DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on February 09, 2016, 10:53:26 PM
-
(http://www.logcabin.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/The-Hill-Logo-300x56.jpg)
Dick Morris: Clinton deploys B Team
By Dick Morris - 02/09/16
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is falling apart. Bernie Sanders soared in New Hampshire and now two polls have him tying her nationally. It's a disaster.
Now she's called in the B Team, the cynical, paranoid and wacky twins Sidney Blumenthal and David Brock, to bail her out. And here comes the elderly, diminished and livid former President Bill Clinton to lead the duo's frantic attacks on Sanders.
The attacks are rooted in nothing more than a list of dirty names they call the Vermont senator every day. Having found little in his record to attack, they have consulted the thesaurus to turn up ugly sounding accusations.
Sanders has a coherent, consistent and concise message: Incomes are stagnant because the economy is rigged by the top one-tenth of 1 percent that controls politics through massive campaign contributions.
Clinton has no competing message, just the charge that Sanders's supporters are "sexist and vulgar." Brock adds that one of Sanders's ads was racist because it had too many white people in it.
Their strategy is laughable. After losing 84 percent of young voters in Iowa, and failing to recover them in New Hampshire, they sent in two aging fossils of feminism to insult and threaten young women.
The 81-year-old feminist Gloria Steinem charged that young women are only backing Sanders because that's where they can meet boys. And 78-year-old Madeleine Albright threatened to consign to a "special place in hell" women who don't back female candidates like Clinton.
Those are two great ways to attract young voters.
The aging and raging ex-president, meanwhile, speaking to a half-filled gym in a New Hampshire school, ranted about Sanders's "hypocrisy" in condemning his wife's paid speeches. Sanders, too, has given paid speeches, Bill Clinton claimed.
He's got a point. In 2013, for example, Sanders made all of $1,500, which he donated to charity as required by federal law. In 2014, Sanders raked in $1,850 for paid speeches. By contrast, Clinton made, and kept, over $21 million during the same time period. Sanders was only reimbursed for coach class airfare, while Clinton demanded private jets. Sanders's hosts were the TV show "Real Time with Bill Maher," Avalon Publishing and a machinists union. Clinton's were Goldman Sachs, the big banks and the pharmaceutical and energy industries. What hypocrisy for Sanders to use that as an issue!
Both Brock and Blumenthal share the former first lady's enthusiasm for discussing the "vast right-wing conspiracy" in America. Now that they've been outed as being back on her team, it's easy to understand why Clinton sees conspiracies everywhere. This paranoia, egged on by the B Twins, explains her failure to grasp the cataclysmic changes her own misconduct has wrought on her image, to say nothing of the societal and economic tectonic shifts at work. No, it's all the GOP's fault.
Blumenthal worked to spin Monica Lewinsky as a crazed stalker of an innocent president, and his hundreds of gossipy emails urged Clinton to do all she could to topple Moammar Gadhafi when she was secretary of State without realizing that it would open the door and let the terrorists waltz in. He hides in the shadows, ducking subpoenas and frantically emailing his crazy self-serving ideas while flattering his way into Clinton's affections.
Brock first came into the Clinton camp as a convert from conservatism. Before he did so, he outed Paula Jones, triggering Bill Clinton to lie to a grand jury, resulting in close to $1 million in payments to Jones and thousands to the court in fines, as well as disbarment and impeachment scandals. Now he serves to destroy Hillary Clinton's career as well by counseling a scorched-earth policy that savages Sanders and alienates the very young people who must provide Clinton her political base in the general election.
Neither the B Twins nor Bill Clinton's rage can save the bewildered former secretary of State, who cannot understand why a funny thing is happening on her way to her coronation. Voters looked at her and ran screaming.
http://thehill.com/opinion/dick-morris/268831-dick-morris-clinton-deploys-b-team
-
Monica is totally irrelevant to Hillary's campaign, and Dick Morris is, well, a Dick.
Hillary simply lacks the charisma that Bill and Bernie have.
-
The candidate striving to be the first woman US President actually lost women by 11 points in New Hampshire!
-
I would not make predictions yet.
It ain't over 'til it's over.
I prefer Bernie, but the results are not based on whom I like.
-
Exits Polls out of NH: Among Dem voters who prioritize honesty, Hillary loses narrowly, 93-5%. Wow...closer than I thought
-
Those must be the Democrats with the "I prioritize honesty" tattoos on their foreheads,
You fal,l for any rightwing shit you read, don't you?
-
You do know what exit polls, are correct? Here's a hint....there's nothing rightwing about them
-
Exit polls that ask, "who did you vote for?" are typical/
Exit polls that ask about one's attitude about honesty? No. That is some sort of right wing push-polling. My guess is Newmax. They do that sort of shit.
Exit polls that actually know the participants' real thoughts on honesty are impossible.
-
Exit polls that ask, "who did you vote for?" are typical/
Exit polls that ask about one's attitude about honesty? No.
If its just a general question, where's the problem? Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't refute the actual sentiments of NH Democrats. There's nothing RW about the question, so how the hell can it be RW push polling?? Are you claiming this is your guy, Sanders' BS??
-
The exit polls do not normally give the participants the option of commenting on their definitions of honesty.\
A poll that does this is not an ordinary poll.
I get calls all the time that ask unfair questions like "Do you agree that Mayor Gimenez, who appointed the ex-wife of a convicted felon to the position of county treasurer?" I know nothing of the convicted felon, or his wife, or what the guy was convicted of. But obviously most people will answer this question affirmatively. I either say "I don't know" or I just hang up. I have had pollsters say that they cannot accept "I don't know" as an answer, and demand that I say yes or no.
-
A poll, rarely, if ever, asks you for a short answer essay on your definition of anything, including honesty. It asks you this or that, that's all.
So you can rationalize all you want, the facts remain unrefuted, and reported by the likes of ABC & CNN, hardly RW. When it came to trustworthyness & honesty, those DEMOCRATS polled, chose Sanders over Clinton 93-5
OUCH
-
Well Bernie is amazingly honest.
It is sort of like asking them "Whose hair is the whitest?"
Hillary will be in this race up to the convention, I am pretty sure.
Fiorina bombed in NH, but said that she cheered herself up by firing her entire staff.
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/fiorina-cheers-self-up-by-firing-campaign-staff
THAT is the sort of president we need: one that does not accept the blame for anything and gets a warm feeling by firing people. Voters really get inspired by that.
The mysterious tape in which she saw brains being bartered never seems to have appeared. I think she was dreaming.
-
I would not make predictions yet. It ain't over 'til it's over.
Just to be clear...I am making zero predictions at this time for either party.
I would expect lots of nuttiness and shenanigans are still to come.
The Party elites are not to be under-estimated...
and they will do everything in their power to stop the two "outsiders" from being their nominees.
Xavier...it's going to get very interesting.
-
I'm of the same mindset. Trump & Sanders may have won NH, but we've only touched a fraction of the delegates needed by a nominee to lock down their party's top spot. In fact, despite Sanders huge win, Clinton comes out with just as many delegates as Sanders, because she's got the support of nearly all the "super delegates"
In fact, the next 2 votes, SC & NV could demonstrates if Sanders is simply a 2 state fluke. I did get a kick out of the professor trying to deflect Clinton's abysmal trustworthiness & honesty, with some slap at Fiorina. So, if Clinton's crew lets go of anyone between now and NV that isn't a sort of president we need: one that does not accept the blame for anything and gets a warm feeling by firing people? Or are we going to rationalize a double standard at that point?
The oligarchy bought and payed for Clinton, and by God, she's going to be the Democrat nominee.......unless Sanders starts to pull out the honesty/integrity card. If he does, she's toast at any chance of becoming President
-
unless Sanders starts to pull out the honesty/integrity card. If he does, she's toast at any chance of becoming President
SIRS I have asked friends...
is there any way in hell if she is indicted would she stay in the race?
and would the DNC even allow her to stay in the race?
-
unless Sanders starts to pull out the honesty/integrity card. If he does, she's toast at any chance of becoming President
SIRS I have asked friends...
is there any way in hell if she is indicted would she stay in the race?
and would the DNC even allow her to stay in the race?
Yes, and Yes. She's a Clinton. The DNC and Oligarchy have invested far too much time, energy and $$$$$$ to not allow her to stay in the race. It'll be spun as some new age VRWC. That she was indicted, because she's a woman....that the Koch brothers bought themselves a Justice Dept indictment.
That said, given the level of unethical conduct, by Obama's Justice dept, even if an indictment is recommended by the conclusion of the FBI criminal investigation, and even though current Federal law doesn't require intent on her part, at putting America lives and tactics at risk, I still expect the Justice Dept to conclude that she never intended to do anything wrong, and as such, will not indict her. And the left will claim victory, that it was all just some political effort to thwart her chances at becoming president. Never mind the laws she broke, and the exponential level if irresponsibility and recklessness she demonstrated as our SoS, as she demands that she be made President. It was all just some big VRWC cabal...spearheaded by the Koch brothers of course....oh, I forgot, and Bush
-
Hillary Clinton has about three hundred fifty "superdelegates" committed to vote for her at the convention before the caucuses and primaries were ever convened.
This isn't a lock, but it is a big advantage.
Combined with at least two hundred million dollars for buying media attention Hillary still has her chance at the brass ring.
The best question to ask is what she wants it for, and how will she use it?
-
Duh.
She wants to win the election.
I imagine that she will use it in the most effective way she can think of.
-
She wants to win the election.
I imagine that she will use it in the most effective way she can think of.
Music to those who bought and payed for her
-
Campaign funds always get spent on the campaign.
-
I'd be referring to the millions that were funneled thru the Clinton Foundation. And even all the millions in campaign to buy her influence and power
-
Duh.
She wants to win the election.
I imagine that she will use it in the most effective way she can think of.
Why does she personally want to be president?
And is this different from the three hundred fifty superdeligates desire that she be president?
And is it the same as the desire of Goldman Sachs that she be president?
-
Why do any of the candidates want to be president? Why did George Washington want to be president?
I fail to see why Clinton is so corrupt to you when all of the damned Republican candidates also have pacs and get money from fatcats.
Sanders is the only candidate in many years who did not have PACs.
-
Why do any of the candidates want to be president? Why did George Washington want to be president?
That is a tough one to answer , examining the motives of each would be a pretty good and pretty thick book, starting with George Washington who didn't seem to really want to be president at all and most definitely rejected becoming king. I fail to see why Clinton is so corrupt to you when all of the damned Republican candidates also have pacs and get money from fatcats.
Whitewater was about corruption, and hiding all of her files on the subject until after Bill was elected President is a good example of her stonewalling tactic, the beef futures investment was about accepting bribes and the huge book advances she gets are monetary media support. Hillary has a long history with being caught in corrupt practices and there is none since Tammany Hall to be near her equal. If you think that her accepting huge speaking fees from banks is innocent , then how do you explain the text of these speeches being a more precious secret to her than the classified secrets of the state department?
Sanders is the only candidate in many years who did not have PACs.
Yes.
I like this about him.
If only he were not sworn to evil.
-
There was no corruption in Whitewater that was provable. That is why Starr went out of his way to badger Lewinsky into testifying when she did not have a complaint and did not want to testify. The whole Lewinsky affair was a disgraceful fabrication. It is not illegal for one adult to give another a blowjob. It may be sleazy, but it is not criminal.
-
Giving false testimony under oath, in a court of law, is
Giving false testimony under oath, in front of a congressional committee, also is
-
There was no corruption in Whitewater that was provable. That is why Starr went out of his way to badger Lewinsky into testifying when she did not have a complaint and did not want to testify. The whole Lewinsky affair was a disgraceful fabrication. It is not illegal for one adult to give another a blowjob. It may be sleazy, but it is not criminal.
This is drifting into Bills business where I didn't want to go.
Hillary "lost" her paperwork that might have been evidence in Whitewater, it was "found" in the whitehouse after it was moot.
Losing or destroying evidence is a Hillary pattern, to me the most probable explanation for her weird choices of e-mail workarounds of the security requirements is that she wanted control of all records so that they could be lost when convenient.
-
The impeachment mess was the second stupidest thing the Republicans did, after the Iraq War. They knew they didn't have the votes or the charges to convict him and Gingrich ended up in utter disgrace. The diversion drew attention from watching Al =Qaeda anfd the result was 9-11.
Stupid Republicans ought to just pack up and leave this country forever.
-
Your opinion, aside, the fact remains;
Giving false testimony under oath, in a court of law, is criminal
Giving false testimony under oath, in front of a congressional committee, is also criminal
-
The impeachment mess was the second stupidest thing the Republicans did, after the Iraq War. They knew they didn't have the votes or the charges to convict him and Gingrich ended up in utter disgrace. The diversion drew attention from watching Al =Qaeda anfd the result was 9-11.
Stupid Republicans ought to just pack up and leave this country forever.
You are talking about Bill again, who beat this rap with testimony that he later admitted was false.
Bill is an extreme exception to the idea that the truth will make you free.
Hillary did not cause Bill to rape anyone , nor to harass anyone , her part in this was retroactive entirely as she hired Private Eyes to investigate and harass Bills accusers, sought dirt and scapegoats to shield Bill from the truth.
In irony Hillary can stand before groups who support protective measures for abused women and proclaim that women should be believed .