NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
Sounds to me like she's managing her campaign pretty well. Is this a bad thing?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
This is just silly. Kind of embarrassed for the reporter. I think we're scraping the bottom of the barrel at this point looking for things to criticize.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Hey I agree, that's just where the campaign is, and it's true the campaign isn't giving much if anything for the press to report about the campaign itself. I posted those without comment but if there's an observation that's it.
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
I just want Tim or another Hillary supporter to explain why countries such as Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Oman and Qatar contribute to the Clinton Foundation? Yes, the foundation does excellent work focused on climate change, AIDs and empowering women but when have any of the countries listed ever cared about those issues?
timschochet
Footballguy
What an excellent question this is. Seriously, I am so glad you asked it.
You're absolutely right. Prior to the Clinton Foundation, it's a good bet that none of the countries you named contributed to charities that were focused on the issues you listed. So why did they do it this time?
It's because Bill Clinton was President, and not only President, but one that was focused, in a positive manner, on international relations. Through the years, he forged ties and connections with the leaders of these countries which is completely priceless and invaluable to our government, and Hillary was with him every step of the way. Don't forget that it was Bill Clinton who brokered a peace deal in Northern Ireland, and who came the very closest of any US President to brokering a similar deal between Israel and the Palestinians. He was an amazing foreign policy President, and leaders around the world like him and trust him and his First Lady. That's a big part of the reason Obama picked Hillary to be Secretary of State because he knew it would give him added status around the world. And he needed it- after the debacle of George W. Bush, the United States was distrusted everywhere. Now we've gain a little of that back.
So the full answer to your question is that it is the Clinton prestige that gets money contributed to his Foundation, and we desperately need that prestige back in the White House.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I've cited sources for everything I've posted. The bio I divided up into several posts for the benefit of anyone reading, but the link is in the first post.
I plan on posting quite often in this thread. It's an unfortunate fact that most people around here seem focused on non-issues regarding Hillary Clinton- mostly conspiracy theory type stuff which has no evidence to back it up. I'm only interested in that for the purpose of refuting it, (though even that can get boring). This thread is devoted to discussing serious issues about our next President.
timschochet
Footballguy
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
Well, I guess that is more plausible than these countries knowing that donations to the Foundation opens up access to the Clinton's. It is probably just a coincidence that each country had large arms deals approved by his wife's State Department. I'm sure it is a further coincidence that the countries that donated to the Foundation saw a substantial increase in arms deals by percentage compared to countries that didn't donate. Finally, I'm glad to know that Bill was able to get these countries to care about empowering women and climate change. I'm sure his successful work in Ireland had a lasting impact on the large Muslim-Irish populations in the Middle East.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
You're talking Obama, the 2008 rock star, that's the guy whose profile was helped by Hillary's presence?
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I'd be interested to see your source for the bolded. I'd also be interested to see you provide any evidence whatsoever that Clinton's actions as Secretary of State were at all influenced by donations to the Clinton Foundation. That is the ONLY evidence that would make all of this crap into a real story, and there isn't any.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The TPP was confected after Hillary left, right?
Which trade deals were done when she was there?
Vietnam, Colombia (which involved Bill and the Foundation getting millions at the same time). Any others?
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
Did you bother to read the IBT article I posted a few days ago? I've also cut, pasted and bolded the specific information you are looking for a page or two ago in this thread.
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
Mister CIA
Footballguy
Mister CIA
Footballguy
Bernie Sanders poll numbers will NEVER go above 25% during the Democratic primary election. NEVER!
I'm NEVER wrong about these things.
I'm NEVER wrong about these things.
Mister CIA
Footballguy
If properly beered I could come up with a decent ad campaign using Barry Sanders.
Mister CIA
Footballguy
Wrong thread. My bad.
The same bill Clinton that lied us into war in Kosovo?
The one that set the policy of regime change in Iraq?
The one that first connected Saddam hussein to Osama bin laden as allies and bombed an aspirin factory?
The one who targeted civilians in former Yugoslavia?
The one who had multiple chances to get bin laden and turned it down?
The one under whose watch 9 11 was planned? And on whose watch al queda bombed the WTC the first time?
That foreign policy president?
timschochet
Footballguy
Yep that's the guy.
You judge him by his weaknesses; I judge him by his strengths. We'll see what history remembers.
timschochet
Footballguy
We already know that, based on polling, most of America has a very high opinion of Hillary (though that is NOT reflected in this forum.) It seems that this attitude is shared in most of the world:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/29/hillary-clinton-president-world_n_7453184.html?ncid=edlinkushpmg00000090
WASHINGTON -- This April, London was in the grip of a ferocious campaign for Parliament. But on the morning of April 13, neither Conservative David Cameron nor Labourite Ed Miliband led the front pages of the U.K.'s national newspapers. The big news that day was Hillary Clinton, announcing (to no one’s surprise) that she was running for president of the United States.
And so far, she seems to be winning the race overseas.
A recent YouGov poll found that 61 percent of Britons and 59 percent of Germans have a positive opinion of Clinton, while just 20 percent and 24 percent, respectively, see her in a negative light. Fifty percent of Britons and 51 percent of Germans think it would be good for the world if she were elected president.
The former secretary of state is also a hit elsewhere around the world. In Canada, admirers stood in line for nearly 20 hours last year for signed copies of her book. Her speaking fees may be controversial in the U.S., but she spoke to sold-out crowds Up North who were happy to pay.
A Huffington Post examination of Clinton's reputation -- conducted by the HuffPost editions in the U.K., Canada, India, France, Italy, Germany and Greece -- found that Clinton is both widely known and well-regarded for her life story: a feminist, wife and mother with a decades-long career as a public figure in U.S. politics and global foundation work.
Interviews and media reports in those countries produce a portrait of an experienced, durable, almost obsessively well-traveled member of the U.S. establishment, toughened by hard personal times -- a solid, if not glamorous, figure.
To officials and voters alike in those countries, the possibility of a Clinton presidency doesn't suggest radical policy changes. Rather, they see in Clinton a steady hand and a social inspiration.
She was a "proactive Secretary of State," said Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, a German who is vice president of the European Parliament, "very important experience, especially in the age of globalization and in times of major geopolitical shifts." Her "left-leaning" policies are similar to President Barack Obama's, he said, "but as the first woman in the highest office in the U.S. she would be a great inspiration for women and girls all over the world."
In Spain, Greece, Italy and elsewhere, the move has been toward “scrap-heaping” the aging political classes, said Lia Quartapelle, a younger member of the Italian Parliament. But that impulse doesn’t apply to the 67-year-old Clinton, she said.
“Hillary is considered an extremely experienced politician,” Quartapelle said. “Her candidacy might prove to be a reassuring element for a country that still shows some last signs of crisis. Her candidacy could count on this image of grandmother-in-chief.”
Clinton is admired -- or at least respected -- for her decades of world travel as first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state. But officials and regular citizens alike were vague at best, suspicious at worst, when asked to judge her accomplishments and strategic vision as secretary of state.
“As secretary of state, Hillary didn’t make any particular impression in Italy, neither positive nor negative,” said Guido Moltedo, an Italian journalist and essayist. “Her stature was neither heightened nor diminished.”
In America, much of the media and all of her enemies focus on the cash that the nonprofit Clinton Foundation has raised and on the emails that she has (or has not) disclosed. They muse on whether she is too suffocatingly familiar an establishment figure to satisfy the American yen for “change.” They wonder about the benefits and risks of her long, sometimes tumultuous marriage to Bill Clinton.
But the various HuffPost sites found that the same life history that makes her vulnerable at home renders her a credible, popular and even reassuring figure abroad.
Voters around the world may not know the details of Clinton’s State Department emails, but they know -- and remain surprisingly moved by -- the sordid Monica Lewinsky saga of nearly two decades ago. While U.S. feminists have criticized her for standing by her man, that sentiment doesn't seem to be widely shared elsewhere. Indeed, Clinton is more likely to be praised for moving beyond the Lewinsky years.
“Hillary Clinton has a rather favorable image in France based on how she dealt with the Lewinsky scandal,” said HuffPost France’s Maxime Bourdeau, as well as "how she bounced back by following her own political career.” That whole episode, he said, “was seen here as a private matter that should never have become as huge as it did in the U.S.”
In Italy, according to Moltedo, “Italian women recognize that ... she faced down a decidedly complicated situation with courage and maturity.”
Clinton's familiarity with and around the globe may be welcomed in a world weary of surprises from presidents who were either disastrously ignorant (George W. Bush) or precariously naïve (Obama).
Just as Britons readily offer an opinion of her, she knows the U.K. well. Clinton campaign advisers were key players in those recent elections, and she is close to the Milibands.
India is another place where Clinton looks good.
“Hillary Clinton has a positive image in India, mainly because of her engagement with the region,” said HuffPost India’s Anirvan Ghosh. “She is perceived as having a good understanding of the issues facing South Asia.”
A top Clinton adviser, the late Richard Holbrooke, was deeply involved in the region, and the Clinton Foundation's work gives her a different insight into India’s grassroots problems. As a result, Ghosh thinks that a President Hillary Clinton would “continue the recent momentum and push for greater cooperation” with India.
Her familiarity with other areas of the world is a relief to international policymakers. “Hillary has always paid close attention to trans-Atlantic relationships,” said Moltedo. “The same cannot be said for her Republican adversaries.”
Marietta Giannakou, a former member of the European Parliament from Greece, sees Clinton as part of the team that has been moving the U.S. away from Bush’s my-way-or-the-highway approach. Or as Giannakou put it, the Obama administration’s “departure from a less monolithic and unilateral stance towards a more discursive and multilateral approach to global and regional issues.”
Views of Clinton appear to be tempered by views of the U.S. more broadly -- not surprising for an establishment figure.
“Nobody can credibly say whether or not the world and the United States in particular would benefit from another eventual President Clinton,” said Massimo Teodori, an Italian historian, politician and writer. “One thing is for sure: The next president will have to completely redesign the United States’ role in a multipolar world. No one wants us to return to the use of force and 'imperial' arrogance that we’ve sometimes seen come into play during the 20 years following the end of the Cold War.”
A certain degree of skepticism likewise arises in conversations with Greeks. Young professionals and students there seem divided between personal respect for Clinton’s toughness and doubts about her as a politician.
“She is a dynamic woman who seems unstoppable,” said Victoria Alexiou, an architect and interior designer. “But on the other hand, she is a Machiavellist who will do anything to get what she wants. She was keen on the imperialist policies [of the past presidents].”
Maria Chatzianagnostou, a student at the University of Athens, was more upbeat.
“Hillary Clinton is a strong woman who can sustain a political career,” she said. “She managed to comply with the demanding duties of her position. Her election could be a good thing.”
And observers on the left, whether in Athens or Berlin, see one other chief virtue in Clinton: the electoral power to keep the other side out of the the White House.
"All that will happen is that she will be the first woman to occupy the office," said Katja Kipping, chairperson of the Left Party in the Bundestag, "and that, luckily, no Republican will win the election."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/29/hillary-clinton-president-world_n_7453184.html?ncid=edlinkushpmg00000090
WASHINGTON -- This April, London was in the grip of a ferocious campaign for Parliament. But on the morning of April 13, neither Conservative David Cameron nor Labourite Ed Miliband led the front pages of the U.K.'s national newspapers. The big news that day was Hillary Clinton, announcing (to no one’s surprise) that she was running for president of the United States.
And so far, she seems to be winning the race overseas.
A recent YouGov poll found that 61 percent of Britons and 59 percent of Germans have a positive opinion of Clinton, while just 20 percent and 24 percent, respectively, see her in a negative light. Fifty percent of Britons and 51 percent of Germans think it would be good for the world if she were elected president.
The former secretary of state is also a hit elsewhere around the world. In Canada, admirers stood in line for nearly 20 hours last year for signed copies of her book. Her speaking fees may be controversial in the U.S., but she spoke to sold-out crowds Up North who were happy to pay.
A Huffington Post examination of Clinton's reputation -- conducted by the HuffPost editions in the U.K., Canada, India, France, Italy, Germany and Greece -- found that Clinton is both widely known and well-regarded for her life story: a feminist, wife and mother with a decades-long career as a public figure in U.S. politics and global foundation work.
Interviews and media reports in those countries produce a portrait of an experienced, durable, almost obsessively well-traveled member of the U.S. establishment, toughened by hard personal times -- a solid, if not glamorous, figure.
To officials and voters alike in those countries, the possibility of a Clinton presidency doesn't suggest radical policy changes. Rather, they see in Clinton a steady hand and a social inspiration.
She was a "proactive Secretary of State," said Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, a German who is vice president of the European Parliament, "very important experience, especially in the age of globalization and in times of major geopolitical shifts." Her "left-leaning" policies are similar to President Barack Obama's, he said, "but as the first woman in the highest office in the U.S. she would be a great inspiration for women and girls all over the world."
In Spain, Greece, Italy and elsewhere, the move has been toward “scrap-heaping” the aging political classes, said Lia Quartapelle, a younger member of the Italian Parliament. But that impulse doesn’t apply to the 67-year-old Clinton, she said.
“Hillary is considered an extremely experienced politician,” Quartapelle said. “Her candidacy might prove to be a reassuring element for a country that still shows some last signs of crisis. Her candidacy could count on this image of grandmother-in-chief.”
Clinton is admired -- or at least respected -- for her decades of world travel as first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state. But officials and regular citizens alike were vague at best, suspicious at worst, when asked to judge her accomplishments and strategic vision as secretary of state.
“As secretary of state, Hillary didn’t make any particular impression in Italy, neither positive nor negative,” said Guido Moltedo, an Italian journalist and essayist. “Her stature was neither heightened nor diminished.”
In America, much of the media and all of her enemies focus on the cash that the nonprofit Clinton Foundation has raised and on the emails that she has (or has not) disclosed. They muse on whether she is too suffocatingly familiar an establishment figure to satisfy the American yen for “change.” They wonder about the benefits and risks of her long, sometimes tumultuous marriage to Bill Clinton.
But the various HuffPost sites found that the same life history that makes her vulnerable at home renders her a credible, popular and even reassuring figure abroad.
Voters around the world may not know the details of Clinton’s State Department emails, but they know -- and remain surprisingly moved by -- the sordid Monica Lewinsky saga of nearly two decades ago. While U.S. feminists have criticized her for standing by her man, that sentiment doesn't seem to be widely shared elsewhere. Indeed, Clinton is more likely to be praised for moving beyond the Lewinsky years.
“Hillary Clinton has a rather favorable image in France based on how she dealt with the Lewinsky scandal,” said HuffPost France’s Maxime Bourdeau, as well as "how she bounced back by following her own political career.” That whole episode, he said, “was seen here as a private matter that should never have become as huge as it did in the U.S.”
In Italy, according to Moltedo, “Italian women recognize that ... she faced down a decidedly complicated situation with courage and maturity.”
Clinton's familiarity with and around the globe may be welcomed in a world weary of surprises from presidents who were either disastrously ignorant (George W. Bush) or precariously naïve (Obama).
Just as Britons readily offer an opinion of her, she knows the U.K. well. Clinton campaign advisers were key players in those recent elections, and she is close to the Milibands.
India is another place where Clinton looks good.
“Hillary Clinton has a positive image in India, mainly because of her engagement with the region,” said HuffPost India’s Anirvan Ghosh. “She is perceived as having a good understanding of the issues facing South Asia.”
A top Clinton adviser, the late Richard Holbrooke, was deeply involved in the region, and the Clinton Foundation's work gives her a different insight into India’s grassroots problems. As a result, Ghosh thinks that a President Hillary Clinton would “continue the recent momentum and push for greater cooperation” with India.
Her familiarity with other areas of the world is a relief to international policymakers. “Hillary has always paid close attention to trans-Atlantic relationships,” said Moltedo. “The same cannot be said for her Republican adversaries.”
Marietta Giannakou, a former member of the European Parliament from Greece, sees Clinton as part of the team that has been moving the U.S. away from Bush’s my-way-or-the-highway approach. Or as Giannakou put it, the Obama administration’s “departure from a less monolithic and unilateral stance towards a more discursive and multilateral approach to global and regional issues.”
Views of Clinton appear to be tempered by views of the U.S. more broadly -- not surprising for an establishment figure.
“Nobody can credibly say whether or not the world and the United States in particular would benefit from another eventual President Clinton,” said Massimo Teodori, an Italian historian, politician and writer. “One thing is for sure: The next president will have to completely redesign the United States’ role in a multipolar world. No one wants us to return to the use of force and 'imperial' arrogance that we’ve sometimes seen come into play during the 20 years following the end of the Cold War.”
A certain degree of skepticism likewise arises in conversations with Greeks. Young professionals and students there seem divided between personal respect for Clinton’s toughness and doubts about her as a politician.
“She is a dynamic woman who seems unstoppable,” said Victoria Alexiou, an architect and interior designer. “But on the other hand, she is a Machiavellist who will do anything to get what she wants. She was keen on the imperialist policies [of the past presidents].”
Maria Chatzianagnostou, a student at the University of Athens, was more upbeat.
“Hillary Clinton is a strong woman who can sustain a political career,” she said. “She managed to comply with the demanding duties of her position. Her election could be a good thing.”
And observers on the left, whether in Athens or Berlin, see one other chief virtue in Clinton: the electoral power to keep the other side out of the the White House.
"All that will happen is that she will be the first woman to occupy the office," said Katja Kipping, chairperson of the Left Party in the Bundestag, "and that, luckily, no Republican will win the election."
Can you help me with her accomplishments as Secretary of State? I've seen Democratic operatives struggle with that question, and you hear the amount of travel as an accomplishment.
timschochet
Footballguy
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/01/hillary-clinton-focuses-on-drug-addiction-after-learning-scale-of-problem/
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s carefully choreographed round-table discussions with voters don’t lead to many moments of surprise. But Mrs. Clinton has seemed to have had some legitimate jolts when conversations in Iowa and New Hampshire repeatedly drifted back to drug abuse.
Mrs. Clinton called heroin and methamphetamine addiction in rural America a “quiet epidemic” and told her policy advisers in Brooklyn to put it on the list of priorities as her campaign inched closer toward presenting a specific policy platform.
As part of that effort, last week senior campaign policy advisers held Google Hangout discussions with local officials and substance abuse activists in Iowa and New Hampshire to see how the campaign could best address the problem, the first of such discussions that will take place in the early nominating states, according to the campaign.
In the six years Mrs. Clinton has been mostly out of the discussion on domestic policies, heroin use has swept rural communities, and although aides say she was aware of problem in an abstract way, from reading policy briefings and talking to academics and advisers, her discussions with voters on the issue were particularly eye opening.
She instructed her policy team “to go beyond standard policies and really take a hard look at some of the more creative or forward-looking policy positions,” said Jake Sullivan, the campaign’s senior policy director.
The Google Hangouts, led by the senior policy advisers Ann O’Leary and Maya Harris, are part of that effort. Moving forward, drug addiction, according to aides, will be a central part of the “four fights” that Mrs. Clinton routinely references in her prepared remarks.
Participants in the hangouts included Candace Accord, of the Community Based Correctional Facility in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and Abigail Shockley, executive director of the New Hampshire Alcohol and Other Drug Service Provider Association, among other local community leaders and elected officials.
Based on their suggestions, Mrs. Clinton is likely to propose better-financed prevention and treatment options before criminalization and better access to mental health services (an area that aides and voters have said is lacking under the Affordable Care Act). She has already called for reform to the criminal justice system and a prison system overflowing with low-level drug offenders.
Drug abuse has not been a central campaign issue since the 1980s and early 1990s, when crime was on the rise and the crack cocaine epidemic threatened American cities. Candidates, particularly Republicans, and the more centrist-minded Bill Clinton were elected by vowing to be tough on drugs. Under President Bill Clinton’s administration, drug offenders received stiffer penalties under federal law.
In the 2016 election, Mrs. Clinton enters a very different situation, in which rural areas, like the ones she has visited in Iowa and New Hampshire, are seeing an increase in addiction. She is expected to present more specific policy proposals after her campaign’s official kickoff event on June 13.
“We have an increasing problem that is only beginning to break through the surface so that people – I think a lot of people are thinking, well, that’s somebody else’s problem, that’s not my problem,” Mrs. Clinton has said.
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s carefully choreographed round-table discussions with voters don’t lead to many moments of surprise. But Mrs. Clinton has seemed to have had some legitimate jolts when conversations in Iowa and New Hampshire repeatedly drifted back to drug abuse.
Mrs. Clinton called heroin and methamphetamine addiction in rural America a “quiet epidemic” and told her policy advisers in Brooklyn to put it on the list of priorities as her campaign inched closer toward presenting a specific policy platform.
As part of that effort, last week senior campaign policy advisers held Google Hangout discussions with local officials and substance abuse activists in Iowa and New Hampshire to see how the campaign could best address the problem, the first of such discussions that will take place in the early nominating states, according to the campaign.
In the six years Mrs. Clinton has been mostly out of the discussion on domestic policies, heroin use has swept rural communities, and although aides say she was aware of problem in an abstract way, from reading policy briefings and talking to academics and advisers, her discussions with voters on the issue were particularly eye opening.
She instructed her policy team “to go beyond standard policies and really take a hard look at some of the more creative or forward-looking policy positions,” said Jake Sullivan, the campaign’s senior policy director.
The Google Hangouts, led by the senior policy advisers Ann O’Leary and Maya Harris, are part of that effort. Moving forward, drug addiction, according to aides, will be a central part of the “four fights” that Mrs. Clinton routinely references in her prepared remarks.
Participants in the hangouts included Candace Accord, of the Community Based Correctional Facility in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and Abigail Shockley, executive director of the New Hampshire Alcohol and Other Drug Service Provider Association, among other local community leaders and elected officials.
Based on their suggestions, Mrs. Clinton is likely to propose better-financed prevention and treatment options before criminalization and better access to mental health services (an area that aides and voters have said is lacking under the Affordable Care Act). She has already called for reform to the criminal justice system and a prison system overflowing with low-level drug offenders.
Drug abuse has not been a central campaign issue since the 1980s and early 1990s, when crime was on the rise and the crack cocaine epidemic threatened American cities. Candidates, particularly Republicans, and the more centrist-minded Bill Clinton were elected by vowing to be tough on drugs. Under President Bill Clinton’s administration, drug offenders received stiffer penalties under federal law.
In the 2016 election, Mrs. Clinton enters a very different situation, in which rural areas, like the ones she has visited in Iowa and New Hampshire, are seeing an increase in addiction. She is expected to present more specific policy proposals after her campaign’s official kickoff event on June 13.
“We have an increasing problem that is only beginning to break through the surface so that people – I think a lot of people are thinking, well, that’s somebody else’s problem, that’s not my problem,” Mrs. Clinton has said.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm hoping this is a serious inquiry, and not just another attack like the ones Saints is constantly making. The truth is that that there are no huge achievements- but there rarely are for Secretaries of State, especially when we have an administration trying to ramp down existing wars rather than starting new ones.
Essentially Hillary's time as Secretary of State consisted of attempting to clean up the huge mess left for her and Obama by the previous administration. That's going to take years, probably decades. As the above article notes, Hillary was successful in changing the image of the United States around the world as a country who understands nuanced issues like globalization. Hopefully that will continue.
I know the press doesn't like her strategy thus far of ignoring them, but if it keeps her from making unforced error's (or giving fuel to the email or foundation claims), why does it matter? We know she'll eventually start doing interviews and having more engagement with the press. The only way this strategy could backfire is if Bernie Sanders fills that void, surges, and becomes a legitimate alternative to her. I just don't see that happening though (same for O'Malley).
timschochet
Footballguy
I KNEW you couldn't stay away from that first sentence.But the point of the article is that Hillary called it a "learning tour" for a good reason. She appears to genuinely be set on learning about America's problems. More power to her!
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I think we last left off at the Vietnam trade pact and the Colombian trade pact (which came with millions pored into the Foundation and Bill doing the hook up in Colombia). Anything else you can point to as a specific accomplishment? I think you have also said she's essentially a game manager QB on a winning team, is that it?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
She nods affirmatively and repeatedly, says little. Why if her experience is so vast and if she is so popular is she interviewing voters yet again and why is she yet again reintroducing herself to voters?
But the point of the article is that Hillary called it a "learning tour" for a good reason. She appears to genuinely be set on learning about America's problems. More power to her!
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
I guess it only "matters" in the sense that her supporters claim no one from the left (outside of this forum) dislikes her and she can do no wrong. If that's the case, there's no reason to take this approach.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This is true, it may be the right strategy. It's appalling for anyone who thinks are leaders are answerable to the press and the voters, but it certainly limits her self-inflicted damage.
She is leaving the middle of the field wide open to attack, but again it's possible a Bernie is too far behind, O'Malley doesn't have the skills, and a Webb will be too late, to take advantage.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
FWIW, I remember her taking this same approach, though not THIS tightly lipped last time. I suspect she's trying to figure out what her platform is going to be. Well, "going to be" for now I guess. So she's "listening" to voters or some such.
DocHolliday
Footballguy
I will always remember Bill as the POTUS that was too busy to worry about foreign affairs because he was busy shagging any woman not named Hillary Clinton.
I do not necessarily blame him for avoiding Hillary but the rape accusations are a little unpleasant.
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.
The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.
American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.
The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatarall donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
I tend to agree it's tough to cite accomplishments, especially with so much of the world in chaos. I don't know how well she has cleaned up any messes though; you do point to improvement in how the US is perceived, but does that lead to the US being seen as influential
I do hear, as I mentioned, some of her surrogates talk up her time as Secretary of State. Is the experience she gains the biggest benefit?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
It is hard to understand how the classic enabler, whose husband has a track record of cheating, workplace harassment and accusations of sexual assault, is the standard bearer for the new American woman.
timschochet
Footballguy
Sanders is gaining momentum! The anti-Hillary sentiment is strong now and growing, right? Well, not exactly...
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-01/iowa-democrats-stick-with-hillary-clinton-in-bloomberg-politics-des-moines-register-poll
Hillary Clinton remains the overwhelming favorite among Iowa Democrats looking ahead to next year's presidential caucuses, though Bernie Sanders has quickly risen as Elizabeth Warren's proxy for the anti-establishment alternative.
Clinton is the first choice for 57 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers in a new Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll conducted May 25-29, up a percentage point from the previous poll in January. Controversies dating from her tenure as secretary of state, from her handling of the Benghazi attacks and her use of private e-mail to the Clinton Foundation's acceptance of contributions from foreign governments, have not weakened her campaign in Iowa, though many Democrats remain concerned they could hurt her in a general election.
Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont running for president as a Democrat, has surged to become the top pick of 16 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers, more than triple the 5 percent he drew in January. Part of that is likely due to Sanders's recent formal entry into the race, while Warren, the Massachusetts senator whom many progressives urged to run as a liberal alternative to Clinton, has repeatedly said she won't run and wasn't listed as a likely candidate in this poll.
Vice President Joe Biden, who is not an announced candidate, is next at 8 percent, while former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley and former Virginia Senator Jim Webb each drew 2 percent.
Sizeable minorities of likely Democratic caucus-goers said they believed Warren or Sanders better represents their political beliefs than Clinton—37 percent in the case of Warren, up from 26 percent last October, and 26 percent in Sanders's case.
“I'll support our side whatever it is,” said poll respondent Kent Harfst, 53, a local government employee who favors Sanders but considers Clinton all but certain to be the nominee. “A lot of the stuff I read on Bernie, I agree with,” he said. “I don't think he's electable. But I do like him.”
He summed up Sanders's approach as “more fair for everybody and the rich aren't necessarily going to get richer. The shrinking of the middle class, that's my biggest concern.” At the same time, Harfst said Sanders is “pretty far left.” “I think the country is more ready for Hillary than for him,” he said.
Clinton's favorability rating among likely Democratic caucus-goers is actually two points higher now, at 86 percent, than in January. Her unfavorable rating is down three points, to 12 percent. Sanders's favorability got a boost to 47 percent from 37 percent, while 41 percent still say they don't know how they feel about him.
“The reality is, this is a field where nobody has effectively stepped up to challenge Hillary Clinton, full stop,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of West Des Moines-based Selzer & Co., which conducted the poll.
There's the establishment—and then there's the anti-establishment. That used to be Elizabeth Warren. Now Bernie Sanders is stepping in and claiming the same space that she did, but she's closer to what they want than he is. There's this anti-Hillary vote. It just isn't very big.”
Selzer said O'Malley's formal entrance into the race on Saturday is likely to yield a clearer indication of whether he too can gain traction. “You see that Bernie Sanders tripled his support,” she said.
One relative area of weakness for Clinton is her standing with independents likely to caucus with Democrats. Only 39 percent of them said she is their first choice. At the same time, those independents weren't rallying around a single alternative. Sanders was closest at 20 percent.
One in five likely Democratic caucus-goers said they are bothered about her handling both of her private e-mail server while secretary of state and of the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 and their aftermath, while 27 percent said they are bothered by the Clinton Foundation's acceptance of foreign government contributions. Higher percentages said they were worried about the implications of those controversies for Clinton's standing in a general election—41 percent, 39 percent, and 37 percent respectively. A full 66 percent were worried about the impact of at least one of the three challenges tested.
Overall, 71 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers say the Clintons get a “bad rap” about unethical behavior rather than actually having behaved unethically. Likely Republican caucus-goers felt the opposite: 84 percent said the Clintons have shown a pattern of unethical behavior.
As far as the Democratic caucuses, however, “it's very difficult to look at this poll and say Hillary's vulnerable,” Selzer said. “Of course it's early, things happen, things can change, but there isn't any evidence people are ready to jump ship.”
The survey of 437 likely Democratic caucus-goers has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.7 percentage points.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-01/iowa-democrats-stick-with-hillary-clinton-in-bloomberg-politics-des-moines-register-poll
Hillary Clinton remains the overwhelming favorite among Iowa Democrats looking ahead to next year's presidential caucuses, though Bernie Sanders has quickly risen as Elizabeth Warren's proxy for the anti-establishment alternative.
Clinton is the first choice for 57 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers in a new Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll conducted May 25-29, up a percentage point from the previous poll in January. Controversies dating from her tenure as secretary of state, from her handling of the Benghazi attacks and her use of private e-mail to the Clinton Foundation's acceptance of contributions from foreign governments, have not weakened her campaign in Iowa, though many Democrats remain concerned they could hurt her in a general election.
Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont running for president as a Democrat, has surged to become the top pick of 16 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers, more than triple the 5 percent he drew in January. Part of that is likely due to Sanders's recent formal entry into the race, while Warren, the Massachusetts senator whom many progressives urged to run as a liberal alternative to Clinton, has repeatedly said she won't run and wasn't listed as a likely candidate in this poll.
Vice President Joe Biden, who is not an announced candidate, is next at 8 percent, while former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley and former Virginia Senator Jim Webb each drew 2 percent.
Sizeable minorities of likely Democratic caucus-goers said they believed Warren or Sanders better represents their political beliefs than Clinton—37 percent in the case of Warren, up from 26 percent last October, and 26 percent in Sanders's case.
“I'll support our side whatever it is,” said poll respondent Kent Harfst, 53, a local government employee who favors Sanders but considers Clinton all but certain to be the nominee. “A lot of the stuff I read on Bernie, I agree with,” he said. “I don't think he's electable. But I do like him.”
He summed up Sanders's approach as “more fair for everybody and the rich aren't necessarily going to get richer. The shrinking of the middle class, that's my biggest concern.” At the same time, Harfst said Sanders is “pretty far left.” “I think the country is more ready for Hillary than for him,” he said.
Clinton's favorability rating among likely Democratic caucus-goers is actually two points higher now, at 86 percent, than in January. Her unfavorable rating is down three points, to 12 percent. Sanders's favorability got a boost to 47 percent from 37 percent, while 41 percent still say they don't know how they feel about him.
“The reality is, this is a field where nobody has effectively stepped up to challenge Hillary Clinton, full stop,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of West Des Moines-based Selzer & Co., which conducted the poll.
There's the establishment—and then there's the anti-establishment. That used to be Elizabeth Warren. Now Bernie Sanders is stepping in and claiming the same space that she did, but she's closer to what they want than he is. There's this anti-Hillary vote. It just isn't very big.”
Selzer said O'Malley's formal entrance into the race on Saturday is likely to yield a clearer indication of whether he too can gain traction. “You see that Bernie Sanders tripled his support,” she said.
One relative area of weakness for Clinton is her standing with independents likely to caucus with Democrats. Only 39 percent of them said she is their first choice. At the same time, those independents weren't rallying around a single alternative. Sanders was closest at 20 percent.
One in five likely Democratic caucus-goers said they are bothered about her handling both of her private e-mail server while secretary of state and of the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 and their aftermath, while 27 percent said they are bothered by the Clinton Foundation's acceptance of foreign government contributions. Higher percentages said they were worried about the implications of those controversies for Clinton's standing in a general election—41 percent, 39 percent, and 37 percent respectively. A full 66 percent were worried about the impact of at least one of the three challenges tested.
Overall, 71 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers say the Clintons get a “bad rap” about unethical behavior rather than actually having behaved unethically. Likely Republican caucus-goers felt the opposite: 84 percent said the Clintons have shown a pattern of unethical behavior.
As far as the Democratic caucuses, however, “it's very difficult to look at this poll and say Hillary's vulnerable,” Selzer said. “Of course it's early, things happen, things can change, but there isn't any evidence people are ready to jump ship.”
The survey of 437 likely Democratic caucus-goers has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.7 percentage points.
The Commish
Footballguy
Have we reached the point in the program where we jizz all over polls saying the famously known politician all the world over is ahead of all the unknown lesser politicians running against them? The sad thing is, that's reality. We truly get what we ask for in Washington.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Hillary opened her campaign in March and the needle hasn't moved among Democrats in IA since January?
How's she doing on fundraising since April vs Bernie?
Hang 10
Footballguy
She approved hundreds of billions in arms deals to governments that gave her foundation money.
timschochet
Footballguy
Clinton's favorability rating among likely Democratic caucus-goers is actually two points higher now, at 86 percent, than in January. Her unfavorable rating is down three points, to 12 percent.
Overall, 71 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers say the Clintons get a “bad rap” about unethical behavior rather than actually having behaved unethically.
More evidence that the continual conservative attacks are failing big time.
Overall, 71 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers say the Clintons get a “bad rap” about unethical behavior rather than actually having behaved unethically.
More evidence that the continual conservative attacks are failing big time.
timschochet
Footballguy
If Hillary were losing ground there are people here (most of them actually) who would be raving about it. Saints has tried to point out every possible negative aspect to any poll that exists, hoping against hope that there will be SOMETHING that will slow down this unstoppable train- but there isn't.
The Commish
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
You could have just said "yes". I can't fathom how Hillary has been so dominate given she's been pretty much the only person in the race until a week or two ago....it's an amazing accomplishment to be certain.
timschochet
Footballguy
As I pointed out before, there is a concerted effort among certain conservatives to attempt to weaken Hillary in the primaries by boosting other candidates, particularly Sanders. If you read nothing but the FFA you would believe this strategy is working.
timschochet
Footballguy
Well I'm quite sure now that Sanders, Chafee and O'Malley are in the race, things will change.
The Commish
Footballguy
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
http://inthesetimes.com/article/17998/big-questions-about-arms-deals-for-clinton-foundation-donors The $165 Billion Question for Hillary ClintonWhen 20 foreign governments gave billions to the Clinton Foundation, were they expecting—and did they receive—quid pro quo arms deals from the State Department?
Among all the rivers of money that have flowed to the Clinton family, one seems to raise the biggest national security questions of all: the stream of cash that came from 20 foreign governments who relied on weapons export approvals from Hillary Clinton's State Department.
Federal law designates the secretary of state as “responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales” of arms, military hardware and services to foreign countries. In practice, that meant that Clinton was charged with rejecting or approving weapons deals—and when it came to Clinton Foundation donors, Hillary Clinton's State Department did a whole lot of approving.
While Clinton was secretary of state, her department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors. That figure from Clinton's three full fiscal years in office is almost double the value of arms sales to those countries during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.
The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation. That was a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.
American military contractors and their affiliates that donated to the Clinton Foundation—and in some cases, helped finance speaking fees to Bill Clinton—also got in on the action. Those firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of arms deals authorized by the Clinton State Department.
Under a directive signed by President Clinton in 1995, the State Department is supposed to take foreign governments' human rights records into account when reviewing arms deals. Yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department increased approvals of such deals to Clinton Foundation donors that her own agency was sharply criticizing for systematic human rights abuses.
As just one of many examples, in its 2011 Human Rights Report, Clinton’s State Department slammed Algeria’s government for imposing “restrictions on freedom of assembly and association,” tolerating “arbitrary killing,” “widespread corruption” and a “lack of judicial independence.”
That year, the Algerian government donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, and the next year Clinton’s State Department approved a one-year 70 percent increase in military export authorizations to the country. The jump included authorizations for almost 50,000 items classified as “toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents and associated equipment.” The State Department had not authorized the export of any of such items to Algeria the year before.
During Hillary Clinton’s 2009 Senate confirmation hearings, Republican Sen. Richard Lugar said the Clinton Foundation should stop accepting foreign government money. He warned that if it didn't, “foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the secretary of state.”
The Clintons did not take his advice. Advocates for limits on the political influence of money now say that Lugar was prescient.
“The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the Clintons was to give to this foundation,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center.
While these arms deals may seem like ancient history, Lawrence Lessig, the director of Harvard University’s Safra Center for Ethics, says they “raise a fundamental question of judgment”—one that is relevant to the 2016 presidential campaign.
“Can it really be that the Clintons didn't recognize the questions these transactions would raise?” he said. “And if they did, what does that say about their sense of the appropriate relationship between private gain and public good?”
Among all the rivers of money that have flowed to the Clinton family, one seems to raise the biggest national security questions of all: the stream of cash that came from 20 foreign governments who relied on weapons export approvals from Hillary Clinton's State Department.
Federal law designates the secretary of state as “responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales” of arms, military hardware and services to foreign countries. In practice, that meant that Clinton was charged with rejecting or approving weapons deals—and when it came to Clinton Foundation donors, Hillary Clinton's State Department did a whole lot of approving.
While Clinton was secretary of state, her department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors. That figure from Clinton's three full fiscal years in office is almost double the value of arms sales to those countries during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.
The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation. That was a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.
American military contractors and their affiliates that donated to the Clinton Foundation—and in some cases, helped finance speaking fees to Bill Clinton—also got in on the action. Those firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of arms deals authorized by the Clinton State Department.
Under a directive signed by President Clinton in 1995, the State Department is supposed to take foreign governments' human rights records into account when reviewing arms deals. Yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department increased approvals of such deals to Clinton Foundation donors that her own agency was sharply criticizing for systematic human rights abuses.
As just one of many examples, in its 2011 Human Rights Report, Clinton’s State Department slammed Algeria’s government for imposing “restrictions on freedom of assembly and association,” tolerating “arbitrary killing,” “widespread corruption” and a “lack of judicial independence.”
That year, the Algerian government donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, and the next year Clinton’s State Department approved a one-year 70 percent increase in military export authorizations to the country. The jump included authorizations for almost 50,000 items classified as “toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents and associated equipment.” The State Department had not authorized the export of any of such items to Algeria the year before.
During Hillary Clinton’s 2009 Senate confirmation hearings, Republican Sen. Richard Lugar said the Clinton Foundation should stop accepting foreign government money. He warned that if it didn't, “foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the secretary of state.”
The Clintons did not take his advice. Advocates for limits on the political influence of money now say that Lugar was prescient.
“The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the Clintons was to give to this foundation,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center.
While these arms deals may seem like ancient history, Lawrence Lessig, the director of Harvard University’s Safra Center for Ethics, says they “raise a fundamental question of judgment”—one that is relevant to the 2016 presidential campaign.
“Can it really be that the Clintons didn't recognize the questions these transactions would raise?” he said. “And if they did, what does that say about their sense of the appropriate relationship between private gain and public good?”
- Status
Similar threads
