Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Democratic Party’

“It’s like that old story; you can’t keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbors. Eventually, those snakes are going to turn on whoever has them in the backyard.” – HRC

This is an excellent allegorical warning that Hillary Clinton issued in October 2011 during bilateral remarks with then Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar. The reference, at the time, was to Pakistan harboring the Haqqani Network and the Taliban.

Here are those remarks and that statement in context >>>>

Secretary Clinton’s Remarks With Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar

October 21, 2011

“… we both agreed that terrorism coming from any source is a threat to all of us. We expressed very clearly our concerns about safe havens on both sides of the border. We reasserted our commitment to doing more on the Afghan side of the border to try to eliminate safe havens that fuel insurgency and attacks inside Pakistan. And we asked very specifically for greater cooperation from the Pakistani side to squeeze the Haqqani Network and other terrorists, because we know that trying to eliminate terrorists and safe havens on one side of the border is not going to work. It’s like that old story; you can’t keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbors. Eventually, those snakes are going to turn on whoever has them in the backyard. We know that – on both sides of the border. ”

Read more >>>>

It was only six years ago. We could not have conceived, such a short time ago, that those words could possibly apply to ourselves or to any loyal Americans. Yet here we are.

I watched the marathon of Homeland, Season 4 tonight. The opening credits for that season include a short clip of Hillary delivering those words. Funny how words that only a few years past can have meant one thing then and something new now.

Snakes in the backyard. Yes, Pakistan did and does harbor snakes in their backyard. But now we know that there are snakes in our own backyard: Foreign entities on social media influencing the American electorate. Some of these snakes arrived wearing American skin.

In her memoir, What Happened, Hillary identified the social media landscape as the new battlefield of 21st century warfare.

We have been attacked. Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation is ferreting out snakes. But we, too, must be on the lookout for snakes on our social media pages.

Even the snakes you nurture and consider pets are still snakes. Hillary’s words should resound deafeningly!

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

In her book, What Happened, Hillary Clinton discusses Russian interference in our election. She speaks of the the Wikileaks release of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails and her campaign chair, John Podesta’s, emails. Some of these emails were altered in the Wikileaks version of the document dump. The objective was to make it appear that the DNC conspired with Hillary’s campaign to defeat Bernie Sanders.

Portions of these emails were then posted on social media platforms targeted to reach Bernie Sanders supporters after Hillary Clinton’s nomination was secured. The objective here, now that we were out of the primary season and into the general, was to sway Bernie voters and Indies away from “unscrupulous” Hillary and the Dems and toward Trump.

Congressional committees are pursuing investigations into the Russia question bilaterally. Several top Republicans have said that this is necessary since the next time it could be their party that is targeted. Hillary quotes James Comey as testifying that this is not a Democrat or Republican thing. That it is an American thing. That they are “coming after America,” and they will do it again.

I wonder if the Republicans are thinking deeply enough. I wonder if they are asking themselves how they ended up with Trump in the first place.

It can’t possibly be that Hillary Clinton and we, her team, were the only people who suffered a late night shock. There were 16 Republican candidates. Some of them, surely, had a primary night they thought they would win handily and did not. How did that happen?

Is it possible that the same forces that manipulated voters in the general election also manipulated Republican primary voters? What do Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich think of this possibility? Does Cary Fiorina really believe she was shoved aside only because she was a woman? Do the Bushes believe Jeb lost because, as Barb said, “Enough Bushes?”

If the Russians managed to manipulate the general election, should we not, down the line, also discover what role they might have played in Trump’s nomination?

It’s an important question. I believe Hillary Clinton had an excellent chance to win against all of those candidates. Each of them thought he/she was the most formidable to face the Democratic nominee. They would not have run to begin with if they did not.

With Mueller’s inquiry evidently reaching into the past well beyond the 2015-2016 election season, you have to wonder. Have the Russians been grooming Trump for many years? If so, was their only target over a two-year period Hillary Clinton? Or were Trump’s Republican opponents also targets of Russian interference?

The inquiries and investigations are only beginning with the Russian effect on the general election. The other question is whether they picked the Republican nominee. If the Republicans are not thinking about this, they should. How else is it possible that Donald Trump, known wheeler-dealer, dead-beat boss, shell game realtor, and political flip-flopper managed to beat out that field of 16?

I hope the Republicans are not focusing only on the forest and missing the foreign entities disguised as trees. (Same goes for the Dems, but I hope they are two or three steps ahead of me here).

 

Read Full Post »

This article is not new. It dates back to the end of March. In light of this past weekend in Charlottesville, it merits another look. A pro-Bernie faction continues its attempts to muscle into leadership roles in the Democratic party while Sanders himself remains stubbornly an Independent (which is fine with us since we do not want him in the party). They disparage true Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, and Jon Ossoff  and parrot Bernie’s inflammatory and untrue words, believe propaganda generated abroad, and threaten the very breadth of the party with extreme policy demands. (Bold emphasis below is mine.)

Sanders defends Trump voters: I don’t think they’re racists, sexists or homophobes

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) on Friday defended voters of President Trump, saying that the election was Democrats’ to lose and that the party needs to better represent the working-class voters who supported Trump and other GOP lawmakers

“Some people think that the people who voted for Trump are racists and sexists and homophobes and deplorable folks. I don’t agree, because I’ve been there. Let me tell you something else some of you might not agree with, it wasn’t that Donald Trump won the election, it was that the Democratic Party lost the election,” Sanders said while speaking at an Our Revolution rally in Boston with fellow Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

Sanders went on to say that a “fundamental restructuring of the Democratic party” was needed to win future elections and that problems with party’s current setup is why many were quick to support Trump in the election, not because of some of the rhetoric on the campaign trail.

Please do keep reading >>>>

On the trail, Hillary Clinton was fond of quoting Maya Angelou: “When someone tells you who they are, believe them.” Then, she was applying that maxim to Trump.

In March, Bernie told us who he is. I missed this article the first time around, but we should look at it now and understand who Bernie is.

Over the past several days, Trump supporters have claimed on social media as well as IRL face to face with Trump protestors that they support Trump but are not racists or Nazis. The reply from the Resistance has been “Yes, you are.”

In March, Bernie said: “Some people think that the people who voted for Trump are racists and sexists and homophobes and deplorable folks. I don’t agree, because I’ve been there.” Been where? He neglected to clarify that. We can agree that there are probably people who voted for Trump who are not among those supporting him at his recent rallies and who would not participate in Nazi/KKK marches, but by not condemning those folks, their support is implicit. Bernie prefers to cut them slack rather than hold their feet to the fire.

As you see, he then went on to blame us for losing an election that was phenomenally well-supported, well-run, and ran the best-prepared, most thoroughly experienced candidate any of us had ever seen in our lives. I take exception to Bernie’s words! Not true!

A “perfect storm,” as Hillary has termed it, of influences and actions robbed the party of a victory and the country of the president we deserved.

Discord is a loaded term with a negative valence. We feel uncomfortable when it intrudes upon what we consider the normal flow of life. On the other hand, we live in a democracy and are accustomed to dealing with the messiness of it – including the inevitable discord and necessary compromise.

Accord, on the other hand has a positive valence. By trying to cozy up to the “populist” Trump supporters, Bernie has told us who he is. His “accord” with the Trump folks, however, is less than comforting or comfortable. He has told us who he is. We should believe him. He and his ilk have no place in our diverse party. Period.

Here’s Hillary. We are #StillWithHer.

Here is the text of her speech connecting Donald Trump to the alt-right.

Hillary Clinton in Reno

Here is her “deplorables” remark in context.

Statement from Hillary Clinton

I cannot suppress this addition.

Bernie Sanders Deletes Numerous Tweets That Blamed Trump for Charlottesville Violence

I come from a blue collar family – not elitist by any standard. My parents worked together in an aircraft plant until I was born. They scraped to send my sister and me to Catholic schools so, not by choice, I did study Latin.

“Alea jacta est.”

Loose translation: “If you are prominent in some way, your first tweet has been screen-saved by somebody.”

Latin is so succinct!

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

Hillary Clinton was super active today on the subject of the now withdrawn AHCA, an attempt by Republicans to repeal President Obama’s ACA and replace it.

Today was a victory for all Americans.

Read Full Post »

ser·en·dip·i·ty

[ˌserənˈdipədē]

the occurrence and development of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way:

“a fortunate stroke of serendipity” ·

[more]synonyms: (happy) chance · (happy) accident · fluke · luck · good luck · good fortune · fortuity · providence · happy coincidence
Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press

 

The FBI has a way of stumbling upon things. 11 days before Election Day, FBI Director James Comey released a letter to eight Republican committee chairs stating that, while investigating an unrelated case, the FBI had discovered emails that might be connected to the bureau’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails and that he was extending, therefore, that investigation. Hillary’s campaign hit back with a one two punch.

Fast-forward to this week.

US officials: Info suggests Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians

Comey was clear in stating that this evidence did not surface via the investigation of possible Trump campaign collusion with Russian operatives, but, rather, arose from  a different investigation, apparently involving surveillance of foreign operatives.

In other words,  the FBI came upon this information much the way they discovered emails related to Hillary Clinton on Anthony Weiner’s laptop – emails, it turned out, that the bureau had already seen. They were investigating Weiner, and some of Hillary’s emails appeared.

For the record, the fact that these “foreign” communications turned up in a bureau investigation and Comey announced it does not absolve Comey of releasing that October 28 letter and probably influencing the vote.

In this case, they were surveilling foreign operatives, and  – whoops! Trump campaign staff were talking to them!

Everything is a big, fat mess. As Leonard Cohen said, “There’s a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.”

Comey violated bureau policy when he released that letter 11 days before the election. The emails in question would have been a huge nothing-burger had the letter not been released so close to Election Day. As it turned out, the letter was likely a factor in turning the election against Hillary Clinton and electing the guy whose campaign, transition team, and administration are riddled with Russian ties.

How ironic and how fitting! Karma can really suck when it’s bad. Unfortunately, this bad karma for the Trump regime is unlikely to change anything. Confirmation hearings continue for appointees and a SCOTUS justice nominated by what could possibly be proven an illegitimate administration.

This is the kind of malarkey being spouted by a Democrat!

“It’s only natural for us to want to go back and relive the elections,” said Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.). “But that’s not going to happen. It’s about moving forward in the future. I think my Republican colleagues said it best when they said it happened to Democrats this time, it may very well happen to Republicans in the future, and that’s why it’s important to seek the truth.”

Read more at HuffPo >>>>

What? We should just keep on truckin’ like all of this is normal because  …  what? Because it may happen to Republicans at some unspecified point in the future? Sorry, but that should not be allowed to wash. This should never happen in any U.S. election. Period. That is the whole reason people are upset about it.

If this administration is found to have committed high crimes and misdemeanors and /or treason, the office of POTUS should not simply pass to the Veep of the same administration. I know we have no provision in the Constitution for this possibility, but that does not mean that we should just ignore a festering wound to our democracy. The situation is unprecedented. Whether collusion is eventually proven or not, steps should be taken to ensure the security of future elections.

Retweeted
 The intelligence community concluded the Russians will interfere again. This is why full investigation is important to country. Please stop.

Read Full Post »

In the run-up to the Democratic Party’s election of a new party chair, Hillary Clinton released a video today.

Statements-Fact-sheets

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: