Archive for Hillary Clinton

How Bill Clinton Is Like Bill Cosby

Also true.

By the way, this is from Camille Paglia, a feminist, lesbian, scholar. I find almost everything that she writes to be interesting.

Paglia seemed to be on the winning side of the wars over feminism and political correctness in the 1990s, but recently those battles have been reopened. Suddenly we’re talking again and in very different ways about sexual culture on campus. Comedians like Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher talk about the return of a stifling political correctness. And we’re staring at the potential rematch of a Clinton and a Bush.

There were so many stories that we wanted Paglia’s take on: Bill Cosby, Donald Trump, the state of the Democratic Party. So we spent two hours discussing all of them on Monday, and we’ll present her thoughts over the next three days. Stand back: Paglia does not hold back on anything.

The banner on the Drudge Report this morning is that Kathleen Willey is starting a site to collect harassment claims against Bill Clinton. New York magazine, meanwhile, has the stories of 35 women who say they were raped or assaulted by Bill Cosby. I wonder if you see a connection between the two stories: Would Bill Clinton’s exploits be viewed more like Cosby’s if he was in the White House now, instead of in the 1990s?

Right from the start, when the Bill Cosby scandal surfaced, I knew it was not going to bode well for Hillary’s campaign, because young women today have a much lower threshold for tolerance of these matters. The horrible truth is that the feminist establishment in the U.S., led by Gloria Steinem, did in fact apply a double standard to Bill Clinton’s behavior because he was a Democrat. The Democratic president and administration supported abortion rights, and therefore it didn’t matter what his personal behavior was.

But we’re living in a different time right now, and young women have absolutely no memory of Bill Clinton. It’s like ancient history for them; there’s no reservoir of accumulated good will. And the actual facts of the matter are that Bill Clinton was a serial abuser of working-class women–he had exploited that power differential even in Arkansas. And then in the case of Monica Lewinsky–I mean, the failure on the part of Gloria Steinem and company to protect her was an absolute disgrace in feminist history! What bigger power differential could there be than between the president of the United States and this poor innocent girl? Not only an intern but clearly a girl who had a kind of pleading, open look to her–somebody who was looking for a father figure.

I was enraged! My publicly stated opinion at the time was that I don’t care what public figures do in their private life. It’s a very sophisticated style among the French, and generally in Europe, where the heads of state tend to have mistresses on the side. So what? That doesn’t bother me at all! But the point is, they are sophisticated affairs that the European politicians have, while the Clinton episode was a disgrace.

A cigar and the intern is certainly the opposite of sophisticated.

Absolutely! It was frat house stuff! And Monica got nothing out of it. Bill Clinton used her. Hillary was away or inattentive, and he used Monica in the White House–and in the suite of the Oval Office, of all places. He couldn’t have taken her on some fancy trip? She never got the perks of being a mistress; she was there solely to service him. And her life was completely destroyed by the publicity that followed. The Clinton’s are responsible for the destruction of Monica Lewinsky! They probably hoped that she would just go on and have a job, get married, have children, and disappear, but instead she’s like this walking ghoul.

Here’s what I think: Young women don’t care about this stuff; they will vote for Clinton if they bother to vote at all. Most of the college educated Millenials are struggling economically and would benefit from some economic sanity, but every role model – teachers, most parents, professors, etc., have instilled liberal/leftist values in them throughout their lives. Turning away from the nonsense would feel like a betrayal of their entire world. So they will continue to struggle; they will live in basements or crappy apartments; they won’t buy homes or start families (because young men are in the same predicament.) I am good with all of this. My only regret is that they could somehow see, Dickens-like, what life could have been if we’d had adults running the country during their early adulthood.

– Aggie


NY Times Sucks Up To H. Clinton

They are so, so, so, so sorry

So, before reading this, let’s recall that the NY Times put an article on the front page about John McCain, suggesting that he was having an affair. Not accurate, no apology. They failed to cover John Edward’s affair and baby. Also no apology. They also failed to cover the entire holocaust until 1950 – five years after the war. Certainly no apology there. They aren’t good enough to line a bird cage.

The story certainly seemed like a blockbuster: A criminal investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton by the Justice Department was being sought by two federal inspectors general over her email practices while secretary of state.

It’s hard to imagine a much more significant political story at this moment, given that she is the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for president.

The story – a Times exclusive — appeared high on the home page and the mobile app late Thursday and on Friday and then was displayed with a three-column headline on the front page in Friday’s paper. The online headline read “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email,” very similar to the one in print.

But aspects of it began to unravel soon after it first went online. The first major change was this: It wasn’t really Mrs. Clinton directly who was the focus of the request for an investigation. It was more general: whether government information was handled improperly in connection with her use of a personal email account.

Much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a “criminal inquiry,” instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a “security” referral.

From Thursday night to Sunday morning – when a final correction appeared in print – the inaccuracies and changes in the story were handled as they came along, with little explanation to readers, other than routine corrections. The first change I mentioned above was written into the story for hours without a correction or any notice of the change, which was substantive.

And the evolving story, which began to include a new development, simply replaced the older version. That development was that several instances of classified information had been found in Mrs. Clinton’s personal email – although, in fairness, it’s doubtful whether the information was marked as classified when she sent or received those emails. Eventually, a number of corrections were appended to the online story, before appearing in print in the usual way – in small notices on Page A2.

But you can’t put stories like this back in the bottle – they ripple through the entire news system.

So it was, to put it mildly, a mess. As a result, I’ve been spending the last couple of days asking how this could happen and how something similar can be prevented in the future. I’ve spoken to the executive editor, Dean Baquet; to a top-ranking editor directly involved with the story, Matt Purdy; and to the two reporters, Matt Apuzzo and Michael S. Schmidt.

Meanwhile, I heard from readers, like Maria Cranor who wanted clarification and explanation on The Times’s “recent, and mystifying, coverage of the HRC emails. It appears that your reporters relied on leaks from the Gowdy committee to suggest that Clinton was involved in some kind of criminal malfeasance around the emails. The subsequent walk backs have not been effective, or encouraging. Please help us retain our wavering confidence in the Times’ political coverage!” (Her reference is to the Republican congressman, Trey Gowdy.)

Another reader, Paul Kingsley, demanded a refund for his Friday paper. “We all deserve one,” he wrote to me. And, complaining about the lack of transparency and the errors, he added:

1) please repost the original reporting;
2) provide an explanation as to how it made it to press and what was wrong.
3) what are you going to do to prevent such inaccurate bias in the future?
4) are you going to minimize using unnamed sources?

The story developed quickly on Thursday afternoon and evening, after tips from various sources, including on Capitol Hill. The reporters had what Mr. Purdy described as “multiple, reliable, highly placed sources,” including some “in law enforcement.” I think we can safely read that as the Justice Department.

The sources said not only was there indeed a referral but also that it was directed at Mrs. Clinton herself, and that it was a criminal referral. And that’s how The Times wrote it initially.

“We got it wrong because our very good sources had it wrong,” Mr. Purdy told me. “That’s an explanation, not an excuse. We have an obligation to get facts right and we work very hard to do that.”

Huh. What difference, at this point, does it make?

– Aggie

Comments (2)

What Are Fed Watchdogs Smoking?

Can I have some too?

Hillary Clinton faced new calls Friday to turn over her personal server after key inspectors general asked the Justice Department to open an investigation into whether classified material was improperly shared on the former secretary of state’s account.

In correspondence obtained by Fox News, the inspectors general for the State Department and intelligence community raised deep concerns about the contents of the Democratic presidential candidate’s emails. An initial joint memo sent June 29 to State Department Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy said a review of Clinton’s email archive showed “hundreds of potentially classified emails.”

Uh, who would prosecute this? Would it be Loretta Lynch? Pizza, beer, dope, beach, Dumb and Dumber… every goofy cat video on the internet. No way, no how. This is summertime fluff.

– Aggie


How Clinton Will Hurt Your Investments

She proposes doubling taxes on short term gains – to 39.6%

I get that they don’t like people playing momentum games, but it is not their business. And she’s talking about investment lengths of 1-2 years. Leave people alone, for god’s sake.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will propose nearly doubling the U.S. capital gains tax rate on short-term investments to 39.6 percent, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

A Clinton campaign official said the Clinton rate plan would affect investments held between one and two years, which are currently taxed at a 20 percent capital gains rate, the newspaper reported.

Clinton, the front-runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, will outline her plan in a speech Friday in New York. She will argue that corporate efforts to boost stock prices in the short term undercuts longer-term economic growth and hurts American workers, the newspaper said.

Top-bracket single earners with taxable income higher than $413,201 and married couples filing jointly with income above $484,850 would be affected, the newspaper reported.

And this is lovely:

The plan would not count an extra 3.8 percent tax on net investment income included as part of the federal healthcare law, it said.

– Aggie

Comments (1)

Presidential Daughters

Last night I saw a brief film clip of Governor Kasich with his family. He appears to have two daughters. Yes, according to wiki, that is correct:

He has been married to his second wife, Karen, since 1997. They have twin daughters, Emma and Reese.[20]

Obama also has two daughters, as did GW Bush.

Before that, we had Clinton, one daughter.

George HW Bush breaks the pattern, all sorts of kids, both genders. You have to go back to Jimmy Carter to find Amy in the White House. Ford had four kids, three boys. But Nixon had Julie and Tricia. Lyndon Johnson likewise had two girls – Luci Baines and Lynda Bird. Eisenhower had boys; Truman just one child, a daughter.

There are lots of girls in the White House. Not sure what it is about, but in the modern era, we have girls.

Looking at the current field, Hillary obviously has just one kid, a daughter. Rubio – four children, wiki doesn’t give genders, but not likely to be all girls. Jeb Bush has three kids, only one girl. Ted Cruz has two daughters. Scott Walker has two sons – unelectable.

Well, I’m bored with this now, but there are other candidates. The two daughter thing seems to provide the best chance for winning. (Perhaps it has something to do with television? Girls are cuter?) That looks like either Kasich or Cruz. I’ll place a bet on Kasich.

PS: Yes, I really do think that the American public is that shallow. They will fall in love with a politician if he is attractive – a strike against Kasich for sure – and apparently want to see attractive children, especially girls on camera as well.

– Aggie


Let’s Rerun Bush v. Gore!!!

Al Gore vs. Jeb Bush for President

Hahahaha! I didn’t think there was anything out there worse than Hillary (Sanders isn’t in my book) but this might just be It.

The presidential election is still sixteen months away, but this much is clear: Hillary Clinton is a vulnerable candidate.

Since announcing her candidacy in April, Clinton’s stature has steadily slipped. Things got even worse this week. We learned, first, that Bernie Sanders eclipsed Clinton in small, individual donations, which is an indicator of popular support among likely voters.

Second, and more problematic, the newest AP poll revealed significant weaknesses among Democrats on a host of issues, including trust, character, and compassion for average Americans.

These numbers are alarming heading into the general election, especially for Democrats. Bernie Sanders is running an important campaign, but it’s very difficult to see the entire party rallying around him.

The only other credible candidate being mentioned is Joe Biden, but there’s no evidence that he wants to run. Besides, he’s failed twice already and is still grieving after the loss of his son, Beau Biden.

Sure, the GOP field is studded with unserious candidates, but they still have a relatively deep bench of big-state governors and prominent senators. To win, therefore, the Democrats need a nationally viable candidate.

Enter Al Gore: the one person on the left, apart from Clinton and Biden, with the cachet to bridge the establishment and progressive wings of the party. Here are 10 reasons why a Gore candidacy makes sense, both for the Democratic Party and the country.

1. Stature. Gore is a superstar with impeccable qualifications. The GOP will have a hard time marginalizing someone of his caliber and experience. His background speaks for itself: a former Congressman, U.S. Senator, and two-time Vice President. He’s even succeed wildly in the private sector as a businessman — something Republicans can’t help but praise. In short, Gore passes the credibility test by any measure, and that matters in a national election. Hillary Clinton is the only other Democratic candidate who can match Gore on this front.

Usually it is BTL that gives me my morning laugh, but today it was provided by Salon. Thanks Salon. Fingers crossed that Fat Al takes the challenge.

– Aggie

Comments (1)

Our Depressing Country

Steyn on Trump, Sanders, and Clinton

I’ll just quote one paragraph here:

Meanwhile, another old white man is destabilizing the Republican primary. Donald Trump would also be the oldest man elected president, but like Bernie he too seems to be reaching parts of the base the younger and prettier types can’t. Six months out, no predictions are possible about the first states: I assume a George Pataki or Lindsay Graham or two will have fallen by the wayside by January, but a lot of the rest seem to have just enough cash to hang in awhile and it’s not clear there aren’t a couple more still to come. With a dozen or more candidates many of whom are all in the single digits and within the margin of error, you might be able to win New Hampshire with, say, 14 per cent of the vote. In an open primary, if the youth vote is over with the Dems voting for Bernie, an older culturally conservative Perot vote might well show up in the GOP to vote for Trump. Who knows?

Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I am quite sure that Trump could capture a significant percentage of the working class white democrat vote (Obama’s famous bitter clingers), along with lots of Republicans. He could form a 3rd party which would siphon off votes from whomever the democrats run. And the result will be Hillary Clinton, or possibly Bernie Sanders, I suppose. I just don’t see the guy getting 50.0001% of the vote. And let’s be honest; he is offensive. Not just about Mexicans, but nearly every time he opens his mouth. He has created a public persona about being an obnoxious person. It makes for great TV. I have nothing against the guy, and if it comes down to Hillary or The Donald, I’ll vote for him. But we can do soooo much better. Any one of these people is better: Walker, Rubio, Carson, Bush, Fiorina, Kasich… who am I forgetting?

Trump’s message gets lost in his personality, which is the size of our solar system. We need a normal human being to discuss the fact that blacks, whites, browns, old, young, just about everybody, has suffered economically during the Obama years. That the democrats failed to create peace and prosperity. That the nation is more threatened, from without and within, that at any time since 9/10/2001. We need a grown-up, not a blow-hard.

– Aggie

Comments (2)

Do You Ever Get the Feeling…?

That someone is trying to pull a fast one on you—and is so confident of success, they don’t care if you’re on to them?

According to the report, IRS Chief Technology Officer Terry Milholland told the IG office he was “blown away” after learning the tapes had been demagnetized — a process known as “degaussing.” This was done at the IRS’s IT center in Martinsburg, W.Va. Those tapes are believed to have contained Lerner emails that “were responsive to Congressional demands and subpoenas,” the report says.

“Backup tapes were destroyed as a result of IRS management,” the report says, noting officials failed to appropriately follow a May 2013 directive from Milholland concerning record preservation.

The report further states that the IRS “did not fully identify as a source or perform recovery attempts for email” associated with Lerner. It says that as many as “23,000 to 24,000 email messages may not have been provided to Congress.”

And then there’s this exchange that sounds like a couple of mobsters who know they’re on a recorded line:

A July 19, 2011, email from Carl Froehlich, who headed the service’s “Agency Wide Shared Services” division, to Lerner declared that “Lillie Wilburn” was on the case. Wilburn is the IRS’s program manager of network services for IT in Atlanta.

“It may be too late – don’t send them off to the hard drive cemetery,” Lerner wrote to the IRS’ IT department on July 20.

On Aug. 5, 2011, Wilburn wrote to Lerner: “Unfortunately the news is not good. The sectors of the hard drive were bad which made your data [unrecoverable]. I am very sorry. Everyone tried their best.”

Lerner then replied: “Thanks for trying. It really do appreciate the effort. Sometimes stuff just happens.”

VITO: Did you take care of that…situation, you know, about our friend from Detroit?

VINNIE: Yeah, he won’t be…doin’ business wid us no more. He’s out of the racket, permanent like.

VITO: It may be too late – don’t send him them off to the cemetery.

VINNIE: I am very sorry. Everyone tried their best.

VITO: Thanks for trying. It really do appreciate the effort. Sometimes stuff just happens.

Come on.

But this is how you know they’re really “farting in our general direction” (per Monty Python):

“I want to ask you about another name. Have you ever heard of the name Kate Duval?” asked Gowdy.

“Yes sir,” said Camus.

“Who is Kate Duval? Because I think I’ve heard that name before too,” said Gowdy.

“Kate Duval is the chief counsel representative, the IRS’ counselor concerning the production issues to Congress,” said Camus. “She was a lawyer in charge of making sure the counsel made production to Congress.” (The Senate Finance Committee also lists Kate Duval in its timeline of IRS communications with Congress.)

“So she’s in charge of making sure that emails and other matters get produced,” said Gowdy.

“Yes sir,” said Camus.

“Is she still with the IRS?” asked Gowdy.

“She is not, I don’t recall the date that she left, but she’s no longer,” said Camus.

“Do you know where she is now?” asked Gowdy.

“I can get that information for you,” said Camus.

“No, I know where she is now. She’s at the Department of State, in charge of their email productions,” said Gowdy. “Wow.”

Wow indeed. The same person who helped “disappear” Lois Lerner’s electronic footprints is now doing the same for Hillary Clinton. And very effectively. For once a government worker who’s good at her job.

If the Obama regime has anything to fear from Congress, the press, the courts, a vengeful God, they sure don’t act like it. So far, they’ve had no need to. In fact, they seem to be enjoying themselves lying, stonewalling, obstructing justice, etc. What’s not to enjoy?

Comments (1)

President Sanders

This guy says to get used to the idea:

Bernie Sanders is down by just 8 points in New Hampshire and has gained tremendous momentum in Iowa. If the Vermont senator wins both the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, the odds will favor him getting the Democratic nomination. What was once thought of as a long shot is becoming a reality, primarily because Bernie Sanders has energized his base while Hillary Clinton has been forced to defend against email and foreign donor scandals. However, this isn’t the first time in recent history that a challenger to Clinton was once thought of as a long shot.

Sanders has a better chance than Hillary of defeating Jeb Bush or any other GOP challenger. According to a POLITICO piece titled The 2016 Results We Can Already Predict, Democrats across the nation simply have to vote in a similar manner to 2012 for Sanders to win:

That leaves just seven super-swingy states: Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia, all of which backed Bush and Obama twice each, and Iowa and New Hampshire, which have voted Democratic in three of the last four elections.

For the Democrats, a victory in 2016 entails zero expansion of the blue map, merely the limiting of blue-to-red transformations. Assuming the lean, likely, and safe Democratic states remain loyal to the party, the nominee need only win 23 of the 85 toss-up electoral votes. And if a lean Democratic state such as Wisconsin turns red, it is relatively easy to replace those votes with one or two toss-ups.

On the other hand, Republicans must hold all their usual states plus find a way to stitch together an additional 64 electoral votes, or 79 if they can’t hold North Carolina. To do this, the GOP candidate will have to come close to sweeping the toss-ups under most scenarios–a difficult task…

We’re still six months away from the first primary votes being cast, so keep your pantsuit on, and personally I’d vote for Colonel Sanders or Barry Sanders before I’d vote for Bernie Sanders.

But if he takes Iowa and New Hampshire, as some are already predicting, Hillary will have to adopt an accent thicker than Foghorn Leghorn’s if she’s going to have any chance in South Carolina. And it will be hard to win the nomination if she loses every primary.

BTL Truism No. 79


No Comment


Oh No, She Di-unt!

Oh yes. She did:

As Twitchy reported yesterday, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced that she’d be appearing at a church in Florissant, Mo., this afternoon, leading some to wonder which of her many fake accents she’d adopt for the mostly black crowd. Little did we know, though, that Clinton would commit what some consider the most offensive faux pas imaginable just minutes into her address: she proclaimed that “all lives matter.”

That thump you heard was black people dropping Hillary like a sack of potatoes (which she resembles, come to think of it).

Pousbaé @yoauntielikeit
Hillary Clinton talked about institutionalized racism then hit an “All lives matter.” I can’t make this sh*t up lmao

BGD @BlackGirlDanger
Hillary Clinton just said “All Lives Matter.” Girl BYE. If you can’t just say Black Lives Matter, then keep us out of your mouth altogether.

Not ready for Hillary. Never gonna be ready. Ever.

Bastard Keith @BastardKeith
@BlackGirlDanger SHE FU**ING DID NOT. Oh god are you serious?

I ID as K. Rowland @NrdLovnNetta
@Carnegro @yoauntielikeit @fmason3 she. ain’t. getting. my. damn. vote. ffffffffffffuuuuuuuuu******kkk. that. sh*t

Welcome to the modern world, where expressing belief in the sanctity of all human life is akin to burning a cross on a black family’s lawn:

As long ago as last December, Cornell University’s police chief ended up apologizing in an email to the campus for using the phrase, which she wasn’t aware was considered “disrespectful pushback against #BlackLivesMatter on many Internet forums.”

How about the president of Smith College?

The president of prestigious Smith College is red-faced and apologetic Tuesday for telling students on the Northampton, Mass., campus that “all lives matter.”

“We are united in our insistence that all lives matter,” read the e-mail,in which she made clear she was strongly behind the protests, writing that the grand jury decisions had “led to a shared fury… We gather in vigil, we raise our voices in protest.”

Fu*k your fury. Stick your protest up your p…ancreas.

She wrote that the problem with the phrase lay in how others had used it.

“I regret that I was unaware the phrase/hashtag “all lives matter” has been used by some to draw attention away from the focus on institutional violence against Black people,” she wrote.

With Hillary’s “dog whistle” words and the Stars and Bars flying over the state house in Little Rock, she’s going to have a hard time holding together Obama’s coalition.


Who Needs Iowa and New Hampshire?

If you’ve got Nevada in your pocket?

“I don’t think we’ve seen more enthusiasm for any candidate, Democrat or Republican, than we’ve seen for Bernie Sanders,” Karl said. “Maria, what is going on … Hillary Clinton, supposed to be a coronation here. She now finds all the energy in the Democratic primary right now is with a 73-year-old self-described socialist from Vermont.”

Cardona laughed, saying the media thought this would be a coronation, not Clinton.

“Bernie is from a neighboring state,” she said. “We shouldn’t be surprised that there is so much enthusiasm for him, and in fact, we shouldn’t be surprised if he does very well in New Hampshire or in Iowa and perhaps even wins. I think this is good for the Democratic Party … As a Hillary supporter, I think she will be the nominee, but she will be that much better of a nominee and that much better of a general election candidate because of Bernie.”

Seventy-three and socialist defines the Democrat Party! And Hillary is no spring chicken at 67 either.

If Bill was the Comeback Kid in 1992, maybe after she loses Iowa and New Hampshire we can call her the Blue-Haired Ball-Buster. (Okay, could use improvement.)

PS: The Bleached-Blond Bounce-Back?


« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »