Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 03, 2015

The Failing Clinton Candidacy

As opined earlier I believe that a Clinton candidacy for president will inevitably fail. Besides having too much historic baggage through her husbands presidency Hillary Clinton is a person that has been shown to be too brutal and irresponsible in her personal and political behavior to succeed.

This alone should be enough to disqualify her from any public office other than dog catcher:

Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.

Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

Throughout four years as secretary of state Clinton used insecure, off-the-record,  private email to conduct state business. This to avoid public and historic scrutiny of her management and personal attitudes. At the end of the Bush presidency several Bush figures were condemned by Democrats for using exactly such a scheme. That Clinton then did the same, despite strengthened laws against it, is baffling. How did she expect to avoid the shit-storm this was sure to raise?

This scandal comes right after one about the Clinton Foundation where her family was taking in millions in foreign and domestic bribes without any scrutiny of conflict of interests by the State Department's ethics lawyers.

Her political carrier at the State Department is littered with failures. The "reset" with Russia failed when she installed an amateur ideologue as ambassador to Moscow. Here "pivot to Asia" as well as her "new silk road" phantasies never materialized. Her bragging over her attack on Libya - "We came, we saw, he died" - ended in the death of a U.S. ambassador and the Jihadist anarchy throughout the country. She installed the neocon Victoria Nuland in the State Department who failed on Ukraine. Indeed Clinton herself is the neocon "vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes".

Only Republican strategist say that her campaign could still succeed. They do so because she would be the easiest target for them to beat. If the Democrats want a serious chance in taking the next presidency they will need a more plausible candidate.

Posted by b on March 3, 2015 at 14:18 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Hope she does NOT run.......

Posted by: notlurking | Mar 3 2015 14:25 utc | 1

Do you think the NSA might have copies of all Hillary's correspondence in the can? Does the big brown bear shit in the woods?

Of course they'll deny it. But anything who believes ANYTHING that Hillary or the NSA or any of the 546 TNC frontmen and -women in Washington says is fooling themselves ... only.

Posted by: jfl | Mar 3 2015 14:45 utc | 2

And what would she do with those poor dogs if she caught them? I shudder to think. Remember that her political career began with her working on the campaigns of Tricky Dick and Barry Goldwater.

Posted by: jfl | Mar 3 2015 14:49 utc | 3

Go Jeb!

If Putin could somehow run, I'm convinced he would win. No joke. I really mean that.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Mar 3 2015 14:54 utc | 4

I just can't fathom what drives these horrible people. She's Dick Cheney in female form.

Posted by: Benu | Mar 3 2015 14:57 utc | 5

- If the US economy tanks (again) like it did in 2008 then the chances of Hillary Clinton becoming president in 2016 are very slim.

- "Hillary Clinton Exposed, Movie She Banned From Theaters Full Movie"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mYW5nmS9ps

A video of ~90 minutes. But the video was produced by "Citizens United", a right wing group).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_(organization)
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/citizens_united.php

- is there any other Democratic candidate that would have a chance of winning the presidency ?

Posted by: Willy2 | Mar 3 2015 15:03 utc | 6

Apparently Iraq Army is claiming to have shot down a US helicopter delivering arms to ISIS ...

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/03/iraqi-army-allegedly-downs-us.html

Too bad McInsane and Leslie 'cross dresser' Graham weren't on board.

Posted by: Alberto | Mar 3 2015 15:21 utc | 7

It would be wonderful if Hillary would self-destruct before primary season begins. Then there would be a slim chance of having choices. But with her lock on the Democratic party queenmakers and donors, that's unlikely to happen.

More likely, Hillary will self-destruct during the election, taking the Democratic Party down with her. Democrats are already nothing more than a money laundering operation, designed to further the interests of the uber-wealthy. Hillary's candidacy exposes their hollowness for all to see.

A lot of Democrats will be sitting 2016 out. And there will be no groundswell of new voters. Which of the evils is less evil is no longer discernible.

Posted by: JohnH | Mar 3 2015 15:43 utc | 8

The politicians in the US make the ones abroad that we are constantly trained to hate on look like saints by comparison. Friends who leap up like trained seals and hate whomever the media tells them this week often have no problem with a consistently unpopular Kongress (less than 10%???) in Der Homeland and seem to have no answers for it, other than more hate on Putin and various Middle Eastern entities (but not US-allied theocratic monarchies).
Is this the best AmeriKans can do? Elect one political family over another for presidential sock puppet? Doesn't sound like real democracy to me.

Posted by: farflungstar | Mar 3 2015 16:03 utc | 9

Apparently Iraq Army is claiming to have shot down a US helicopter delivering arms to ISIS ...

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/03/iraqi-army-allegedly-downs-us.html

Too bad McInsane and Leslie 'cross dresser' Graham weren't on board.

Posted by: Alberto | Mar 3, 2015 10:21:20 AM | 7

the "Iraqi Army" is claiming no such thing

FARS newsagency is making the claim but even they are not claiming that it is "The Iraqi Army"

The source you linked to uses GlobalResearch.org as it's source

In the Global Research article it states quite clearly in the 2nd paragraph:

A group of Iraqi popular forces known as Al-Hashad Al-Shabi shot down the US Army helicopter that was carrying weapons for the ISIL in the western parts of Al-Baqdadi region in Al-Anbar province on Thursday.

Whatever "Al-Hashad Al-Shabi" is, it most certainly is NOT "The Iraqi Army", cos otherwise Globalresearch/FARS would have called it "The Iraqi Army" and NOT "Al-Hashad Al-Shabi"

Note also that the article contains 6(Six) references to "Helicopters" and 1 (One) reference to "US Apache Helicopters"

Clearly the reader is supposed to assume that the alleged "downed helicopter" is an Apache Helicopter - and therefore verifiable as a US helicopter

There is however a problem with that assumption, which both FARS and GR seem quite content for any reader to erroneously make.

In the GR/Fars article it also states:

Last week, Head of the Iraqi Parliament’s National Security and Defense Committee Hakem al-Zameli announced that the helicopters of the US-led anti-ISIL coalition were dropping weapons and foodstuff for the ISIL terrorists in the Southern parts of Tikrit.

He underscored that he had documents and photos showing that the US Apache helicopters airdropped foodstuff and weapons for the ISIL.

The GR article contains a picture of a downed Helicopter with several men in military fatigues are standing in front of, as if they were posing for a photo of their handiwork.

Clearly the reader is supposed to think that the photo accompanying the story provides verification for the claims made in the GR/FARS article.

This is complete nonsense however, since the photo accompanying the article (presumably put there to con people into accepting it as "proof" of the claims in the article) is definitely NOT of a "US Apache Helicopter" - I have no idea what sort of helicopter it is, but I am 100% sure that it is NOT an Apache Helicopter, US or otherwise.

So someone is clearly deliberately attempting to con people into accepting the claims in the article as "fact" by inserting a photo of a downed helicopter in the story

GlobalResearch is either willingly complicit in this deception, or else needs to do a little more "due diligence" before re-posting FARS Newsagancy copy

Posted by: FacePalm | Mar 3 2015 16:22 utc | 10

The e-mail scandal is a storm in a teacup, you can find politicians on both sides of Congress who have done similar things.

I would like to vote for anyone other than Clinton in 2016, but I cannot imagine that the Republican party in its current state is capable of nominating anyone I could possibly support.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Mar 3 2015 16:23 utc | 11

Ms. Clinton's press resembles that of Mr. Putin.

The only thing an outsider can know about the intrigues within the Imperial Court is that they are vicious. She may have preferred to have la Nuland inside the tent tinkling out as opposed to etc. etc.

But since the only potential candidate who gets consistently favorable coverage is Lindsay Graham, I am going to accept the guidance of our MSM and give him serious consideration.

Posted by: rjj | Mar 3 2015 16:24 utc | 12

farflungstar @9

More like inverted totalitarianism than democracy. ChipNikh asks often whether we are all goldfish spectators in our glass bowls just waiting for our flakes. Glub glub.

Sigh. I don't see any cure for what ails us short of system collapse. I don't see any possibility for change that comes from outside the system (the system will not permit it) and of course none from inside....a bleak assessment.

Posted by: Benu | Mar 3 2015 16:27 utc | 13

I'm sure the NSA has copies of all her emails, so what's the problem?

Posted by: Gareth | Mar 3 2015 16:31 utc | 14

FacePalm @ 10

"The joint Iraqi forces fighting to retake Tikrit include Iraqi troops, members of the Shia al-Hashed al-Shaabi militia, members of the Sunni Sons of Salahuddin brigades, and other Sunni tribal fighters.
Read more at http://patdollard.com/2015/03/27000-iraqi-and-iranian-fighters-launch-assault-to-take-back-tikrit-from-isis/#bgkeERwBKLIobuzC.99"

source - http://patdollard.com/2015/03/27000-iraqi-and-iranian-fighters-launch-assault-to-take-back-tikrit-from-isis/

Interestingly this force assembled to take Tikrit is Sunni/Shia and Iran is the RamRod.

"The offensive also highlights the role played by neighboring Iran in the fight against ISIS.

The semiofficial Iranian FARS news agency reports that Qassim Sulaimani, the commander of the elite Iranian Al-Quds Brigade, is helping oversee the operation to retake Tikrit.

Iran has provided advisers, weapons and ammunition to the Iraqi government
"
ibid

Posted by: Alberto | Mar 3 2015 17:00 utc | 15

Benu @ 13

Upon paying attention to politics in 1998 when at 25 I could no longer ignore the furor over the infamous stained dress, I was hopeful for the future. I'd always enjoyed reading about history up until then, albeit seeing a couple of years later it was all basically state-approved curricula. So I worked hard at catching up ever since, then 9/11 and the ensuing insanity took a giant dump on all the quaint notions of democracy and responsible US gov't and truthful media that I'd ever had.
It took 2 Bush terms and almost 2 Obama terms to come to this conclusion:
Demokrazy in the the US is a rich man's dog and pony show. One politician is a bigger liar and cretin than the last, blowing pointless hot air and promises they never intend to keep and the dominant corporate media expects me to subvert my beliefs about right and wrong, and to hate everyone they tell me to on command, as they bend the news to fit govt. agendas - regime change and big Gov was BAD when the Elephant Party did it, now, not so bad because the Donkey Party does it.
Good people are weeded out from the beginning and if not, they are marginalized, smeared and ridiculed. And EVERYONE had better be good at pretending to like Israel or their careers go nowhere.
I have no love for the USSA gov't. and their warmongering apologists, the useless Kongress and lying establishment media getting people on board with their bullshit.
I'm a foreigner in the country I was born in. This country I no longer recognize.

Posted by: farflungstar | Mar 3 2015 17:02 utc | 16

"The joint Iraqi forces fighting to retake Tikrit include Iraqi troops, members of the Shia al-Hashed al-Shaabi militia, members of the Sunni Sons of Salahuddin brigades, and other Sunni tribal fighters.
Read more at ">http://patdollard.com/2015/03/27000-iraqi-and-iranian-fighters-launch-assault-to-take-back-tikrit-from-isis/#bgkeERwBKLIobuzC.99"

So

NOT "The Irai Army" then

thank you for admitting that

Posted by: FacePalm | Mar 3 2015 17:04 utc | 17

Irai = Iraqi

Posted by: FacePalm | Mar 3 2015 17:04 utc | 18

Perhaps you could also admit that the photo in the GR story is NOT of an "Apache Helicopter" (US or otherwise), despite the claims in the GR story that "US Aache Helicopters" are resupplying ISIS

The US might be doing that, it certainly fits their M.O., but that FARS report contains a photo of a helicopter which is definitely NOT and "Apache Helicopter", despite the reports claims that it is "Apache Helicopters" being used to drop supplies to ISIS

Posted by: FacePalm | Mar 3 2015 17:09 utc | 19

Jim Webb 2016

Posted by: Mark G | Mar 3 2015 17:15 utc | 20

Hillary or Jeb? What does it matter. The US military/industrial/surveillance/warfare Deep State always wins.

Posted by: Arius | Mar 3 2015 17:35 utc | 21

Is it time to throw Hildabeast under the bus?

One can only hope.

Posted by: Alberto | Mar 3 2015 17:45 utc | 22

@b

The link for "without any scrutiny" isn't working.

Posted by: WG | Mar 3 2015 18:06 utc | 23

I hope this website doesn't devolve into coverage US presidential politics in the coming year. In the US MSM it's a welcome distraction for them. If we're being honest here, we wouldn't even acknowledge it as more than the sideshow that it is. It's on the level of the Super Bowl/Olympics/Oscars at this point.

Posted by: L Bean | Mar 3 2015 18:17 utc | 24

Seriously, if anyone believes ANY "elected" candidate can change the Empire's direction towards a more egalitarian position, whether foreign policy, or domestic, they're big time naive. B. Sanders or E. Warren maybe, but, unless they change their populist message, not only will they not be heard, they'll be lucky to survive.

Posted by: ben | Mar 3 2015 18:21 utc | 25

re the 'US Helicopter', it's obviously one of those Russian MI17s the US supplied the Iraqi Army with some years ago. There was some sort of scam involved with the Carlyle group who was contracted for the transfer - first batch was 'used' lemons via Poland, if we're to believe . Old junk regardless, and certainly not something the US would touch currently. Probably crashed on its own beneath the weight of 100 different paint jobs.

This doesn't negate the fact that ISIS is being gifted US/Israeli weapons but dam, FARS is retarded. Nothing new.

Posted by: L Bean | Mar 3 2015 18:36 utc | 26

Sorry all, again. :(

My brilliant 'linking' is to an old Wired article - it was the first thing I found. I do remember a wider buzz at the time.

Posted by: L Bean | Mar 3 2015 18:43 utc | 27

You'd think the oligarchs would pick better candidates for us to vote on. The clintons acted like a third world ruling family, with a constant eye on personal gains. They pushed through policies that made the interior of the country more like a third world nation. Hillary becoming president would be like giving someone an award for robbing your house, it's crazy.

She looks so unhealthy. I'm not sure she could make it through a campaign season.

Posted by: Crest | Mar 3 2015 19:00 utc | 29

I refuse to vote for either branch of the Legacy UniParty. There are other choices for your vote, aka misleadingly named "third" parties. People who believe that they are "wasting" their vote on "third" parties need to realize that they've gone through the looking glass with that notion.

Most D-voters I know (admittedly small sample) are so *enchanted* with Hilbot that they are literally champing at the bit to vote for her. When I rudely snarl that I'll never vote for her, I get the usual: but But BUT!!! Vagina Murkin!! How can you NOT vote for HER??? Clinton! argle blargal.

Don't get it myself, but there is definitely a Clinton derangement syndrome whereby hapless consumers somehow see the Clinton Grifters as being "on their side." It's sadly amazing to me.

Good luck to us all but as others have opined: it really doesn't matter. The .001% chooses the "candidates" for the "election," and then we can sit back and witness which brand of .001% has better vote machine hacking capabilities. When the "winner" is declared, that person will be yet another clone of ClintonBushObama... and so on... doing what the .001% commands.

Posted by: RUKidding | Mar 3 2015 19:23 utc | 30

With regards to Netanyahus lies about the Iranian "nuclear threat" a Stanford Professor cites my brother (SocialInform):
https://nuclearrisk.wordpress.com/2015/02/28/rouhani-cabinet-has-more-us-phds-than-obamas/

Posted by: KerKaraje | Mar 3 2015 19:41 utc | 31

Link in OP about domestic and foreign bribes does not work for me.

Posted by: Harold | Mar 3 2015 19:44 utc | 32

farflungstar @ 16

I'm a foreigner in the country I was born in. This country I no longer recognize.

That resonates with me. I am actually glad that I am older and childless. I think the world is becoming a very messed up place and I don't see that it will get better. Trans-National Capital, Inc wouldn't be busily erecting a police state, otherwise.

My ejection from The Matrix was 9/11. Although, come to think of it, I may not be fully ejected yet. It's hard to see through the web of sticky shit. Iraq. Ukraine. Venezuela. 9/11. The so-called Boston Bombing. Little by little I have lost my trust. When there is truth, it is so mixed with lies and disinformation that teasing out anything useful is a fool's errand. I don't know why, I but I do still try to figure out what's real and true.

For about 8 years I didn't have a TV. That helped and I had a pretty clear head during the first attack on Iraq under Daddy Bush. But by the time of 9/11, Twin Peaks and The X-Files had brought me crawling back to TV-land.(I have one now, but I haven't watched it since, oh hell, Game of Thrones last Spring.) I used to watch TDS and Colbert but I haven't been able to tolerate that for about 2 or so years. I used to have a weakness for the NYT. Not anymore. It's like a slap in the face every time I look at their web site. The baldface-ness of it really galls me.

I actually try to keep my snoot out of the MSM and when I do step in, I try to do so mindfully and I keep my skeptical hat screwed on tight. My skeptical hat has a Sunstein fascinator and a tin-foil cockade ;-)

Posted by: Benu | Mar 3 2015 20:01 utc | 33

Heh heh heh. This Clinton yaya is splashed everywhere today. I had a little mid-day fantasy of the apoplectic rage she must be in right now. It brought a smile to my face. Bad Benu.

Posted by: Benu | Mar 3 2015 20:06 utc | 34

@ 33 Benu

Cheer up. Yes it looks bad. But ours is not the first generation to face Evil. And make no mistake, that is what we face. And like others before us we will see it fail. Evil always fails. Why? Because it requires psychopaths to achieve it ends. And therein lies it's strength AND fatal weakness. They are capable of rising to positions of power but then the infighting begins. And they self destruct. And while they have money, lies and Evil on their side...we have patience, time and truth on ours. And remember, we have powers seen and unseen working for us. Darkness only exists where there is no light. And each candle lit expels a bit more. Our country is OURS not theirs. They will learn that. And learn it they will...either the easy way or the fun way. And back on point...I see a Clinton/Bush choice ahead...perhaps we will choose none of the above.

Posted by: Scott | Mar 3 2015 20:29 utc | 35

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it’s in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

John F. Kennedy, April 27, 1961
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
New York City

Kennedy continues:
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.

Somewhat misplaced but prescient or what? Kennedy was of course projecting even back then but that was our nation's mind set back. For me, for sure. I was in the USAF and gung-ho. And I never met anyone who questioned it.

It is easy to see that in hindsight. But what percentage of Americans would still buy into it today? Far too many I fear. Is Hillary right up there in that percentage or is she intelligent (she is) enough to understand but too pragmatic and cynical to be scrupulous?

Kennedy continues:

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition and both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

Whow! Is Hillary really a Democrat. Certainly not in the essence of Kennedy. Sad but so true. Kennedy was our last true ethical and moral president even if he made mistakes.
Kennedy again:
... This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Maybe Hillary will take Kennedy’s words to heart and have a fighting chance of winning the Presidency. Guffaw!

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society

Posted by: juannie | Mar 3 2015 20:52 utc | 36

@6 Do you mean beat Hillary or the GOP? Team Blue sans Hillary has every Kerry state plus Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, and probably Virginia locked against any Republican short of anti-war Republican, governor getting the nod.

The GOP wants Hillary because she is the only person who would run they can beat.

Posted by: NotTimothyGeithner | Mar 3 2015 21:08 utc | 37

@36 The missile gap non sense, tax cuts for the rich, keeping Hoover, ignoring civil rights, the Bay of Pigs, and Vietnam never quite hurt the Kennedy mystique. Bobby was a McCarthyite.

But he did give a good speech.

Posted by: NotTimothyGeithner | Mar 3 2015 21:12 utc | 38

http://radioyaran.com/2015/03/03/netanyahus-nonsensical-speech-to-the-us-congress/

Yes, it´s true: Iran has no nuclear weapons and there are not even indications that Iran plans to build a bomb. This is not a mere claim by “naive” people who turn a blind eye on obvious truths but an assertion based on solid facts provided by the best people qualified to judge the situation and make statements: The “National Intelligence Estimate” (NIE), the creme de la creme of the American intelligence community...

Posted by: KerKaraje | Mar 3 2015 21:36 utc | 39

@Posted by: Gareth | Mar 3, 2015 11:31:11 AM | 14

I'm sure the NSA has copies of all her emails, so what's the problem?

Historians don't and won't have access to NSA collections, nor is there a mechanism to access them. Neither will the American people have access to an historical record of what the Secretary of State did at the National Archives once the classified time-period runs out.

This is not the historical record of kings, nor the private historical record of a rich family like the Rothschilds, this is an historical record of a Secretary of State at the time of the first Black president of the USA and will be studied for centuries. All email, correspondence, notes from meetings, official documents, and conversations in the service of the job belong to the American people, not the public official.

Let me make it mundane. Let's say you have a private secretary who worked for you for four years. He or she left your employ. Then you discovered that all records of who he spoke to during that time on your behalf was conducted on his private phone, and you have no record of it. Wouldn't you be pissed?

Posted by: MRW | Mar 3 2015 22:19 utc | 40

All this talk of the 'upcoming' election - a mere 20 months from now - is moot. The Hostile Takeover is complete. Bibi Netanyahoo is the new President of the United States. By acclimation. As in Ukraine they may follow up with elections as a formality, but Israel is now overtly the new District of Columbia.

Posted by: jfl | Mar 3 2015 22:32 utc | 41

No reason to choose either Clinton or Bush. I've been voting third-party since 1996 (after not voting at all in 1992). Maybe it won't accomplish anything, although I can't avoid hoping that, if enough people vote third-party, eventually more parties than the two compromised ones will have a chance of winning. But, in the meantime, at least my conscience is clear.

Posted by: lysias | Mar 3 2015 23:42 utc | 42

Posted by: MRW | Mar 3, 2015 5:19:52 PM | 40

Seriously, if some Congressional or Senate committee wants Hillary's emails they should issue a subpoena to the NSA. I would really enjoy that.

Posted by: Gareth | Mar 4 2015 0:04 utc | 43

Shrillary is an attention-seeking useful idiot. Whenever she appears in the spotlight to make a fool of herself (like when she made herself a candidate for the Academy Award for Cretinism in the Reset fiasco) I hear the opening 3 chords of Rachmaninov's Prelude in C# minor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXQCPAR0EHo

It's a perfect theme for her. She's doomed.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 4 2015 3:06 utc | 44

Hoarse # 44

LOL. We were sittin' here drinkin' some IPA n... I mentioned your comment and Mr. Benu announced "Rachmaninov is the Emerson, Lake and Palmer of back-in-the-day." But Rocky was getting his Scriabin on...wikiP says wastrel, gambler, pathological liar, skirt chaser.. Rock ON. The Rock!

Posted by: Benu | Mar 4 2015 3:40 utc | 45

Pity the Democrats lost Cynthia McKinney

Posted by: brian | Mar 4 2015 4:33 utc | 46

lysias @ 42:

...if enough people vote third-party, eventually more parties than the two compromised ones will have a chance of winning. But, in the meantime, at least my conscience is clear./BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, exactly.

Posted by: Harley Burton | Mar 4 2015 5:44 utc | 47

This email issue is serious. I had a friend who was elected as a county commissioner here in California. The first week after taking office he was given an official county email address. His instructions were to conduct all county business on that account. He was also warned not to use his personal account for any county business. If he did, according to law, his private email accounts could be opened to public inspection. That happened 12 years ago. Every public official in the US must be aware of that. Why Hillary thought she was above this law escapes me. I do hope she is thoroughly nailed for this transgression.

However, she should be exposed for the Libya fiasco. In her recent book she continued to brag about how she pushed the administration into bombing Libya in 2011. We all know how that turned out. From the first week of the Libyan uprising it was clear to even the most casual reader of international news that the rebels fighting Ghadaffi were trained fighters (veterans from fighting Americans in Iraq) and were part of the Salafi Islamist movement (Wahabi, Al Qaida, whatever designation). Ambassador Stevens was killed in Benghazi when he went there to try to convince them to return the weapons we had given them so we could send them on to Syria through the rat line. Stevens assumed he could negotiate with them since he helped facilitate the transfer of those weapons in 2011 when he held a lower level position. In any case Hillary was involved in that mess from day one. I think itis about time for some enterprising writer or video producer to present that case in a few thousand words or 15 minutes.

Something like that might go a good way to prevent her from winning the Democratic Party nomination if this email scandal is not sufficient.

I know many here are in total disgust with American electoral politics (and who can blame them) but someone like Hillary might lead us to WWIII if she decides to assert America's prominence.

Posted by: ToivoS | Mar 4 2015 7:55 utc | 48

@42 @47

I agree with Duverger's analysis : that winner take all single polls create rigid, 2 party systems. A third party has no chance without either proportional representation as in Germany and other states or multiple polls to majority. I favor the latter, as it represents the lessor distance from what we have now.

If we're serious about change we need to change the way we vote. And we need to do that based upon the popular sovereignty we asserted in Declaration ("That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right [Duty!] of the People to alter or to abolish it ...", even though it was the sovereignty of white male slave owners in those days that was referred to in the day) rather than wait to amend the constitution.

We need to organize at the precinct level nationwide and vote in our own, multiple 'peoples' primaries' prior to the 'real' election and then transfer that vote for the majority candidates we develop therein to the 'official' elections.

The goons may try to disqualify a majority vote for a write-in in a congressional district ... but that will be the shot heard 'round the world if they do.

I'm open to other suggestions ... but I've gotta go with something I can at imagine actually working.

@48

Do you think that Jeb Bush ... the current honky stand-in from the 'claimed to be right-most side' of the war party, but take your pick ... is any less likely to take us where Hillary wants to go? Or are you looking for another poseur ... a la the Nihilist Nobel Peace Prize laureate... emerging from 'not claimed to be right-most side' of the war party?

Israel has just taken over the USA as far as I can see, and has both 'sides' of the war party in its pocket. Or vice versa ... does it make a difference. It's the alliance from hell.

Or is there word of a majority from the 'claimed not to be right-most side' not showing up for Bibi's New State of the Union address and canceling funding of the US/Israeli Wehrmacht?

Posted by: jfl | Mar 4 2015 9:07 utc | 49

#49 I have little trust in either party. I have noticed over the last few decades that when it comes to avoiding war, neither party does well. At some levels, however, it seems the Republicans have a better sense in not provoking all out war that could lead to WWIII. War monger Kissinger comes to mind. He always had a sense to avoid the big one. He worked with Nixon to end the isolation of China. He spent much time on reducing the threat of nuclear war with Russia. Reagan engaged Gorbachov in some radical efforts in nuclear arms control. The Democrats on the other hand always seem to end up in one crisis or another. The Vietnam war 1964- 1972 until Nixon and Kissinger stopped it. The Korean war started by Truman until Eisenhower stopped it. JFK with the Cuban missile crisis. Clinton with his war against Serbia and at the same time advancing NATO into eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This then leading to the Ukraine crises (under Obama) that is possibly becoming another threat of world war. Recently we hear many war sounds coming from Republicans in Congress but when it comes down to it Republican presidents seem to avoid the big ones.

Posted by: ToivoS | Mar 4 2015 9:45 utc | 50

I agree with ToivoS at 50. The only time in recent memory that Israel has been stood down was by James Baker under HW Bush. The scuttlebutt at the time was that HW was going to impound Israel's $3B annual payment by executive order.

If I have to choose between Jeb and Hils I'll go with Jeb, only because I see Jeb less likely to get us into WW3.

Posted by: okie farmer | Mar 4 2015 10:33 utc | 51

Seems a bit rough assessment to me--but we will see.

Posted by: jay | Mar 4 2015 12:04 utc | 52

The witch has no chance..

Posted by: Virgile | Mar 4 2015 12:29 utc | 53

@Hoarsewhisperer #44:

You insult and defame classical music when you apply it to that barbaric psychopathic witch. Here are some pop songs that come to mind:

The End
Maxwell's silver hammer
Careful With That Axe, Eugene

Posted by: Demian | Mar 4 2015 13:07 utc | 54

The USA has exceptional leaders who, for as long as they please the puppet masters, are free to violate laws, ethical norms and moral values. When the leaders cease to be exceptional (don't hold your breath) the nation will cease to be the exceptional nation.

The president of the USA is selected, not elected. I will be happy if Hitlery is not selected, but I also know that whoever is selected will be exceptional and a psychopath. Heads they win, tails you lose. I'm amazed that so many reasonably bright and informed people continue to honor the selection process by participating in it.

Posted by: SingingSam | Mar 4 2015 13:58 utc | 55

Posted by: Demian | Mar 4, 2015 8:07:06 AM | 54

My expert tells me that the plot/narrative of Prelude in C# is of a person who wakens to find itself trapped in a coffin and realises it's been buried alive. Don't know how factual that is but it fits the music like a second skin (to my ears).

My top 10 all-time favourite pieces of music is liberally sprinkled with the creations of classical composers, numero uno being Brahms PC 2. Pop is great and helps make the world a better place. But classical can tell / inspire a story without words.
I may not know Art, but I know what what I like...

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 4 2015 14:45 utc | 56

farflungstar @16 Yes!

Benu @33 Yes!

Scott @35 Oh no! ...

And while they have money, lies and Evil on their side...we have patience, time and truth on ours. And remember, we have powers seen and unseen working for us. Our country is OURS not theirs. They will learn that. And learn it they will...either the easy way or the fun way.

So far, I mean the last 239 years, the money, lies and evil have won without exception. Patience, time and truth have lost, I guess that's why the good guys need patience.

No, our country is not ours, its theirs. We want it to be OURS but all caps don't work like they're supposed to, they don't change anything.

There is no easy way -- it will be damned hard to create a mass media independent of massive wealth, and then generate from that the needed mass education and consequent mass movement to overthrow the post-democratic state -- and the other way is the bloody way, which will have even less chance of success and only be fun for sociopaths and psychopaths.

Posted by: fairleft | Mar 4 2015 15:08 utc | 57

and the other way is the bloody way, which will have even less chance of success and only be fun for sociopaths and psychopaths.
Posted by: fairleft | Mar 4, 2015 10:08:45 AM | 57

You don't know much about cowards/bullies/liars do you?
Next you'll be telling us the pen is mightier than the sword ...
It isn't.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 4 2015 15:35 utc | 58

@Hoarsewhisperer #56:

My expert tells me that the plot/narrative of Prelude in C# is of a person who wakens to find itself trapped in a coffin and realises it's been buried alive.

You have a much more vivid and active imagination than I do. You are of course free to use classical music in any way you like; my saying that you shouldn't apply it to H. Clinton was a joke.

My top 10 all-time favourite pieces of music is liberally sprinkled with the creations of classical composers

I treat classical music and pop music as totally separate, and also for some reason am not inclined to come up with top ten lists of music, although I do that for films. The one exception I make to not relating pop music to classical music is that I consider Pink Floyd to be the only band to have attained the level of classical music.

Posted by: Demian | Mar 4 2015 16:30 utc | 59

You have a much more vivid and active imagination than I do.
Posted by: Demian | Mar 4, 2015 11:30:19 AM | 59

You're too modest. Anyone who feels compelled to say

"The one exception I make to not relating pop music to classical music is that I consider Pink Floyd to be the only band to have attained the level of classical music."

has an imagination which leaves mine for dead. Or a minuscule classical collection...

Btw, what did I say which offended you sufficiently to feel the need to explain that you were joking? I thought I was responding to a joke in a jocular manner.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 4 2015 17:01 utc | 60

@ToivoS #50
You're apparently not familiar with the way politics run in America.
If you want to screw over the middle class, get a Democrat president to ramrod it. Ditto with starting a war.
It is because American politics is marked more by opposition than leadership. Democrats are supposed to be the ones against wars, thus Democrats can get into wars far more easily than Republicans. Remember all the anti-war protests against Bush? Where are all those people now?
Equally, when you want to spend too much, you need a Republican. Again, because the Republicans are supposed to be the fiscally conservative types.
Black is white and white is black.

Posted by: ǝn⇂ɔ | Mar 4 2015 17:34 utc | 61

Posted by: ǝn⇂ɔ | Mar 4, 2015 12:34:18 PM | 61

That's quite profound. Perfectly true and commendably brief.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 4 2015 18:11 utc | 62

She is a self serving, disingenuous harridan. Therefore, by recent standards, a shoe in...
Nothing good is ever going to come of the U.S. political process going forward. The hope is empire collapses, empire's central govt. totally loses legitimacy, federal govt. falls and the country goes Balkan and splits into regional states.

Posted by: adrian | Mar 4 2015 19:14 utc | 63

@Hoarsewhisperer #60:

what did I say which offended you sufficiently to feel the need to explain that you were joking? I thought I was responding to a joke in a jocular manner.

Yes, you responded in a jocular manner. But when I said I was joking, I was dissembling. Actually, I was serious about it being objectionable to connect the witch to classical music.

Or a minuscule classical collection...

My classical collection is sufficiently extensive, thank you. That is not so hard to manage nowadays. And I'm not talking about my LP/CD collection.

But I don't understand your point. Why would my having a larger classical music collection stop my thinking that Pink Floyd are the only band that attain the level of classical music? You evidently hold the Floyd in low regard. Can you explain your position?

Posted by: Demian | Mar 4 2015 19:19 utc | 64

WRT illegal emails, has this been posted? Too lazy to slog thru previous posts.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/03/the-new-york-times-deceptive-suggestion-that-hi/202726

Posted by: rjj | Mar 4 2015 19:39 utc | 65

One does wonder how many Hillary e-mails concerning Benghazi and Libya have gone missing.

Posted by: lysias | Mar 4 2015 19:48 utc | 66

The missing IRS e-mails have suddenly been discovered, after a search of the backup tapes that didn't take much time at all. Justice Dept. blocked search for backup IRS emails, attorney reveals.

Posted by: lysias | Mar 4 2015 19:53 utc | 67

The total abdication of disbelief when it comes to MSM reporting on Clinton is baffling.

Specially after hundreds and hundreds of posts pointing out the lies about and distortions of events in Europe and ME.

Posted by: rjj | Mar 4 2015 19:59 utc | 68

Hillary's top aides also used secret e-mail accounts.

Posted by: lysias | Mar 4 2015 22:24 utc | 70

"This alone should be enough to disqualify her from any public officer" Funny b, I thought the exact same thing. But then I remembered we live in an Empire where laws apply only to the little people.

She will run. She will probably win. *shudder*

____


In other news, we now know Cold Hole is such a ridiculous shit-for-brains that he actually thinks things like "Go Jeb!"

Posted by: guest77 | Mar 5 2015 2:19 utc | 71

Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 4, 2015 10:35:44 AM | 58

You write that "the pen is mightier than the sword," but it isn't.

Posted by: fairleft | Mar 5 2015 3:06 utc | 72

600 US Paratroopers to Arrive in Ukraine by Week End

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The United States will deploy personnel by the end of this week to train the Ukrainian national guard, US 173rd Airborne Brigade Commander Colonel Michael Foster said at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC on Monday. “Before this week is up, we’ll be deploying a battalion minus… to the Ukraine to train Ukrainian forces for the fight that’s taking place,” Foster stated. “What we’ve got laid out is six United States companies that will be training six Ukrainian companies throughout the summer.”

Not boots on the ground, of course. They'll be wearing moccasins.

Posted by: chuckvw | Mar 5 2015 6:10 utc | 73

If Hillary is going to run for president then it's only normal that she must undergo more scrutiny. Then Hillary certainly has to provide answers to many (awkward) questions.

In that regard it's only logic that the Republicans are using "Benghazi" in an attempt to destroy Hillary. But I also don't trust the Republicans.

Posted by: Willy2 | Mar 5 2015 7:00 utc | 74

The issue isn't Hilary - she's going to run this time if people have to get pushed in front of trains, Frank Underwood style. The last time, she got beat out because she had no "experience" and was so unlikable that a non-entity senator from Illinois could take her out.
This time, she's knocked down the "experience" issue via her Secretary of State stint. The fundamental unlikeability is still there, but I truly doubt there will be a strong primary challenge because of Obama's crushing of the Democrat platform. The unlikeability is also potentially less of an issue - the Republican party is the only once which is able to consistently field even more unlikable candidates.
Jeb is the better of the Bush kids. He's got the experience chops, he's significantly more of his own man thus won't need a minder a la Dubya or Obama (VP babysitters), and he still has the full Bush machinery and money behind him. If he's smart, he'll persuade Walker to be his veep, and that will be all she wrote.

Posted by: ǝn⇂ɔ | Mar 5 2015 13:55 utc | 75

I'm hoping whoever the Repugs picks to run drafts our governor here in NM Susan Martinez as their VP choice and gets her out of our state before she can do any more damage. We almost got rid of the carpetbagger Bill Richardson in a similar way but he was so obviously corrupt Obama threw him under the bus.

I think the vote tabulators and power brokers who decide our selections may surprise the Liberal Elites and pick a real ringer this time but most people will shun this corrupt spectacle anyway.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Mar 5 2015 14:41 utc | 76

http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/opinion/what-hillary-clintons-emails-really-reveal.html

HISTORY will be the judge: That’s the line leaders often use when making difficult decisions. Historians, after all, have the benefit of hindsight and archives full of once-secret files. But how will history judge a generation of leaders who don’t preserve the historical record?

The revelation on Monday that Hillary Rodham Clinton used only a personal email account when she was secretary of state and did not preserve her emails on departmental servers seems to reflect a troubling indifference to saving the history she was living. Mrs. Clinton’s aides eventually turned over 55,000 pages of correspondence. But the State Department’s Office of the Historian estimates that the department produces two billion emails a year.

Even if she had dutifully archived all her correspondence, future Americans still might not have learned much about the Arab Spring or Iran’s nuclear program. The bigger problem is that the government produces an astounding volume of email, much of it classified, and the public doesn’t get to see it unless archivists can preserve and process it.

The Daily Beast had this to say yesterday:

So, a key question would seem to be this: When did the new regulations go into effect? If 2007 or 2008, then Clinton would appear to be in direct violation of them, depending on what precisely they said. If later, it gets a little murkier.

Oddly, the Times article doesn’t say. It doesn’t pin the new regs down to a specific date or even year.

Now, I know enough about reporting to know how this works. If you’ve got an airtight case, then you lay it all out there. You include the date. Indeed you emphasize the date, you put it high up in your story. The fact that it’s not in there is a little fishy.

Well, this might be the explanation: The new regs apparently weren’t fully implemented by State until a year and half after Clinton left State. Here’s the timeline: Clinton left the State Department on February 1, 2013. Back in 2011, President Obama had signed a memorandum directing the update of federal records management. But the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) didn’t issue the relevant guidance, declaring that email records of senior government officials are permanent federal records, until August 2013. Then, in September 2013, NARA issued guidance on personal email use.

My point is so this issue will disappear before 2016 campaign season starts, this NYT article's intent is to support Hils.

Posted by: okie farmer | Mar 5 2015 16:32 utc | 77

I have argued in the past that Hill. C. could never get elected. Also that Strauss-Khan could not have, as Pres. of France (luckily my prediction was not put to the test - I think he himslef was aware of Socialist Delusions.)

But in the US, today? What with manipulations, media blitz, vote rigging of various kinds? If the PTB decide on Hill. …

That said, genuine vote-wise, a good Republican candidate should be able to beat her very easily. What ‘good’ means here is sort of desperate to describe, I’d best refrain. Really it is all a charade, a self-congratulatory spectacle, with certain parties cashing in - pols, the two parties, media, analysts, organisors, lobbyists, etc. It is a business.

Jeb Bush, btw, opened up (in collaboration with others) a fresh-produce delivery service to hotels and restaurants here. This promptly went phut leaving a whole bunch of small farms and the like out of pocket (salads, fruit..) I have scoured the internet but can’t find a press report, so ...

Posted by: Noirette | Mar 5 2015 16:50 utc | 78

I didn't notice any reference to the blumenthal emails to Hillary here at MoA. They are reproduced in the linked RT article.

They don't reflect that much on the current scandal but they do add a lot of interesting detail on what happened in Libya and Algeria in 2011-2012. Perhaps others were aware of this but it seems that important source of manpower for the Salafi fighters in Eastern Libya were imports from Egypt. Many fled there after Sisi started his suppression of the MB after his coup. Also, these messages seem to confirm that it was well known to the insiders, that the forces we were backing during the overthrow of Qadaffi were the Salafis (as we all suspected but no one in power was willing to admit).

Posted by: ToivoS | Mar 5 2015 22:42 utc | 79

Funny she goes to Blumenthal for information and analysis. Why? Is the bitch so paranoid she doesn't trust the official sources that are available to her???

Posted by: rjj | Mar 6 2015 7:14 utc | 80

no. 75

"The last time, she got beat out because she had no "experience" and was so unlikable that a non-entity senator from Illinois could take her out."

No experience? It was just the opposite. She ran on her experience. Unfortunately for her it was just that experience that caused her to get "beat out"---i.e., her support of the Iraq War was the main reason Obama's candidacy took off.

Posted by: sleepy | Mar 6 2015 10:57 utc | 81

Hillary will be defeated by Bush... The American State is not prepared to elect a woman as president. And how lucky it is! Knowing that the bitch could declare world war III...

Posted by: guy | Mar 7 2015 3:12 utc | 82

The comments to this entry are closed.