached across to offer a word of thanks to their opponents for reaching an important and hard-fought milestone.

Al Gore congratulated George W. Bush in 2000; President Bush did the same in 2004 when John Kerry crossed the “presumptive” threshold; John McCain offered kudos to Barack Obama in 2008; and President Obama did the same when Mitt Romney became his party’s presumptive nominee in 2012.

This year? Nothing. Not a word of congratulations from either Trump the Republican or Clinton the Democrat.

Surprised at that? Me, neither.

Trump has labeled Clinton as “Crooked Hillary”; Clinton has said that Trump is “temperamentally unfit to be commander in chief.”

Todd has reason to worry now about what lies ahead as Clinton and Trump battle each other for the presidency.

If the absence of anything approaching a kind word about the opposition in their moments of triumph is any indication, we’re in for an extremely rough and uncivil campaign.

national news, political news

Clinton makes history; but U.S. has some catching up to do

AAgMv5O

Hillary Rodham Clinton stood before the cheering throng tonight at the Brooklyn Navy Yard and declared victory in a history-making sort of way.

She becomes the first female major-party presumptive nominee for president of the United States.

The crowd cheered. Clinton nodded her approval. Yes, it’s a big deal.

However …

Let’s put this in a little different context. The United States is a good bit behind the curve when it comes to shattering gender-based glass ceilings in public life.

For crying out loud, the nation was created in 1789, but didn’t give women the right to vote until 1920. The founding fathers did a great job creating a government framework — but they didn’t do a perfect job.

Behind the curve?

Indira Gandhi became prime minister of India in 1966. After that, we’ve seen Golda Meir become prime minister of Israel. Margaret Thatcher was elected PM in Great Britain. The Philippines elected Corazon Aquino president. Taiwan has just elected its first female president, Tsai Ing-wen. Angela Merkel is the chancellor of Germany. Benazir Bhutto once was prime minister of Pakistan. Kim Campbell was Canada’s prime minister.

Good grief. I’ve just given you the names I can think of immediately.

Here’s a list of all of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_or_appointed_female_heads_of_government

Yes, we’ve made history tonight with Hillary Clinton about to become the nation’s first major-party presidential nominee.

We haven’t crossed the threshold of an even greater historical event … just yet.