2016 Presidential Battleground States?

[Judge Jude]

Except some of them will presumably act against the "best interests" of the 1%, even though they are in that group. I actually find that pretty admirable, to be honest.

Hillary and Bill are structuring their own longterm empire to avoid every possible tax hit they can, saving themselves tens of millions that would otherwise go to the federal government. I don't object to that, but admirable is not the word I'd choose. I guess "it's not personal, it's business" would be the phrase. And they could well afford to run an effective, well-funded campaign without any Wall Street money, but they won't. It's not hard to figure out why.

[Judge Jude]

So you believe that if Hillary is elected President, and by some miracle her party also regains control of Congress in the next 8 years, the Clintons will pay far more in taxes once reforms are put in place? You believe that the laws she proposes will cause a direct hit on their family fortune?

Seriously?

"Folks who advocate for, say, campaign finance reform are hypocrites if they do not use their own money during a campaign."

wow, the straw man lives.

[Judge Jude]

Well, that certainly depends on the reforms, now doesn't it? If you're arguing that both parties are the same with their stances on tax reform, then I suppose we can pursue that (ill-informed) point of view. I don't have much of an idea what the fuck you're talking about, other than clearly you don't like Hillary Clinton, although equally as clearly for superficial or speculative reasons instead of substantive ones.


Apparently your post was too clever or too vague for me to comprehend. Please, tell me why you're letting us all know about the Clintons running on campaign money rather than their personal money. Because right now you're operating at a OneJay level of depth and clarity.

"I don't have much of an idea what the fuck you're talking about, other than clearly you don't like Hillary Clinton, although equally as clearly for superficial or speculative reasons instead of substantive ones."

You actually have shown that you have zero idea. I agree with many of Hillary's likely stances, and my observations about the dangers of inept optics of a political campaign are not really debatable. You can make a separate argument lamenting the superficial, but that's "angels on the head of a pin" stuff. I was talking about reality that you perhaps rightly find difficult to accept.

I said absolutely nothing about them spending their own money to run for office, but you created a straw man suggesting otherwise. Your last sentence is even more incoherent. Perhaps you are not aware that it is possible to raise hundreds of millions of dollars from outside sources as a Presidential favorite, even before Wall St money is added in.

You're not making much sense right now.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Elizabeth Warren.

[Judge Jude]

Yes, I understand Warren better as a progressive choice with financial expertise who would take on Wall St.

But she is 65 herself, and I have a sense that those under 30 might find either of them somewhat irrelevant.

Still, Presidential runs are more like tennis tournaments than golf - you keep challenging only one main opponent if you're the favorite, and if not much resistance is there in the semis and finals, you can still win.

in golf, whatever the resumes, you have 100 people shooting for a prize and someone can come out of nowhere....

[GwynnInTheHall]

Yes, I understand Warren better as a progressive choice with financial expertise who would take on Wall St.

But she is 65 herself, and I have a sense that those under 30 might find either of them somewhat irrelevant.

Still, Presidential runs are more like tennis tournaments than golf - you keep challenging only one main opponent if you're the favorite, and if not much resistance is there in the semis and finals, you can still win.

in golf, whatever the resumes, you have 100 people shooting for a prize and someone can come out of nowhere....

I don't necessarily agree. You must distinguish yourself from the crowd and then go for the gold. 65? that's right in the pocket of the majority of voters.

She's smart, she's aggressive and she's right.

She has more balls than the past 7 presidents.

You want real reform?

You can't vote or anyone who's had to pander their entire careers and expect that.

[Judge Jude]

I would not at all take Warren off my dance card if she runs. Everybody should get a fair shot, and anti-Wall St is one leg up of many to climb.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I would not at all take Warren off my dance card if she runs. Everybody should get a fair shot, and anti-Wall St is one leg up of many to climb.

I also like the fact she addresses Education finance reform as well.

Among so much more, but then I'm thinking you've noticed that by now. LOL

[onejayhawk]

Elizabeth Warren.

There is a Democrat I could vote for. Massachusetts is well served with her in Washington and Kerry anywhere else.

I doubt she will run. She's almost as old as Hillary and not used to center stage. She claims she is deferring to Hillary, but I think she would not run in any event.

J

[nots]

Here comes trouble for Ms. Clinton:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clintons-most-prominent-democratic-155536168.html

Lot of substance to this guy.....watch the Clinton machine attack quickly before he gets too much momentum.

[Moonlight J]

O'Malley needs to run

[nots]

O'Malley needs to run

I think he will. He's credible but it will be a tough, tough slog for him.

[Judge Jude]

right wing author offers to let mainstream media see his evidence against Hillary. do they bite?

NY Times and Washington Post do. 60 Minutes and ABC News do not.

Hillary crowd going apeshit already.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...1.html?hp=l2_4

good topic for a journalism class

"Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich" will debut on May 5. But the Times, the Post and Fox have already made arrangements with author Peter Schweizer to pursue some of the material included in his book, which seeks to draw connections between Clinton Foundation donations and speaking fees and Hillary Clinton's actions as secretary of state. Schweizer is the president of the Government Accountability Institute, a conservative research group, and previously served as an adviser to Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin."

"We made an arrangement with Peter Schweizer’s publisher so we could read his book before publication because we are always willing to look at new information that could inform our coverage," said Post National Editor Cameron Barr. "Mr. Schweizer’s background and his point of view are relevant factors, but not disqualifying ones. What interests us more are his facts and whether they can be the basis for further reporting by our own staff that would be compelling to our readers. There is no financial aspect to this arrangement."

HarperCollins is marketing "Clinton Cash" as a "meticulously researched" book that "raises serious questions of judgment, of possible indebtedness to an array of foreign interests, and ultimately, of fitness for high public office." In it, Schweizer seeks to show how donations to the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees paid to former president Bill Clinton may have influenced Hillary Clinton's decisions at the State Department.

"Clinton's defenders are already slamming the book. Media Matters For America, the liberal watchdog group founded by Clinton ally David Brock, published a report on Monday detailing "ten incidents of significant errors, retractions, or questionable sourcing by Schweizer."

...............

the outlets say no money is changing hands here.

I can say that many of the best investigative stories you have ever read have been significantly advanced by remarkably sleazy characters. The key is not to trust them, of course. But a lead is a lead, and if the claim can be independently verified, it's news.

The biggest problem here likely will be that the book will claim that correlations equal cause-and-effect. It's not good if some country gives the Clinton foundation millions and then a year later she is pushing for increased aid there. But short of emails or letters clearly linking the issues (seems rather unlikely), then plausible deniability is in play. Plus many already know and wince at this situation, but it's not going to change their vote.

The papers at first did not publicly acknowledge their interest in the material, which is unsurprising. But it leaked to Politico (presumably by the author). Now it's really a matter of public image for these outlets, which cuts both ways.

There's every chance this goes nowhere, although the ferocity of the Hillary camp pushback is interesting.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I'll keep saying it, Hillary isn't the play for the Democrats.

[chancellor]

I agree with you GITH - if Warren would get serious, she will win the Dem nomination. I just don't think she will, as she knows the Clintons will come at her with the political equivalent of a Street Sweeper.