Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Aside from writing another book and making speeches, ReSister, Hillary Clinton, has plans to affect issues, policies, and candidates.  No, she is not planning to run for any office. She is starting a Political Action Committee! This is not an official announcement.

Hillary Clinton to Launch New PAC

Hillary Clinton, accompanied by Al Gore, right, at a rally in Miami, Oct. 11, 2016 / AP

BY:
May 3, 2017

Hillary Clinton is planning to soon launch a new political action committee without the intention of making another run for public office.

The failed 2016 Democratic presidential candidate will start the PAC to “act as a quiet catalyst” for organizations she supports and help 2018 congressional candidates, Axios reported Wednesday.

Clinton’s PAC will be focused on “lifting up organizations that are the product of the energy and activism she has seen since the election, and existing groups that have been reignited and reinvigorated by that energy,” a source familiar with the planning told Axios.

The source revealed that the PAC will not be a way for Clinton to comment on President Trump’s activities but also said she “won’t shy away from it.”

Read more >>>>

Last night, Hillary was honored as Champion of the Century at the  Planned Parenthood 100th anniversary gala.

At the Women for Women event yesterday, Hillary Clinton again raised the James Comey letter.   At the time that letter was released, 11 days before Election Day, many of us were intentionally avoiding watching or citing polls. When Hillary brought that letter up again in the interview with Christiane Amanpour, some pointed out that she had since consulted polls and particularly Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.  So, for clarification, here is Nate’s analysis of the effect of that letter on the polls from two days before Election Day.

Nov. 6, 2016

How Much Did Comey Hurt Clinton’s Chances?

And is it too late for his second letter to help her?

Edited May 3 to add this.

This is the tenth article in a series that reviews news coverage of the 2016 general election, explores how Donald Trump won and why his chances were underrated by most of the American media.

Hillary Clinton would probably be president if FBI Director James Comey had not sent a letter to Congress on Oct. 28. The letter, which said the FBI had “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation” into the private email server that Clinton used as secretary of state, upended the news cycle and soon halved Clinton’s lead in the polls, imperiling her position in the Electoral College.

The letter isn’t the only reason that Clinton lost. It does not excuse every decision the Clinton campaign made. Other factors may have played a larger role in her defeat, and it’s up to Democrats to examine those as they choose their strategy for 2018 and 2020.

But the effect of those factors — say, Clinton’s decision to give paid speeches to investment banks, or her messaging on pocket-book issues, or the role that her gender played in the campaign — is hard to measure. The impact of Comey’s letter is comparatively easy to quantify, by contrast. At a maximum, it might have shifted the race by 3 or 4 percentage points toward Donald Trump, swinging Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida to him, perhaps along with North Carolina and Arizona. At a minimum, its impact might have been only a percentage point or so. Still, because Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 point, the letter was probably enough to change the outcome of the Electoral College.

Read more >>>>

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton declared herself a private citizen and part of the Resistance.  #StillWithHer?  I sure am! Let’s go!  ¡Vamos! En allez!  I would follow Hillary Clinton anywhere.  I have that much faith in her.  If she is a ReSister, I am too.  In 2008, when people asked me why I was so dedicated to Hillary, my short answer was “Because she is scary smart, and I need scary smart.”  Well, things are scary now, and she is smart. That’s my leader.

 


Edited to add this bulletin from The Boston Globe.

Comey says he doesn’t regret disclosing Clinton probe

FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that he doesn’t regret his decision to disclose the reopening of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation in the days before the 2016 election.

He told the panel that while the notion that he affected the election made him “mildly nauseous,” concealing that information would have been “catastrophic.”

To read more, visit: www.BostonGlobe.com.

Can anyone help me understand why concealing the Trump/Russia investigation was OK but not disclosing this would have been “catastrophic?”

 

 

Christiane Amanpour conducted an interview with Hillary Clinton at the annual Women for Women International luncheon today in New York City.

 


Edited May 3 to include this where Jonathan Capehart channels Cher in “Moonstruck” and tells people to snap out of it!

Clinton blames Comey letter, Russian interference for election loss

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn’t hold back in her critique of President Trump and the 2016 election she lost to him, while speaking at Women for Women International event on May 2. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

As always happens when Hillary Clinton speaks about anything, far too many folks latch onto what they want to hear instead of what she actually said. They slam her without regard to context and extenuating circumstances that prevent her from giving the answer they want or actually deserve. The Women for Women International gathering in New York City on Tuesday was the cause of the latest smackdowns of Clinton.

The Post’s Dave Weigel took apart the erroneous snap assessment of her comments on high-speed broadband. So, after having watched her 35-minute interview with CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour and having read the transcript, I’m going to dive into this maddening business that Clinton refuses to take responsibility for her loss. My snap take: Dammit, people!

Read more and see video >>>>

The Road to Gilead

Those watching “The Handmaid’s Tale” on Hulu cannot be faulted for thinking they might be living a cyncial version of the old 1940s “Road” pictures with Bing Crosby, Bob Hope, and Dorothy Lamour. (Who gave her that name?!) A movie called “The Road to Gilead.” Emily Peck has other ideas, but there are portents that cannot be denied.

Women In The U.S. Don’t Live In A Dystopian Hellscape. Yet.

“The Handmaid’s Tale” resonates, but there’s reason for hope.

Peck is pretty optimistic positing that the road to Gilead is fraught with lots of potholes and obstructions, but we do well not to focus too narrowly on the falling rock on one side of the highway thereby missing the sheer cliff on the other side.

I am not watching “The Handmaid’s Tale,” much as I would like to. I simply refuse to pay another dollar beyond my already expensive FiOS service, so Hulu and Netflix are out for me.  I have, however, read the book. The coincidence of the airing of the mini-series with the Democratic “Unity Tour” should set off some bells and whistles.

This is the axiom Peck offers that Bernie supporters continue to reject.

“Progress does not happen in a straight line. Setbacks are inevitable. What’s critical is what comes next.”

They rejected it during the 2016 primaries renouncing any and all incremental policies proposed by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and stubbornly continued their opposition during the general election.  They persist in their unwillingness to allow the Democratic Party to evolve naturally and have set out to take it over and overturn the common sense principles that have been its warp and woof since the groundbreaking days of FDR.  Rather than empowering women, the party is rolling back its liberating positions on women under the influence of a man who refuses to join the party.  No, this is not a relitigation or extension of the 2016 primaries.  It is a fight for the future.

The parallels between the dystopia Atwood projected and perceived potential effects of the new administration are not limited to Trump’s positions and those of his cronies. The BernieBros continue to have a hand in suppressing female issues, concerns, and voices within the only party likely to continue to highlight them.

Women have a stake in resisting efforts on either side to curtail our rights and freedoms. Resisters must do it for ourselves.  But we must be careful not to lose the party.  That is where the strength is.  The reason the BernieBots are fighting to usurp that power is because they know that a third party will have no muscle except to do what they have done in 2000 and 2016 – split the progressive vote.

We must remember that there was a reason why, at the end of her senior thesis, Hillary Clinton spurned Saul Alinsky’s methods (i.e. change from without the system rather than within) as well as the job he offered her and opted for the discipline of law school instead.  We have to be in it to win it.

Leaving the party  is no solution.  Think hard before you do that because it is not only the Trump crowd that would happily see us in shades of red, blue, green, and stripes according to their designations of how we serve.  We cannot determine our fate from the outside.  The Bernie crowd knows this, and that is why they fight to take over the party.  Let’s not just abandon it to them.

Crossposted at The Department of Homegirl Security.

Ten days into the new administration, a Russian military push in the Arctic was the subject of concern and a post here. At the time, both Russian appropriation of Arctic waters for drilling and Russian control of Arctic sea routes as those waters thaw (guess why) were the issues. Days later, on Thursday February 2 came this post: Throwback Thursday: I TOLD You to #WatchThisSpace!!!  The issue there was disclosure of oil company funds going to foreign governments.

Here we are 13 weeks later, and oh what a tangled web we see described by Dr. Vanessa Neumann in The Daily Beast today.  Dr. Neumann, Daily Beast points out, is “a Venezuelan-American and president of the trade integrity and political risk consultancy Asymmetrica.”

Photo Illustration by The Daily Beast

Double Deal

Russia Gave to Citgo, Then Citgo Gave to Trump

Many big oil companies funded Trump’s inauguration. Only one is deeply in debt to the Kremlin.

Dr. Vanessa Neumann

Dr. Vanessa Neumann

04.27.17

The oil company’s half-million donation to Donald Trump’s Inaugural Committee wasn’t illegal. But it certainly wasn’t moral. And the cash may have come from the Kremlin, at least indirectly.

Recently released Federal Election Commission filings show that Citgo, the U.S. subsidiary of the Venezuelan oil company Petróleos de Venezuela (known as PDVSA) gave Trump more money than Shell or Walmart. The donation is unusual for PDVSA: Citgo had not donated to previous presidential inaugural committees.

Citgo’s donation to the Trump Inaugural Committee and the horrifying images emerging from Venezuela’s weeks of brutally repressed protests (26 killed, 437 injured, and 1,289 arrested—according to Venezuela’s attorney general; Venezuelan prisoner rights NGO Foro Penal says 1,536 have been “detained” as of April 25) are connected: Russian money and influence is behind both of them. Some of those detained are tortured in Venezuela’s equivalent of CIA headquarters, known as “The Tomb,” for its subterranean torture chambers. The Inaugural Committee donation came days after Citgo (a Delaware-incorporated company with operational headquarters in Houston) mortgaged 49.9 percent of its holdings to Rosneft, an oil company controlled by the Kremlin. That enabled Citgo’s parent company PDVSA to make its bond payments. Rosneft is sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department. So is its CEO, Igor Sechin, “Russia’s Darth Vader.” One of the most feared men in Russia, Sechin is close to Vladimir Putin and is one of Putin’s key instruments of geopolitical power. Net net: If Venezuela defaults on its bond payments, Rosneft (i.e., Putin & Co.) could own several refineries, nine pipelines, and distribution terminals all across the Eastern U.S., from Texas to Maine, without any government oversight. If the Russians end up owning Citgo, they will be using American consumers to fund their autocracy and Assad’s brutality in Syria.

Read more >>>>

Yes, you read that correctly.  No, your eyes do not deceive you.  Holy moly!  Sechin’s name comes up as does, in a very disturbing way, Rosneft.  Where did we see those names before?  Oh, right!  The Christopher Steele memos!  Those documents were highlighted in a second, then seemingly unrelated, post here also on February 2:  Throwback Thursday Part II: The Russians, the Memos, the Sanctions – The Art of the Steal.

Dr. Neumann has pulled the whole cat’s cradle into a coherent web that reaches, now, from the Arctic to the Caribbean to the Middle East and remains about Russia, oil, money, Syria, and elections, and threatens a new refugee crisis.

As we approach the 100th day, remember this from 13 weeks ago?  We still do not know who bought those shares. It’s a good guess that Carter Page knows.

The deal on the sale of a 19.5 percent stake in Russia’s largest oil producer Rosneft will bring Moscow some $11.1 billion in revenues, the company announced Saturday.

Hillary Clinton and her team tried to warn us. But, you know, emails, wikileaks, ‘flawed,’ ‘ill,’ and ‘shrill.’ Not the perfect (female) candidate – which is the enemy of not just the good, but of the best yet.

10-19-16-z-15

Keep watching this space!  Here’s a pretty picture for #ThrowbackThursday.

 

I have a Vizio flat screen TV.  It certainly is not huge. But when the news outlets put Trump’s picture on the screen, his head is really big – and toxic.  I cannot look at his face so often (and LARGE) without feeling contaminated.  So here!

 

Much better.  Right?

%d bloggers like this: