April 07, 2016
What Qualifies A Politician?
This seems to be unqualified reporting.
Washington Post April 6 2016
Washington Post April 7 2016
What does qualify a politician?
Posted by b on April 7, 2016 at 11:52 AM | Permalink
You are unqualifiedly a politician if you describe the deaths of people not related to you as "collateral damage."
Unqualified= without limitation. Eg: A global oligarch is one whose desire for power is unqualified by any moral scruple.
Posted by: Penelope | Apr 7, 2016 11:59:22 AM | 1
What qualifies a politician? Oh, to wax eloquently about the virtues of leadership. In the US, and in perhaps the world, the qualifications for political office are almost exclusively being vetted and passing the needs and interests of the power elite. Should it be that way?
Integrity? Honesty? Knowledge? Compassion? In short all of the things successful politicians fail to have, or perhaps don't want to have.
Narcissism, wealth (the fastest way to become a millionaire if to become a US senator?), the illusion of power. Those are the real characteristics of the political class.
Am I too cynical? No. Too realistic? Perhaps.
Posted by: rg the lg | Apr 7, 2016 12:02:02 PM | 2
*these leaders are cruel because only those willing and able to be inordinately cruel and remorseless can hold positions of leadership in the foreign policy establishment; it might as well be written into the job description. People capable of expressing a full human measure of compassion and empathy toward faraway powerless strangers – let alone American soldiers – do not become president of the United States, or vice president, or secretary of state, or secretary of defense, or national security advisor, or attorney general, or secretary of the treasury. Nor do they particularly want to.
There’s a sort of Peter Principle at work here. Laurence Peter wrote that in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence. Perhaps we can postulate that in a foreign policy establishment committed to imperialist domination by any means necessary, employees tend to rise to the level of cruelty they can’t live with.*
Posted by: denk | Apr 7, 2016 12:20:01 PM | 4
According to https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/ if primary votes have anything to say about who is qualified to be president, Hil the Pill is NOT.
He is a statistician who documents unqualified corruption in the primary vote count. For instance, did you know that all exit polls are altered after the fact to agree with the official count?
Another gem: since 83% of minorities (30% of the electorate) vote Domocrat, it's almost impossible for a Republican to win. That is, if the election votes are counted honestly. So unless the Republican party learns to appeal to minorities, or there is corruption to hand the election to the Republican, the Democratic nominee selected by the primary corruption process is the next President.
Posted by: Penelope | Apr 7, 2016 12:33:01 PM | 5
What Qualifies A Politician? = a simple answer
In the U.S.A and its vassals-
1st requisite: Exceptional Liar;
2nd requisite: Adhere to the Israel first policy;
3rd requisite: Promote MIC and other big interests.
Do I have a bingo?
Posted by: likklemore | Apr 7, 2016 12:33:52 PM | 6
@3 rephrase to accuracy:
What does qualify a REAL politician?
The exclusion from the corporate media.
The rest are the the usual banking-corporate puppets.
Posted by: nmb | Apr 7, 2016 12:45:42 PM | 7
to qualify one must pledge allegiance to Lucifer, then show one has the characteristics of a sociopath. next, to prove these qualifications aren't just lip service, an act of extreme cruelty is required (and documented to ensure control) usually involving the defiling of innocence, like raping a child. once the demonic suitability of an individual has been established, further initiation into the mysteries occur. outwardly, they rise within the visible hierarchy of power while inwardly they accumulate demonic energies wrought from the death they delight in dealing the less fortunate.
and so it goes.
Posted by: lizard | Apr 7, 2016 12:47:52 PM | 8
What is with the apostrophe s in the second Washington Post headline? That is basic grammar, learnt in elementary school. And this a major daily newspaper in the hegemon capital? Sheesh.
Posted by: jayc | Apr 7, 2016 12:49:19 PM | 9
qualify for definition as human type (as opposed to statesman etc.) or qualify for office at some given time (suitability, fitness). All kinds of shit ensues when the man of the hour has the wrong virtues for the task at hand.
Posted by: rjj | Apr 7, 2016 12:51:39 PM | 10
Citizens United is the corporate answer to that question. The US is looking less like a democracy and more like an oligarchy. Maybe Hillary wants to make it a monarchy?
Some advocacy groups have called loudly for reform. MoveOn.org’s petition demanding that superdelegates should not “deny democracy” has over 200,000 signatures.
"So far, this idea of a leftist political revolution has been widely dismissed as implausible by many liberal commentators — and I share a large part of their skepticism. But new research by Stanford political scientists Simon Jackman and Bradley Spahn has convinced me that at least one big part of it is correct: There really is a reasonably large segment of the American population that most political campaigns aren't reaching."
Posted by: Maracatu | Apr 7, 2016 12:54:35 PM | 12
A full Bingo to nr. 5!
I have the same on my "journalist" bingocard, so we'll have to share...
But the only heads rolling are those on butcher square in Riad.
Posted by: slirs | Apr 7, 2016 1:06:12 PM | 13
Ad hominem: she is just slime. There's no other way to deal wi her than a personal level. That's not Bernie Sander's style. I wonder if she knows how to bake a cookie.
Posted by: Quentin | Apr 7, 2016 1:14:48 PM | 14
After all, maybe a more interesting question than it seems at first look. Guess it depends very much, from which point of view one sees the politician. If he's your employee, then it's probably something like loyalty, acting skills, looking trustworthy and so on. If you're the customer who wants to buy (i.e. elect) the product "politican", means, if you still expect anything "good" from politicans, then it's probably something like independent decisions (as opposed to the aforementioned loyalty), intelligence, bad actings skills ;).
Like: what qualifies a good slavemaster? Depends very much on whether you're a slave, the king or just a passerby...
Posted by: radiator | Apr 7, 2016 1:20:20 PM | 15
OK I see, the question isn't what qualifies a good politician...
Apart from that, what kind of person would you call a politician? Ghadaffi? Putin? Obama? Trump? The current chinese head of party (or whoever may be on top of their social pyramid)?
I guess I wouldn't call Putin, e.g., a politician, more a "president". Politican per se implies, to me, a person that has no real power.
Posted by: radiator | Apr 7, 2016 1:23:57 PM | 16
If we take the definition "be entitled to a particular benefit or privilege by fulfilling a necessary condition," then Hillary is certainly very well qualified.
Posted by: Shh | Apr 7, 2016 1:46:30 PM | 17
"Sanders's" is how I learnt to spell and punctuate it in grade school.
At least here in the U.S., the alternative "Sanders'" is less common and has an archaizing flavor, at least in my opinion.
Posted by: lysias | Apr 7, 2016 2:28:33 PM | 18
The only qualification required is winning an election. What DISqualifies a candidate is neoliberal/neocon policy.
Posted by: yellowsnapdragon | Apr 7, 2016 2:35:05 PM | 19
What does qualify a politician?
When you've learned to fake that, you've got it made.
All the Top Assholes are very good at it.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 7, 2016 2:44:48 PM | 20
To be qualified as a president your partner must have cheated on you publicly.
Posted by: virgile | Apr 7, 2016 2:59:10 PM | 21
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 7, 2016 3:03:42 PM | 22
A frightening void where a soul should be, usually.
Posted by: Cresty | Apr 7, 2016 3:52:34 PM | 23
"What Qualifies An 'amerikkan' Politician?"
deep pockets, or ties to those with deep pockets... plutocracy - oligarchs rule... corporate media is in tow.. nothing is as it seems.. @5 likklemore has a good response..
Posted by: james | Apr 7, 2016 4:29:48 PM | 24
how about this response to your question from Josh Earnest, White House Press Secretary from 2 days ago...
Earnest: Corruption? Consider Poroshenko's predecessor.
"not as corrupt as the last guy"... interesting ideological framework of support for the ukee colour revolution/regime change/clusterfuck...
okay josh.. we will just take your word for it.. no parallel comparison/evidence is necessary... this is why some folks are given to referring to usa state dept. spokespersons and press secretariats as 'stooges' for the empire..
Posted by: james | Apr 7, 2016 4:49:53 PM | 25
Ultimately, the primal qualification for being president of the United States of America is that you actually CARE ABOUT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Hillary Clinton has shown time and again that she just doesn't care. Start stupid wars with no purpose other than to enrich politically connected defense contractors, add trillions to the US deficit and unleash ISIS and make the United States a de-facto ally of Al Qaeda? (Yes, really). Give trillions of dollars to Wall Street and starve main street of capital? Open the borders to unchecked third-world immigration, likely turning the nation into just another overpopulated third-world sweatshop in a generation or so? Push of Obamatrade, that will tear up the constitution and make US law subordinate to the rulings of foreign corporate lawyers meeting in secret? I could go on, but you get the idea.
Really really, Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be president. Frankly, if I was crowned King, I'd put her on trial for treason against the nation.
Posted by: TG | Apr 7, 2016 5:02:11 PM | 26
There is no "qualification" required to be a politician other than that required to get your name on a ballot paper.
There are some "eligabilities" required to be a president. After all, you don't sit a test to "qualify" from being over 35 years of age nor do you have to pass the exam to "qualify" as a "a natural-born citizen".
There are some things that can "disqualify" a politician, sure, which we will see if Hillary ever gets indicted for her little, ahem, private email problem.
There are also some things that peculiarly "disqualifies" you from being Presiden e.g. if you have already been POTUS twice before.
Posted by: Yeah, Right | Apr 7, 2016 6:06:58 PM | 27
Interesting quote in that first link:
"I want to see the United States Senate move back into Democratic hands with my friend Chuck Schumer as the majority leader"
Hmmmm. Is Chuckie back in the good books having dumped on Obama over the Iran deal?
Or is he still a bad smell, and Hillary has just let some of that s**t stick to her?
Posted by: Yeah, Right | Apr 7, 2016 6:11:22 PM | 28
Ability to suck Up and kick down (king of the mountain).
Ony the sociopath is adequately skilled and adept at sucking up and kicking down. One must retain a winning smile and be cool under pressure in order to gain success.
Some of those who "got a fork in the neck" for you - or because of you - will be bitching and whining. You've got to MOVE ON dot org. Don't miss a beat.
You're good enough, smart enough, handsome enough, and....doggone it! People like you!
Posted by: fast freddy | Apr 7, 2016 6:26:05 PM | 29
In so-called democracies, you technically don't need any special educational or income-related qualifications to campaign for the presidency: that's why they're called democracies.
In the United States at least, you need to be either US-born and/or to have parents also US-born. Ted Cruz's candidacy caused some problems because he is Canadian-born and one of his parents was US-born. That's what's stopping Arnold Schwarzenegger from campaigning.
These days also, you need to pledge your soul and the souls of your family for the next seven generations to the Devil to be US President.
Posted by: Jen | Apr 7, 2016 6:40:29 PM | 30
I was USN NCO. I know many US veterans post and read MoA.
On military politicians from a Veterans Today piece about 4 star generals Petraeus and Allen being traitors to the Constitution. I found the following reader comment very entertaining ...
"That the officer corps is for s**t is not news to any senior nco. We’ve known about these creeps since before nam, which ended with the biggest mutiny since spithead. I used to think that the creeps I personally encountered were a disgrace to their uniforms, until it dawned on me that these a****les were exactly the kind of officers the academies wanted to advance. You couldn’t frag’ em fast enough. They just made more.
source - http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/04/06/a-tale-of-two-traitors-and-the-terrorists-they-created/
Posted by: ALberto | Apr 7, 2016 7:26:59 PM | 31
The WP is a neocon POS. Their editorial oversight is appalling and their coverage is disgraceful. The columnists and opinion writers are the stupidest people on the planet; I don't know why anyone would bother with their BS musings. The Psot have not broken a story since Watergate and even that was handed to them, and was most likely a CIA setup to get Nixon. Whatever the post reports, probably the opposite is true. I only go there to Troll the comments section.
Posted by: Secret Agent | Apr 7, 2016 8:17:05 PM | 32
Good Politician = oxymoron
2a : a person engaged in party politics as a professionb : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons
2 someone who is good at using people or situations to their ownadvantage
1.1 chiefly US A person who acts in a manipulative and devious way, typically to gain advancement within an organization.
1.2 Oxford Dictionary
With the rarest of exceptions "politicians" have the appeal of a used condom...
Posted by: V. Arnold | Apr 7, 2016 9:05:02 PM | 33
Re: above; please note 1.1 definition by Oxford Dictionary...
Posted by: V. Arnold | Apr 7, 2016 9:07:46 PM | 34
Hillary is attacking via innuendo. For Third-way, Centrist politicians, this is practically an art form.
She has previously spoken of herself as battle-tested, and as a 'progressive that gets things done'. She has criticized Sanders' ideals as unrealistic. Her campaign slogan, "Fighting for us" contrasts with Sanders' hopey changey: "A Future to Believe In".
In this context, "qualified", means CAPABLE and PROVEN. That is a dig at Sanders age (he is 74, she is 68 - and women live longer), his ideals, an his lack of experience (executive, foreign policy, etc.).
She has also asked if Sanders is a Democrat. Appealing to Party loyalists and deriding his socialism at the same time. Her message: don't let this 'outsider' hijack our Party! (like Trump has done to the Republicans)!
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Yet, one could well ask if it's all kabuki theater. Sanders could've attacked Hillary on her character, using the emails as an example. He wouldn't. He could've attacked her slogan ("Fighting for you"). He does so only obliquely - saying that she takes money from special interests. He could've attacked the DNC and the media for their bias toward Hillary. He merely complained some. Despite his newfound fiestiness he seems to be committed (from the start) to NOT be a spoiler (like Ralph Nader).
some have called Sanders a sheepdog. Is he just making a good show of it? At this point, the 'electoral' math is against him. It will be difficult (not impossible, but difficult) for Sanders to win the nomination. If he is to have a chance, he has to make the case - and forcefully - that Hillary is unelectable. In fact, polling suggests that he is the better candidate in the fall. But will he throw off his powerful Democratic friends and make a determined effort to win? ... or threaten a third-party run (unlikely)?
It's likely that what we are seeing is a negotiation between Hillary and Sanders now. Clinton NEEDS to be seen as the presumptive nominee if she is to negotiate a deal on the email scandal. And she wants to be free to change her messaging to one that is general-election oriented (center-right, a positioning that she is much more comfortable with).
What will Sanders be promised to 'back off'? How much will it 'cost' Hillary to remove that thorn? In 2008 Clinton negotiated a Cabinet position for herself.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 7, 2016 9:23:34 PM | 35
There’s a sort of Peter Principle at work here. Laurence Peter wrote that in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence. Perhaps we can postulate that in a foreign policy establishment committed to imperialist domination by any means necessary, employees tend to rise to the level of cruelty they can’t live with.*
That's a very reasonable description of where we are right now. Barack the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate slash "Really Good At Killing People" Obama is the prototypical nihilist politician. Hillary Clinton has demonstrated her ability, Trump and Sanders will if given the chance.
The opposite hand, the Frederick principle?, as described by Frederick Douglass:
"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
The whole of American|Western|Capitalist Society - pick your favorite description - is built on the concept of 'externalities', of focussed 'mission', of the frog in the well gazing up at the 'world' : the narrow circle of sunshine at the top. Everything else is damp and dark. Froggy-Homey. Nothing else matters.
A politician is just one particular type of frog, in his own particular well, gazing up at his own particular circle of light.
Posted by: jfl | Apr 7, 2016 9:42:15 PM | 36
Earlier on the Web, I saw an item noting that "qualified to be president" is a class thing. Wish I could find it to link to. What some bloggers call "Very Important People" are those from similar backgrounds with similar views. History of correctness is unnecessary, irrelevant. "Qualified" means like others in power.
Posted by: Mudduck | Apr 7, 2016 9:51:16 PM | 37
What we have is an excess of the non-politicians.
To be a politician by definition you must represent the citizens and very few, if any of the current US batch represent citizens in the pre Corporations are people sense of the term.
Greed has killed all the real politicians.
Posted by: psychohistorian | Apr 7, 2016 9:52:43 PM | 38
I wonder if "qualified" is also a dig at Obama. Was he any more qualified than Sanders to be President?
Hillary believes that she was cheated in 2008. And she has many supporters that agree.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 7, 2016 10:13:14 PM | 39
@Muddock no. 37
I believe that was in a series of tweets from billmon. Qualified=credentialed and meritorious.
Posted by: sleepy | Apr 7, 2016 10:17:34 PM | 40
Just have to note Clinton's attack on Sander's position on guns which linked Sanders to the Sandy Hook attack via innuendo.
Sanders' response to Clinton's innuendo's was then used to portray him as a Trump-like disruptor of Party unity. Wow.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 7, 2016 10:51:58 PM | 41
Etymology to the rescue: Let's examine the etymology of the word "politics". "Poli-" is from the Greek, meaning "many" or "of great number". "Tics" are, of course, disgusting, blood-sucking parasites.
Posted by: Macon Richardson | Apr 7, 2016 11:03:27 PM | 42
Also important to note: It all started with a question to Sanders in an interview from NY Daily News about how Sanders would break up the big banks.
Sanders has had years to figure that out. So his stumbling, unclear answer caused Clinton to question if Sanders was "qualified" (but not to say explicitly that Sanders was unqualified).
Sanders compounded his mistake by taking the 'bait': answering innuendo with belligerence.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 7, 2016 11:11:54 PM | 43
Will Sanders back down after this dust-up (like prominent Democrats are calling for), or will he turn up the volume?
I'd love to see him lambaste Hillary's hypocritical slogan like this: Hillary's slogan is "Fighting for us". How can we trust that she will fight FOR US when she takes so much money from Wall Street and special interests?
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 7, 2016 11:28:39 PM | 44
is there a level of cruelty these psychopaths cant live with ?
*sky is the limit !*
say the flog glazing up to that circle of light.
Posted by: denk | Apr 7, 2016 11:29:09 PM | 45
@38 becoming a politician is one of the final get-rich-quick schemes remaining. Local politicians tend make the capital hill politicians almost saintly.. The whole system is beyond all hope
Posted by: aaaa | Apr 8, 2016 12:18:39 AM | 46
Thank you, Sleepy! Billmon it was.
If you think about, technocratic focus on "qualifications" is ultimately self-justifying. Unless you conform to system...
you're extremely unlikely to collect establishment credentials that count as "qualifications." Without them, you're "disqualified."
Which has happy result (for elites) of making accepting premises of elite establishment the entry ticket for being allowed into the game.
Posted by: Mudduck | Apr 8, 2016 12:30:11 AM | 47
"Fighting for us" ... what I want to know is: who the h... is "us."
She and Bill ... ?
She and the oligarchs ... ?
She and the banks ... ?
She and Wall Street ... ?
She and the Wal-Mart style corporation ... ?
Whoever it is, it is not the working stiff, or the unemployed (more likely imprisoned) black or hispanic ...
Posted by: rg the lg | Apr 8, 2016 12:38:00 AM | 48
Politics= the distribution of power. It can be studied to the level of post doctorate in my country. Unfortunately not one politician I know about has studied it... Its like employing plumbers to build a rocket engine. The result is that no lift-off is guaranteed... The problems get solved by engineers, not psychopaths...
Posted by: dan | Apr 8, 2016 1:44:01 AM | 50
@39 "Hillary believes that she was cheated in 2008."
In what way, exactly?
As far as I can tell the only person likely to have been cheating on Hillary in 2008 was Slick Willie, thanks to his well-known propensity to drop his pants in the company of comely women*.
*Where "comely" = still breathing.
Posted by: Yeah, Right | Apr 8, 2016 6:08:36 AM | 51
To succeed in a political career:
1) Be healthy as a horse. Manage sleepless nights, too much alcohol, strange food, smoky rooms, horrible trips, minor injuries/illnesses, without a blip.
2) Controlled, high, empathy and a good understanding of self and others. Determination, no fear of failure, set-backs.
3) Be able to take in new information very rapidly, and relate it (systemic thinking.) Understand numbers (at least to stat 101.)
4) Be able to speak in public on any topic at all for 4 minutes in an informative (or if not then entertaining and sincere) way. Be able to speak 30 mins on any topic of political importance.
This was my ‘smiley’ list when on a board working out policy for students who fail in their chosen path and seek an alternate.
Doesn’t look like Killary was suited. Nope.
Posted by: Noirette | Apr 8, 2016 7:19:12 AM | 52
am i to believe that in this day age it is still possible to "vote yes for meaningful change".
Posted by: jensen | Apr 8, 2016 7:43:17 AM | 53
Someone that is blackmailable?
Posted by: shadyl | Apr 8, 2016 9:44:12 AM | 54
My favourite politician, the 'accidental politician' gets involved in politics because of an issue that they care deeply about., and they don't really like being a politician...like this woman....she thinks that being in politics should be short term, like jury duty, to reduce corruption....https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rbLNN0DtLL4
Posted by: Bluemot5 | Apr 8, 2016 10:08:35 AM | 55
NY is turning into a pivotal vote
If Sanders manages to upset Clinton in her home state (polls show him down by about 10 pts), the Democratic race could be dramatically changed.
If Trump doesn't win BIG, the chances for a brokered convention increase quite a bit. He has to fight for every delegate as it is.
In the worst (best?) case we could have a FOUR-WAY race for President. This would happen if tumultuous Party Conventions result in Bernie supporters (25% of whom say they would never vote for Hillary) to move to the Green Party (and maybe Bernie himself?!) and the also Republicans split: Trump makes an independent run or the disaffected Republican establishment supports another candidate (running independently or as the Libertarian Party or Conservative Party candidate).
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
1) Hillary wins NY.
2) Bernie toes the Party line; doesn't rock the boat.
3) Some Bernie supporters move to the Green Party.
4) The Republicans split.
5) Hillary pleads to a misdemeanor/"slap on the wrist", saying that she would have fought the felony charges but she has to put the email matter behind her so that she can focus on the Presidential election.
In this scenario, whether Hillary becomes President depends on how energized the Greens are - how many votes they pull away from the Democrats/Hillary. Effectively, it would comes down to anti-establishment candidates (Greens + Trump) vs. Establishment candidates (Hillary + anti-Trump Republicans). Put another way: the Presidential race would essentially be: Occupy + Tea Party vs the Establishment.
Imagine a result like this:
> Trump: 34%
> Hillary: 32%
> Conservative + Corporate Republicans: 20%
> Greens: 7%
> Others: 2%
The Greens - the 'principled left' - would have denied Hillary's win. This would catapult the Greens into a real force in American politics!
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 8, 2016 10:34:00 AM | 56
I wish the FCC would revoke the Wapo and Lying Times licenses to spew.
Daydreaming of course.
HRC has a track record of shite that dwarfs any candidates in American history.End of story.
Go Sanders go Trump,give US a choice to believe in!
Posted by: dahoit | Apr 8, 2016 10:46:28 AM | 57
US pols - in the main - don’t campaign on a vision, an ideology, an organisation for society, or a worked-out political platform.
They campaign to attract supporters, voters, by taking varying, shifting positions on very simplisitic ‘issues,’ sometimes concrete objects like walls and guns - plus on narrow societal ‘topics’ re. which everyone has, or can have, an opinion: abortion, gay marriage, minimum wage, and the like. Identity politics loom large, and intrinsic belongings are exploited.
The two accepted establishment candidates, Clinton and Cruz (though he is despised by his own party), are using the Obama card (first Black..), thus supposedly on the side of women and Latinos, respectively. The slice-n-dice approach!
Meanwhile everything is run from backstage ...
The mold has been partly broken by Sanders - nobody cares that he is an elderly Jewish white guy, though of course he is not outside the Establishment, just a re-vamped New-Deal ‘Dem’, but too far left — more radically so by Trump, as the outsider with a big mouth who actually speaks about the unmentionable occasionally.
Within this political landscape, one cannot attack, nor endorse, a public figure for being Latino, old, a woman, or whatever, that is taboo. So the Dem apparatus has had to construct a new quasi-intrinsic marker, which has turned out to be experience. They have been doing it for quite a while, with Clinton touted as the ‘most experienced, the most qualified.’ (link, ex.) A nebulous characteristic, spurious, plus a blatant code-word for ‘an insider who will keep the Dem hoi polloi in power.’ Echoes to a corporate style management: the ‘experience’ to ‘do the job’ is ‘needed.’ The ‘qualified vs. non q-etc.’ meme took off …Sanders should not have taken it up imho.
NYT jan 2016
Posted by: Noirette | Apr 8, 2016 11:45:24 AM | 58
color coded figurehead.
pacom cic harry harris doesnt look too hairy..... cuz he's half jp.
thats why he qualify for the post, to handle jp, the newly unmuzzled attack dog !
he's helping uncle sham to provoke china over an uninhabitated , albeit contested, isle in the scs, utterly oblivious to his sisters in okinawa who moan under the jackboots of uncle's goons. !
Posted by: denk | Apr 8, 2016 12:18:57 PM | 59
@ dan 50:
The response to your observation that one needs to understand power in order to properly employ it would be the notorious Karl Rove quote as reported by Ron Suskind:
"That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Naturally, Russia and China have learned how to take this American predilection towards "we create reality" imperious impulsiveness (Bush II was hardly unique in this respect, although his first term did arguably represent the apogee of such "irrational exuberance," if you will.) and use it to their own advantage, allowing the Empire to obliviously create petards out of precedents and hoist itself by them, while inexorably, and as quietly as possible, slowly building an alternative structure of global order -- 180 degrees opposed to Bush I's trademarked "New World Order™."
(You want Kosovo? Really? Fine, we'll take South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Crimea, NovoRussia, etc. Engineering faux democratic color-revolution consent for co-opted change exposes the Empire to the hypocrisy of refusing to accept authentic democratic calls for change. The exposed hypocrisy of foreign policy slowly but inevitably corrodes and devalues the coin of empire.)
On a more humorous note, bringing plumbers into the issue only exposes oneself to plumber's cracks. (Egad! Not a pretty spectacle.) Plumbers are practical generalists, and hence have more power and ability than is generally thought. For instance, a small group of plumbers was able to take down a Presidency -- Nixon's. And one safely imagines that plumbers building rocket engines might perhaps be able to get that "O" ring thingy right! So maybe it would not be as bad an idea as you think ;~)
Posted by: Malooga | Apr 8, 2016 12:50:24 PM | 60
I think the question ought be rephrased, if we are to stick to "spherical vacuum" levels of (blind) objectivity.
What DOES NOT qualify a politician? Or constitute first rate "experience" on one's resume?
All right, that's two separate questions, technically speaking. But with respect to the first: I am completely serious. We've had people run for and win presidencies after less than (or just around) ten years in various non-top political posts. Hillary is at ten flat (six in the Senate and four at Foggy Bottom) if you count the whole Healthcare Reform thing in the 90s as an "internship" of the kind you stick at the very bottom of the resume to fill up some white space. [Incidentally, for a woman pushing 70 or so, ten years is pretty bloody thin.] Obama had - don't recall exactly - between five and ten including his State Senate stint (and, I suppose, the whole "community organizing" bit). Bush the W had what, one or two terms as the Texas governor? Bush the J - same in Florida? Cruz at one Senate term (six years or so) plus what, four years as the Texas Solicitor General? Less? Romney was either a one or a two term governor, don't really care which but again we're talking about a 5-10 year range.
Think of this from the standpoint of an HR department looking at resumes. All these people are applying, and their relevant experience amounts to 5-10 years. [Some of them have other things on the side ("business", "law", "professorship", whatever) - but corporate HR usually looks at "relevant" experience first and discounts the rest.] That - presumably - is the accepted and acceptable threshold for someone to be "qualified" to be President, and notice that we're taking a variety of roles here only some of which may have anything to do with executive authority or running a cabinet (presumably the most relevant skills for a White House newcomer).
Secondarily, it is obvious that at this juncture no amount of failure - whether in business (Bush the W), political initiatives (Hillary or Cruz), policy (Hillary at Foggy Bottom), or character (pivot to that "wide stance" Senator from Minnesota who did not resign and served out his term, if memory serves) - constitutes an automatic circuit breaker. So again - who wouldn't be qualified for at least running for the presidency given these rather loose objective requirements of the applicants? [And notice, I've deliberately avoided mentioning the Trump-Carsons of the world, professional politicians only.]
Anyhow. The fact that there is a media squealing match over the whole thing basically smells to me as yet another mole hill being made out of a dung hill in the name of a) burying the anti-establishment "socialist" and b) advancing the pro-establishment, err...I guess Hillary plays the role of the "liberal" in this election, right? How dare he, etc. It's a wonder no-one's come out and called Sanders a sexist misogynist pig for daring to question Hillary's qualifications...
Posted by: Angry Panda | Apr 8, 2016 1:18:35 PM | 61
"The mold has been partly broken by Sanders - nobody cares that he is an elderly Jewish white guy, though of course he is not outside the Establishment, just a re-vamped New-Deal ‘Dem’, but too far left"
Apparently you really have no idea who or what 'The Bern' is or what he represents ...
- Sanders studied at Brooklyn College for a year in 1959–60 before transferring to the University of Chicago
- While at the University of Chicago, Sanders joined the Young People's Socialist League (the youth affiliate of the Socialist Party of America), and was active in the Civil Rights Movement as a student organizer for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. Under Sanders's chairmanship, the university chapter of CORE merged with the university chapter of SNCC. In January 1962, Sanders led a rally at the University of Chicago administration building to protest university president George Wells Beadle's segregated campus housing policy. "We feel it is an intolerable situation when Negro and white students of the university cannot live together in university-owned apartments," Sanders said at the protest. Sanders and 32 other students then entered the building and camped outside the president's office, performing the first civil rights sit-in in Chicago history.
- In addition to his civil rights activism during the 1960s and 1970s, Sanders was active in several peace and antiwar movements. He was a member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the Student Peace Union while attending the University of Chicago. Sanders applied for conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War; his application was eventually turned down, by which point he was too old to be drafted.
50 YEARS LATER LOOKING AT CHICAGO TODAY WE CAN SEE HOW THIS RACIAL EQUALITY THINGIE WORKED OUT
Hilary and The Bern are both disciples of Community Organizer Saul Alinski and their community organization has given us the high body count in 2016 Chicago.
Posted by: ALberto | Apr 8, 2016 1:33:02 PM | 62
So what do Community Organizer Obama, Community Organizer Clinton and Community Organizer Sanders have in common?
The total destruction of the city of Chicago and the State of ILLinois.
b, you and your people can change topics thereby keeping previous comments from view but you cannot alter history and no longer alter reality. Have a nice day.
Posted by: ALberto | Apr 8, 2016 1:41:58 PM | 63
It's a wonder no-one's come out and called Sanders a sexist misogynist pig for daring to question Hillary's qualifications...
Sen. Claire McCaskill came close (she is probably the most prominent to do so):
... calling Hillary Clinton not qualified is like fingernails on a black board to many women across this country ... I think women who have succeeded in male-dominated fields have been used to being marginalized about whether or not they are truly qualified ...
FYI: Four times the Clintons Said Obama was Unqualified to be President
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 8, 2016 2:22:39 PM | 64
The majority of Americans are not qualified to vote. This is the much larger problem.
Posted by: Shyaku | Apr 8, 2016 8:34:26 PM | 65
At this point, a split in the Democratic Party, for better or worse, seems highly unlikely.
Sanders is again reiterating his support for whoever the eventual Democratic nominee is, according to HuffPost. As I will show below directly, Sanders seems committed to taking over and reforming the Democratic Party.
All of this "back of the envelope" statistical analysis seems a little dodgy. The estimate for the Greens is a little over twice their best performance, under Ralph Nader in 2000 (2.74 pct.). Nader is of course a much better known figure than Dr. Stein, whose last outing got them 0.36 pct.
Nader’s showing in Florida is thought by many to have cost Gore the election. So ergo, one would have thought that this defeat of the duopoly would have "empowered" the Greens.
Of course, it did not. Their haul dropped to 0.10 pct. in the next election. As I recollect, Nader got flak for failing to build the Green Party, and this forced him to the sidelines.
The subsequent leadership has not improved on Nader's work. They have never picked up more than a half percent of the House vote nationally. They have gotten nearly 1 pct. of the total vote in Senate races, but that was in 2000. Both were just under a third of a percent nationally in the last elections.
Given the Greens have been around for a number of years, and have had some exposure to the voters in that time, one might imagine that were they amenable to Green politics, the Sanderistas would already be in those ranks. Leakage to other parties seems less likely than a level of abstentionism.
Here’s a leg up on the number crunching, as well as a run-down on the nature of Sanders' campaign, from the reliably “pwogwessive” Alternet. Bernie Is Crashing America's Two-Party System—That’s Why Establishment Democrats Are so Afraid of Him, they say.
Sanders seems to believe that reform within the Democratic party is a more feasible option for the American left than third party politics (which some on the left vehemently disagree with)…. In order to make third parties viable in American politics, this electoral system would have to be overhauled and replaced with a form of proportional representation, which is found in many other democratic nations.
It goes on to discuss one or two other reforms, especially on campaign finance. I would urge each and every Barfly to talk up proportional representation, it is a key "Transitional Demand." It is also the sort of thing that could be, perhaps, brought about by grass-roots pressure from voters. "What is your position on proportional representation" should be asked of every politician of every stripe at every possible occasion.
At present, the article reported, only one in four Sandersistas will not back another Democrat. This although 30 to 50 percent of the support that Sanders has gotten in primaries has come from Independent voters; the regulars prefer Clinton.
Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 8, 2016 11:00:18 PM | 66
Shyaku | Apr 8, 2016 8:34:26 PM | 67
The majority of Americans are not qualified to vote. This is the much larger problem.
Bingo! Spot on...
Posted by: V. Arnold | Apr 8, 2016 11:01:30 PM | 67
As you pointed out in the Open Thread (here's my reply), Sanders success has brought the Clinton-focused DNC headaches. He is shaking the foundations of the Party. His best chance to win the nomination is to WIN New York.
But if he doesn't win the nomination, a large number of Sanders supporters (25% of whom vow that they will not vote for Hillary) will help to energize the Greens. Its still early, and in this environment the Greens could well do better than expected, so my 'back of the envelope' numbers are not unrealistic.
The establishment duopoly has nobody to blame but themselves. For screwing the pooch and conspiring against the people.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 9, 2016 12:05:00 AM | 68
@58 " ... with Clinton touted as the ‘most experienced, the most qualified.’ "
I think this is what they've been touting as a 'dog-whistle', from Hillary to the upper middle-class, to the people who think they have something to lose. Stick with 'experience', with people who know who's supposed to win and who to lose. I say upper middle-class because I think the middlin' middle-class has been wiped out. Has already lost all that they thought they had to lose. And the upper-middle-class just ain't enough to win with out a 'special' vote count. So it was Hillary and the DNC's boner. The Bern should have laughed at it, but he took umbrage.
All the people vetted by the veteran bed vetters are unqualified, by their experience, to lead. They are the consummate followers.
Hillary's pitching to the scared people now, the people scared of even the word change. And they've dwindled to no more than 25% of the population.
I don't know if Bernie's going to be allowed to win the nomination or not, I can imagine not. I hope his acolytes write him in. We have to break this cycle of pre-selected followers vying for our votes, and we've got to organize to come up with an alternative, and I can see both coming about through write-in voting.
Posted by: jfl | Apr 9, 2016 8:43:14 AM | 69
color coded diplomacy
who qualifies to be a murkkan ambassador to india ?
an indian murkkan !
how to nudge the elephant fully into the new eight nations alliance. 
carrots and more carrots !
us ambassador to india,
*There is no place where India’s leadership is needed more sorely that in the Asia-Pacific region,
India is the only country that the US is supporting as an emerging global defence leader
There is no other country in the world that we are supporting as an emerging global defence leader. We have overhauled our approach to defence licensing to India with a presumption of approval for the vast majority of even the most sensitive platforms
Never in our history have we actively supported the indigenous development of an aircraft carrier program in another country. Yet, we are doing so today - the joint Aircraft Carrier Technology Working Group met here in India this past week,” he said.
“In the future, I am sure we will soon see US and Indian aircraft carriers operating side-by-side in the region and beyond to maintain the freedom of the seas for all nations 
then as an afterthought the ambassador added,
*this is not aimed at china of course, its none of their biz* !
Whaddaya know ?
an indian speaking with forked tongue !
the original 8 nations alliance, aka the rape of peking.
*pale faced speak with forked tongue*
verma was a lawyer by profession.
must be just coincidence,
Posted by: denk | Apr 9, 2016 11:15:40 AM | 71
You've conjured seemingly random numbers for a highly unlikely scenario.
One assuredly cannot assume that a quarter of Sanders supporters will feel disinclined to vote Demcoratic, when faced by the reality of the Rethuglican campaign in November, and that all of them will go Green. I think I made a reasonable surmise that they will not. Abstention by Sandersistas has been noted as a problem; this bit from the NYT was the first to hand on the topic. And given the inchoate nature of much of the anger with the status quo, that the Guardian reports some might go with Trump does not surprise me. I would hope the socialist "third parties" pick up some of this support, as it will surely diffuse to a number of tendencies, left, right, and center.
Assuredly, substantial numbers of Sanderists will not go along. But I do not see the Greens growing beyond their core constituency of drearily sincere, moralistic petit-bourgeois urbanites on the coasts through Sandersista refugees.
Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 9, 2016 12:53:36 PM | 72
"... inchoate nature of much of the anger with the status quo"
Oh, its not so inchoate. They KNOW that they are getting screwed by the establishment, they just can't easily explain HOW or how to fix it.
No one really knows how Sanders supporters will vote in November if Sanders is not the nominee. A lot depends on how Sanders and his supporters are treated. To reiterate (and simplify) the point: if Hillary is the nominee, a close race in November would make the Greens a factor.
And WHY should third-parties like the Greens care about a DNC win or being labeled a spoiler? The establishment/duopoly/Hillary is corrupt and FAR removed from any progressive ideals.
Anti-establishment/anti-Hillary/anti-DNC voters don't have to hold their nose and vote for Trump, they can simply vote their conscience.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 9, 2016 3:08:42 PM | 73
At the end of long list of the names of the 'Panama Club' members comes the paragraph that explains political qualifications.
The Panama Papers: The People Deceived
So there you have it, the information you need to know but which CNN, The Guardian, the BBC, CBC, the New York Times and all the rest of the media refuse to provide you so that you can properly assess the story they have propagated through the world media. The role of the western media is not to inform the public but, as Umberto Eco says, “to teach people how to think,” to manipulate opinion and action. Their suppression of that information is a lie and as that other great writer, Jose Saramago, wrote, they use “the lie as a weapon, the lie as the advance guard of tanks and cannons, the lie told over the ruins, over the corpses, over humanity’s wretched and perpetually frustrated hopes.” It is time for these people to be exposed for what they are and called to account for their deception of the people they claim to serve, for what greater crime can their be than to deceive the people?
Qualified politicians are those who have been taught how to think, and their experience, naturally, only confirms their lessons.
Posted by: jfl | Apr 9, 2016 5:49:14 PM | 74
what qualifies a murkkan ambassador to china ?
by now u know the drill,
a chinese murkkan !
color coded diplomacy in action again....with a nasty twist.
gary locke was not chosen to careress chinese sensitivities, rather, he's there to provoke, destabilise .
previously such job fell on wasps like bush senior. now the mou figure its more exciting to have chink on chink.
being lectured and needled by a *son of the land* would no doubt be doubly infuriating to ccp and much more entertaining to watch. !
when it comes to china, there's always a nasty twist !
gary locke was publicly humuliated, harangued at in the senate before he even set foot on his motherland.
* President Barack Obama's pick to be the next US envoy to China, Mr Gary Locke, has said he 'will consider' worshipping at a so-called Christian 'house church' not formally recognised by beijing. [he was expected to ]...................
His evasive reply drew an angry response from Republican Representative Frank Wolf, a frequent and fierce critic of Beijing, who had asked Mr Locke whether he would worship at one of the underground churches.
When Mr Locke attempted to elaborate, saying, 'how I practise my religion is not something for the American people...', Mr Wolf cut him off, raising his voice and pounding the table as he demanded a stronger stand against Beijing.
'It is for the American people,' Mr Wolf said.
'It's to stand with the dissidents who are being persecuted, who are being hauled away, and the American embassy in China ought to be an island of freedom.' [sic] 
would an ambassador to india, turkey be subject to such insults ?
of course not, such *privileges* is exclusively reserved for the chinese. !
with such an itinary , locke's mission as *envoy* was doomed to fail from the start.
where else would u find a murkkan *ambassador* obliged to lecture his host on *human rights* [cough cough], minoritiy policies, etc etc., where else but china ?
would an ambassador to india instructed by his handlers to tour kashmir, assam, nagaland, manipur...all restive regions with minorities issues, lecture delhi what to do with the natives there ?
yet locke was ordered to do all that in china, going into tibet, xinjiang, interviewing dissidents, chastising beijing for its policies. in short making himself a royal pain in the ass .
a real *chink on chink* extravaganza, prime time entertainment for the mou in washington !
naturally such a relationship wouldnt last .
while beijing was mightily pissed off by this *son of the land*, locke obviously didnt enjoy his stay in his motherland either. he called it quits the moment his term was up.
i dont blame him, i even heard that he drank at night. !
beijing's response ....
good bye and good riddance. ! 
tptb must be roflmao,
its a mystery to me why the world community have not BANNED murkkan embassy in their land, knowing
its nefarious activities all over the world.
hmm, the only country not allowed to set up embassies oversea, that'd be truly *exceptional*, hehehehe
Posted by: denk | Apr 9, 2016 11:01:55 PM | 75
@lizard 8: Sad but true. I'm becoming more and more convinced that the deaths of the Bush and Cameron children were not accidents but ritual sacrifice to seal the allegiance.
Posted by: ProPeace | Apr 10, 2016 1:10:08 PM | 76
The world is evil because people are weak. Education, upbringing is the key.
Also, there will never be real justice until those who elect the monsters pay for the officials' heinous crimes, e.g. those who voted for the Bush's 2nd term need to compensate the people of the ME and Afghanistan, Pakistan for what the US did there plus interest.
Posted by: ProPeace | Apr 10, 2016 1:18:04 PM | 77
b: What qualifies a politician?
James Michael Greer (aka The ArchDruid) has an answer (of sorts):
The leadership of a rising civilization pays close attention to the outcomes of its policies and discards those that don’t work. The leadership of a falling civilization prefers to redefine “success” as “following the approved policies” rather than “yielding the preferred outcomes,” and concentrates on insulating itself from the consequences of its mistakes
In essence, its Hillary's self-proclaimed ability to "make the tough choices" that qualify her. Her experience is only a way of demonstrating that quality to the elites that will select her.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 10, 2016 3:24:33 PM | 78
Very interesting item, b.
It seems odd that military aid of this type and scale should be advertised, even to the extent of including a packing list in the case of the first (Romanian) shipment. I suppose that this would be one way of applying political pressure to both the Syrian regime and its military benefactors. It's certainly not a method of covert arms supply.
Assuming that such arms were in fact transferred, the question remains of to whom. It's perfectly plausible that, per Jane's, half were dropped at a Turkish military port, presumably for rebels in the north of Syria, and half dropped at Aqaba, for distribution to the Free Syrian Army in the south, via Jordan's border.
But the Jane's article mentions funny business with the location transponder of both ships, which seems to rule out technical malfunction and to strongly suggest (either unavoidably or deliberately) an attempt to conceal the true destination of the arms. I find it curious that the second ship, for example, turned its transponder on while visiting the scheduled stops, but subsequently turned it off to disappear from tracking, after transiting the Suez Canal (presumably for the second time, if the Jane's description is accurate).
I also find it curious that mention should be made of taking onboard a security detail in the Suez area (exactly when in this strange journey?). Wouldn't such a shipment already have a security team aboard? Who was really being picked up? As for Aqaba, surely the Jordanians would provide port security.
I can't help notice that Sudan is right next door.
The former vice-president of South Sudan has been attempting to overthrow its government. South Sudan, as of 2012, had the largest military spending as a percentage of GDP of any country on Earth. The country is widely regarded as a creation of the United States, but things change swiftly in Sudan, and so it seems do U.S. foreign policy alignments there.
The New York Times carried a 2014 article containing statements by a U.S. State Department spokesman, on record, which could be construed as support for the South Sudanese rebel, Riek Machar:
“We’ve not seen any evidence that this was a coup attempt, but it certainly was the result of a huge political rift between Riek Machar and the president,” Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the assistant secretary of state for Africa, told a Senate committee in Washington on Thursday.
Mr. Machar has said that the 11 senior politicians held as suspected plotters have to be released before there can be a cease-fire. Mr. Kiir has said they must be tried for their conspiracy to overthrow the government and cannot be freed summarily.
“The United States strongly believes that the political prisoners currently being held in Juba must be released,” Ms. Thomas-Greenfield said.
* * *
Perhaps a fairly overt but fake supply of arms to the Syrian rebels could cover for actual but covert aid to South Sudanese rebels seeking to overthrow the government of South Sudan?
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | Apr 11, 2016 9:48:50 PM | 79
Comment 79 (re arms shipments) was unintentionally posted here, owing to browser problems.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | Apr 11, 2016 10:03:28 PM | 80
jr at 73 --
As I suggested, I think, in the Open Thread (and elsewhere) I have no problem with any third party costing anyone an election, and am all for a vote for ones mind/heart/conscience. If the SWP makes the NJ ballot this year, I'll vote for them, again. If not, we'll see if the Socialist Party qualified. All else fails, I'll write in Mrs. M.
Two problems -- I don't see the Greens getting enough votes to be that critical, assuming there is a split in either the Democrats, Republicans, or both. And when they did, in 2000, it really didn't shake the Republicrats, since no one was in any real position to capitalize on it.
Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 11, 2016 10:23:10 PM | 81
After the southern primaries, wherein solid-south operatives delivered the black vote - in states that will vote republicrat in November, the Clintons show their real, their ugliest face ...
Bill Clinton Insults Blacks in Order to Build Hillary’s “Big Tent” Party
Bill Clinton’s tirade against Black Lives Matter demonstrators in Philadelphia, last week, signals that his wife’s inner circle is having great difficulty resisting the urge to lunge rightward into general election campaign mode to scoop up the millions of Republican voters disaffected by Donald Trump. For months, corporate Democratic strategists have been salivating over the prospects of building a super-party – the ultimate “big tent” – from the ashes of a disintegrating GOP. They calculate that the numbers of suburban Republican “moderates” that can be won over to the Democrats in November is greater than potential defections from the party by disgruntled Sandernistas. The Black vote does not even count in this equation, on the assumption that they have nowhere else to go.
There is no question that Bill Clinton’s attempt to create another “Sister Souljah moment,” as the Washington Post’s James Hohmann put it, was dangerously premature. The hordes of Trump-traumatized Republican defectors to the Democrats are still theoretical, while polls show that about a quarter of Sanders’ supporters say they will not vote for Clinton in November if she wins the nomination. Plus, now that the primaries have moved out of the South, larger percentages of Black Democrats are willing to the be swayed by Sanders. The Philadelphia episode will have an impact on their decisions.
Bill has always been good at stepping on his own dick, he may have done so again. Let's hope so.
What qualifies a politician? In the cynical, derogatory, backroom 'elite' sense of the term the Clintons are eminently qualified : stroke then stab, stroke then stab, rinse off the blood and repeat ... and of course, they are very experienced.
Posted by: jfl | Apr 13, 2016 8:24:51 PM | 82
From a link of Pepe Escobar's ...
No political influence in Clinton email probe, Obama says
President Obama insisted Sunday that there will be no White House or political influence on the FBI or the Justice Department as they look into the security of the private email system Hillary Clinton used for government work when she was secretary of state.
"I can guarantee that," Obama said in an interview with "Fox News Sunday." It was his first interview with the network in two years.
Obama also defended his former secretary of state, even as he said that he had to be "careful" because of the ongoing investigation. He strongly suggested that the mishandled classified documents that have come to light in a review of Clinton's unorthodox email system were not the nation's most highly guarded secrets.
"There's classified and then there's classified," Obama told interviewer Chris Wallace with a smile.
Think Billy Boy - "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." - Clinton coached him on that? Probably didn't have to. It's gotta be a classic among great pretenders like Bill and the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. They all smile when they say that.
They'll kick the can till after the election. If Hillary 'loses', maybe they'll prosecute her ... nah, they'll drop it in 'respect' of her great loss. And if she wins it'll be, "but that was then and she's president now." Everyone knows, "If the President does it, that means it’s not illegal". Does it, did it ... depends on if 'is' means 'was'. It especially does when a Young Republican, Goldwater Girl, like Hillary 'does' it.
Posted by: jfl | Apr 14, 2016 2:02:17 AM | 83