Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘2016 Election’ Category

More than once in my life I have been told in a peremptory way by someone superior to me to do something I was already doing or just beginning to do. It happened often enough to become a pet peeve.

Why does this always happen to me, I wondered. Do I bring this upon myself? Turns out maybe I do since in hindsight I notice a pattern.

Once I identify a problem, I consider ways to address it which I might begin testing out and mention to a friend, colleague, or superior later. Or I might bring the problem and proposed solution to a superior for approval before implementing the solution.

More often than I’d have liked, the response of the person has been, “Well! You should do X,Y,Z!” “Yes,” my hurt response would be. “That’s exactly what I am already doing/was asking to do with your approval.” Then I typically would slouch off all bent out of shape and hurt.

This pattern in my past is perhaps the reason why I felt so angered and hurt this morning watching an America Divided episode about Appalachia on Epix when narrator Nick Offerman directed a snide remark at Hillary Clinton. The episode was specifically about the coal industry.

During her 2015-16 presidential campaign, Hillary said some sentences that were lifted from context and used as rallying cries against her. I guess this happens to many candidates. She was my candidate, so it bothered me.

What everyone heard was something like, “A lot of people are going to lose their jobs.” That was the sentence that was carried like a banner against her. It was the sentence that Offerman singled out. The only one.

What he and many missed was that she also proposed replacing fossil fuel energy with clean renewables and bringing that industry into coal country where miners could be retrained to work in clean energy production.

Later in the Epix show, Offerman interviewed a woman who was implementing exactly the kind of program Hillary had proposed. He was impressed. Small comfort for his “Geez HRC,” earlier. No comfort since he did not credit her with her suggestions.

Where was the disconnect? Many Hillary supporters have complained that the media did not highlight her agenda. Maybe that is it. CNN and MSNBC carried her major policy speeches and campaign rallies. But the next day on the plane, the questions from the press were not about the policies she was proposing. They always fell back on her email. Or John Podesta’s email. Or somebody else’s emails to her.

Did Offeman miss out on Hillary’s full coal country message? I guess, like many Americans, he did. As he is the host of a documentary show about politics in this divided nation, I hold him more responsible than most Americans to know what her full message was. It is, after all still available on her website.

I suppose it angered and hurt me personally because the whole gestalt so closely parallels my pet peeve. He dissed Hillary and liked what a program was doing when that program was actually following a blueprint Hillary had proposed. I would not be surprised to find that Hillary was in communication with those very principals during her campaign.

“She already proposed doing that,” I wanted to yell. But it was useless.

Hillary is not president and hasn’t done a single thing to hurt Appalachia. She did not shut down the coal industry. It did itself in, and cleaner, greener alternatives have arisen which Hillary proposed importing to areas hurt economically by the decline of coal.

So, GEEZ, Nick Offerman! Do your research before you go on camera with partial truths.

I could not help but notice that Gretchen Carlson is a co-producer on this show, so I am going to lay part of the blame on her, as well. Shouldn’t someone have familiarized themselves with Hillary’s policy before slamming her in this documentary? Can’t say I can vouch for their thoroughness or fairness.

Perhaps, given the title of the show, the intent is to ensure future seasons by misrepresenting facts thereby keeping America divided. Knowing the plan linked below is part of the job before you slam Hillary Clinton on this issue.

Here is the detailed plan Hillary put forth for coal communities >>>>

05-02-16-G-05

Read Full Post »

The Plot to Subvert an Election, from New York Times reporters Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, does not contain everything we know about the Russian incursion into our culture and our 2016 election.  This compilation is, however, comprehensive enough to provide a good, quick survey course on the subject.

Because, as Rachel Maddow pointed out this week, Hillary Clinton was relentlessly in the bull’s eye of the Russian efforts, the entire anthology should be of interest to her 2016 supporters and voters and to Democrats in general. We know it has not stopped. We know they are still doing this in the run-up to the primaries that are almost upon us. Worse, we know that the primaries are not and will not be the prime target. 2020 will be. The presidential election will be – once again. We had better be prepared.

Here is a portion.

Putin Is Angry

The Russian leader thought the United States, and Hillary Clinton, had sought to undermine his presidency.

The Russian leader believed the United States had relentlessly sought to undermine Russian sovereignty and his own legitimacy. The United States had backed democratic, anti-Russian forces in the so-called color revolutions on Russia’s borders, in Georgia in 2003 and Ukraine in 2004. It had funded pro-democracy Russian activists through American organizations with millions in State Department grants each year.

With little evidence, Mr. Putin believed this American meddling helped produce street demonstrations in Moscow and other cities in 2011, with crowds complaining of a rigged parliamentary election and chanting, “Putin’s a thief!”

And Mrs. Clinton, then secretary of state, cheered the protesters on. Russians, she said, “deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted, and that means they deserve free, fair, transparent elections and leaders who are accountable to them.”

Mr. Putin blamed Mrs. Clinton for the turmoil, claiming that when she spoke out, his political enemies “heard the signal and with the support of the U.S. State Department began active work.”

The two tangled again the next year when Mr. Putin pushed for a “Eurasian Union” that would in effect compete with the European Union. Mrs. Clinton sharply dismissed the notion, calling it a scheme to “re-Sovietize the region” and saying the United States would try to block it.

Read much much more and see video clips >>>>

We must remain wary of social media presences that play to the disaffected. What we saw, among many other ploys from Russia in 2016, were seemingly American accounts admonishing Bernie Sanders supporters not to vote for Hillary Clinton. Also from the article:

The Russian operation also boosted Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate who had dined with Mr. Putin in Moscow, to draw votes from Mrs. Clinton. It encouraged supporters of Mr. Sanders to withhold their votes from Mrs. Clinton even after he endorsed her.

If you are a disaffected Hillary voter, I caution you to be wary of “Hillary supporters” masquerading as Americans on social media. Typically, they praise HRC to the skies but also embed lies within their posts and/or the comment threads, e.g. claiming that Guccifer 2.0 was not Russian (refuted in the Mueller July 13 indictment and in this article) or that Russian organized crime deals exclusively in politics and money laundering and not in weapons or drugs. (They will sell you a mothballed USSR military submarine to transport drugs if you have the money. With a nuclear weapon if you have even more money. This is documented.)

There are several writers of varied levels of English Language Proficiency (ELP). The “ops,” i.e. sock puppets, trolls, bot controllers, access content from databases on cloud platforms as outlined in the July 13 Mueller indictment. The ultimate plan is very likely to skew the 2020 top line vote in ways that would dismay Hillary Clinton and re-elect Donald Trump.

This is not a short read, but it can be taken in episodes if necessary for a weekend read. It is rich with graphs, stats, videos.  It is well worth the time. You will not likely find this much information on the subject elsewhere all in one piece. It is probably also well worth a bookmark.

Have a lovely weekend. Fall is coming.

 

Read Full Post »

Trump was in the UK the past few days.  Meanwhile … back at the ranch ….

Remember this?

 

Well, now this!

Read: Mueller indictment against 12 Russian spies for DNC hack

It comes days before President Trump’s summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

Special counsel Robert Mueller just released an indictment against 12 Russian intelligence officers.
Alex Wong/Getty Images

Special counsel Robert Mueller just indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers, accusing them of interfering in the 2016 US presidential election.

They are charged with hacking the computer networks of members of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. They allegedly coordinated to release damaging information to sway the election under the names “DCLeaks” and “Guccifer 2.0.” However, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told reporters that it’s unclear if their efforts changed the outcome of the election.

Read the indictments >>>>

(Proof he’s an amateur or, really, a puppet. Experienced dictators know better than to leave home while a sh*tstorm is brewing.  Even Putin knows Trump is in too deep and doesn’t give a fig. THAT should light a fire under some kettles.)

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

ICYMI the IG report came out today.

POLITICS

06/14/2018 10:55 am ET

DOJ Watchdog Report Takeaway: FBI Hurt Hillary Clinton, Not Donald Trump

It’s a message that might get lost as Trump and his supporters weaponize a new inspector general’s report.

AFP via Getty Images

WASHINGTON ― The Justice Department’s internal watchdog just served up a hefty dose of reality to President Donald Trump and his allies.

On Thursday afternoon, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz released a report 17 months in the making on the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation during the 2016 election.

Amid the unfolding special counsel investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump and his supporters have been waging war against the FBI and Justice Department. The new report is sure to give them fresh material.

But one takeaway from the document stands out: Despite Republican suggestions that anti-Trump forces within the FBI worked against Trump, the bureau’s public actions during the campaign hurt Clinton and helped Trump.

SNIP

Read the whole report here:

And Hillary chimed in! LOL!!!! Ya gotta love her! ❤

Read Full Post »

I have no intention of buying or reading Amy Chozick’s account of her 10 years following Hillary Clinton. I have my own 10 years archived here. The excerpt in yesterday’s New York Times provides an interesting insight, for what that is worth, to how the campaign was covered in the media.

While it is perhaps laudable that Chozick takes some responsibility for the effect of reportage on the election outcome, she seems to have missed the most important fault. Emphasis below is mine. From the article:

They were never going to let me be president.”

SNIP

She did a whole riff on making lists. “I have a plan for just about everything,” she said. “You know, maybe this is a woman thing. We make lists, right? I love making lists. And then I love crossing things off!”

SNIP

And they were The Times and me and all the other journalists who covered those stolen emails.

It was not only eternally and ever the emails or the failure to ascribe importance to the source (Wikileaks) of the leaked DNC and Podesta emails. It was the abdication of the primary duty of a campaign reporter: to inform the public of the plans.

Yes, Hillary did have a plan for just about everything. They were good plans. Unfortunately, like blueprints, plans are not especially sexy or exciting. That those plans got shunted off into dusty corners of office cubicles (Amy’s and others’) is, I would argue, the single most significant failure of reportage in the campaign.

As mea culpas go, meh. More a Greek apologia. Chozick writes, “She went through the motions.” No! She did the homework! You dropped the ball. The ball was those plans.

Hillary Clinton, flanked by Bill Clinton, left, and Tim Kaine, giving her concession speech in Manhattan the day after Election Day in 2016. Credit Ruth Fremson/The New York Times

Read Full Post »

The L word in this header is not Jennifer’s and not ours.

time.com

Hillary Clinton Comms Director on Losing the 2016 Election

Hillary Clinton addresses the crowd of supporters inside the Reynolds Coliseum on the campus of North Carolina State University on the final campaign stop before election day, in Raleigh, N.C., on Nov. 7, 2016. Logan Cyrus—AFP/Getty Images

Jennifer Palmieri

It’s the afternoon of Wednesday, Nov. 9. We are at the New Yorker Hotel and Hillary has just finished her concession speech. I decide to just nod and smile wistfully when supporters and reporters, men and women alike, laud Hillary’s concession speech. “Where was ‘this Hillary’ during the campaign?” they would lament. “Why didn’t we see this side of her when it mattered?”

Yes, I am sure you loved her concession speech, I thought to myself. Because that’s what you think is acceptable for a woman to do — concede.

Read more >>>>

Read Full Post »

Having studied Russian at Moscow State University and having been a Ford Foundation Fellow in Soviet Studies, Condoleeza Rice was George W. Bush’s Russia expert. No one, Republican or Democrat, questioned her qualifications in that realm.

It is, therefore, stunning that she has chosen to side with Vladimir Putin against her successor at the State Department, Hillary Clinton.

dailycaller.com

Rice Blames Hillary For Russian Election Meddling

Benny JohnsonReporter At Large

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put some of the blame for Russian election on Hillary Clinton in a wide-ranging MSNBC interview on Thursady

Rice, who has considerable experience with Vladimir Putin, did not hold back on her assessment of the motivations behind Russian election meddling.

She said that then-Secretary of State Clinton criticizing Putin for Russia’s 2012 elections encouraged the foreign leader to seek revenge. Rice said that Putin is an “eye for an eye” kind of person and that he was out to hurt Clinton in order to prove that America could also have flawed elections.

“With Vladimir Putin, this was an eye for an eye. He’s an eye for an eye kind of person, and Hillary Clinton criticized his election. Now he wants to show that he can sow chaos in ours.”

 

Read more >>>>

Condi is wrong on several counts.

1. Hillary commented (no she did not “meddle” – that is something different but back to that later) on the 2010 Russian parliamentary elections not Putin’s 2012 presidential election.

In her memoir of her State Department years, Hard Choices, Hillary Clinton portrays Putin’s worldview as “shaped by his admiration of the powerful czars of Russian history” and his view of geopolitics as a zero-sum game. Following the December 2010 parliamentary elections in Russia, widespread reports of fraud brought tens of thousands of protestors out into the frigid Russian streets. Hillary recalls stating, “The Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted…. That means they deserve fair, free, transparent elections and leaders who are accountable to them.” She goes on to describe Putin blaming her for “setting the tone” for the widespread demonstrations that followed the elections. Nothing in Hillary’s memoir nor elsewhere  provides any account of Hillary speaking out against Putin’s 2012 reelection or any protests, for that matter.

2.  Hillary Clinton was not “meddling” when she made her comments. This is meddling. As secretary of state, Hillary was well within her “paygrade” to make a comment regarding elections and unrest in another country.

3. Victim-blaming is always a cheap shot and always wrong! It is especially disturbing coming from a former secretary of state about her successor. I have this quote in the right sidebar here. It bears repetition. “What I have always found is that when it comes to foreign policy, it is important to remember that politics stops at the water’s edge.” -HRC 11-04-10. Had Condi remained at the State Department in December 2010, she, too, would have been expected to comment on the elections and protests in Russia – especially given her academic background. Would her remarks have been so different?

The cyber attacks against independent election observers that Hillary describes in Chapter 11 of Hard Choices foreshadow some of what we saw happen here in 2016. Some. But not all. Not the worst. We also deserve fair, free, transparent elections and commentary about a foreign country from a candidate never justifies elements from that country interfering in our elections in any way.

Reuters Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice meets with President-elect Barack Obama’s Secretary of State nominee Hillary Clinton at the State Department.

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: