This post was published at The Young Turks
In her new book What Happened, Hillary Clinton explains why she lost the presidential election last year.
She blames sexism. She blames Trump’s outrageous conduct. She blames Vice President Joe Biden. She blames Obama. She blames Trump’s ‘deplorable’ supporters. She blames FBI Director James Comey and ‘those damn emails.’ She blames the Russians. She blames The New York Times and other media outlets which generally fawned over her campaign. She blames the laws of physics. She blames white women.
But, of course, she certainly didn’t blame Hillary Clinton. In this no mea culpa memoir, she explains it was many others, but not her. She was the victim of a series of electoral scams that denied her the presidency.
This is the relentless theme that Hillary Clinton sticks to through almost 500 pages in a flawed memoir of why she stunningly lost last year’s election.
Echoes of 1948 and 2000 The presidential election was a unique event; a once-in-our-lifetimes contest. It was an electoral earthquake; one in which Hillary Clinton copied the blunders of Thomas Dewey in 1948 and Al Gore in 2000. (In 1948, many pollsters stopped polling early in the campaign, convinced that President Truman had no chance for re-election. In 2000, we constantly heard in the mainstream media that George W. Bush was a human blank who would be easily bested by the ‘brilliant’ Gore. However, somehow Gore didn’t win the debates and later didn’t even win his home state of Tennessee.)
This post was published at Ludwig von Mises Institute on Dec 2, 2017.
As it turns out, Donna Brazile’s accusations about the Clinton campaign – contained in several excerpts from her upcoming book that somehow found their way into the hands of reporters at Politico and the Washington Post – are also Vladimir Putin’s fault.
In a letter signed by more than 100 Clinton campaign staffers that was published late Saturday, two days after Brazile exposed in her first bombshell how the Clinton campaign tilted the Democratic primary in its candidate’s favor by essentially seizing control of the Democratic Party purse, and using her influence to set strategy and spending priorities that favored the Clinton campaign over Hillary’s insurgent (and far more popular) rival, Bernie Sanders.
Then, in a summary of some of the book’s most incendiary claims, the Washington Post revealed that, in the wake of Wikileaks’ dump of emails stolen from DNC servers – emails that exposed, among other things, that Brazile herself had shared town hall topics and debate questions with the Clinton campaign – Brazile feared for her life after DNC staffer Seth Rich was murdered in what the police described as a robbery, but many have suspect could’ve been a plot to punish Rich for leaking the DNC emails to Wikileaks. Brazile also revealed that she considered using emergency powers to replace Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine with Joe Biden and Corey Booker, after Clinton’s bout with pneumonia gave Brazile serious reservations about the candidate’s health.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Nov 5, 2017.
Donna Brazile’s campaign to embarrass the powerful Democrats who disrespected her during her short-lived tenure as interim chairwoman of the DNC last year is going better than anybody – other than Brazile and her publisher – could’ve possibly imagined.
After Brazile published the first of what appears to be a series of damning indictments of the incompetence, collusion and arrogance of both the Clinton campaign and Hillary herself – a news-cycle dominating bombshell about how the Clinton campaign and former DNC Chairwoman deliberately pushed the national party to the edge of financial collapse to leave it financially reliant upon and beholden to, the Clintons – Brazile is back with another astonishing revelation courtesy of the Washington Post.
In a report that paradoxically validates concerns about Clinton’s health raised by conservative media – which were readily dismissed as sexist and “alt-right fake news” by the unabashedly pro-Clinton mainstream media – the Post reported that Brazile contemplated removing Hillary as the party’s candidate after Clinton fainted during a ceremony at the 9/11 Memorial and, as the WaPo adds, “Brazile blasts the campaign’s initial efforts to shroud details of her health as ‘shameful.”
Clinton later said she had pneumonia.
Brazile says she came close to replacing Clinton and Kaine with Vice President Joseph Biden and Sen. Corey Booker, but decided against it after she ‘thought of Hillary, and all the women in the country who were so proud of and excited about her. I could not do this to them.’ Of course, Brazile’s private concerns about her ally and friend’s campaign didn’t stop her from sharing debate questions and town hall topics with the Clinton campaign.
But that’s hardly the only tantalizing insider detail revealed in the excerpts from Brazile’s new book published by the post (the book hits shelves on Tuesday).
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Nov 4, 2017.
Sometimes it is possible to read or view something that completely changes the way one looks at things. I had that experience last week when I read an article at Lobelog entitled ‘A Plea for Common Sense on Missile Defense,’ written by Joe Cirincione, a former staffer on the House Armed Services Committee who now heads the Ploughshares Fund, which is a Washington DC based global foundation that seeks to stop the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
The article debunks much of the narrative being put out by the White House and Pentagon regarding missile defense. To be sure, it is perfectly reasonable to mistrust anything that comes out of the federal government justifying war given its track record going back to the War of 1812. And the belligerent posture of the United States towards Iran and North Korea can well be condemned based on its own merits, threatening war where there are either no real interests at stake or where a diplomatic solution has for various reasons been eschewed.
But the real reason why the White House gets away with saber rattling is historical, that the continental United States has not experienced the consequences of war since Pancho Villa invaded in 1916. This is a reality that administration after administration has exploited to do what they want when dealing with foreign nations: whatever happens ‘over there’ will stay ‘over there.’
Americans consequently do not know war except as something that happens elsewhere and to foreigners, requiring only that the U. S. step in on occasion and bail things out, or screw things up depending on one’s point of view. This is why hawks like John McCain, while receiving a ‘Liberty’ award from Joe Biden, can, with a straight face, get away with denouncing those Americans who have become tired of playing at being the world’s policeman. He describes them as fearful of ‘the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, [abandoning] the ideals we have advanced around the globe, [refusing] the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain ‘the last best hope of earth’ for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism.’
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Oct 28, 2017.
So someone has ghost-written another Hillary Clinton memoir. My biggest question when I picked it up was: Did Hillary stiff the writer out of the final payment as she did Barbara Feinman, the real author of It Takes a Village?
You don’t have to read any further than the cover of the book to answer the question posed by its title: What Happened: Hillary Clinton. Glutton for punishment, I took a masochistic dive into its dark pages anyway.
It soon became apparent that Hillary shouldn’t have treated Feinman so churlishly. What Happened would have greatly benefited from her stylistic enhancements. The prose in this book is as brittle as the mind behind it. Notice the lack of a question mark in the title. This is a telling punctuational elision. It signals that this text will not be an investigation into the dynamics behind the most perplexing election in American history. Don’t skim these pages in search of a self-lacerating confession or an apologia. What Happened reads more like a drive-by shooting rampage. The book is a score-settling scattershot rant, enfilading anyone who stood in Clinton’s way, from Bernie Sanders to James Comey. Amid Hillary’s hitlist of villains, even toothless Joe Biden gets gut-shot.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Sep 16, 2017.
As Hillary Clinton’s “What Happened” novel hits the shelves today – at a 40% discount – it appears President Trump just took a subtle shot at the former first lady’s view of the world…
It’s hard to disagree with President Trump’s vie of Hillary’s book (if that is who he is indirectly discussing) as the level of cognitive dissonance within seems monumental. The Hill offers five of the most memorable anecdotes shared by Clinton in her book.
Obama urged Clinton to run
President Obama signaled to Clinton early on in 2013 and 2014 that she should run for president. ‘He made it clear that he believed that I was our party’s best chance to hold the White House and keep our progress going, and he wanted me to move quickly to prepare to run,’ Clinton wrote. She wrote that Obama’s support meant a ton to her. ‘I knew President Obama thought the world of his Vice President, Joe Biden, and was close to some other potential candidates, so his vote of confidence meant a great deal to me.’
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Sep 12, 2017.
Some political figures truly embody the classic role of the divider; their purpose seems to be to agitate and provoke, to instigate conflict rather than mediate peace. Al Sharpton and Nancy Pelosi come to mind. Let’s not forget John McCain or Lindsay Graham. Barack Obama was known as the “great divider” for much of his presidency. While many leftists would argue that Donald Trump is the “most divisive” president in generations, I think the mainstream media has proven far more provoking than he has. In the case of Charlottesville, we see a whole host of individuals and institutions seeking to promulgate continued social tensions well beyond anything Trump has done. One of these individuals is Joe Biden.
In a short essay for The Atlantic, Joe Biden was quick to capitalize on the death of a protester in Charlottesville at the hands of an apparent white nationalist, spewing forth a host of cliches on “dark forces” creeping out from the hidden corners of America to smother the light and happiness of the silent Kumbaya majority like some kind of J. R. R. Tolkien novel.
This narrative is nothing new. It is the narrative that was promoted throughout the 2016 presidential election cycle as well as the Brexit debate in the U. K. – the notion that dangerous and “ignorant” portions of the citizenry in western society (labeled “populists”) are quietly organizing for a last stand against the “inevitable evolution” of progressive multiculturalism and globalism. They are presented as the throwbacks, the cave people, the Cro-Magnons, the people who refuse to get with the times and embrace the social justice revolution. They are, according to gatekeepers like Biden, in the way.
This post was published at Alt-Market on Wednesday, 30 August 2017.
For months now rumors have circulated over who might step forward to lead “The Resistance” for the Democrats and make a run for the White House in 2020. While many names have been tossed around, two candidates from Obama’s administration, VP Joe Biden and Attorney General Eric Holder, are the only ones to have seemingly taken the next step of directly hinting they would be interested in a run.
Biden made his most direct expression of interest back in May at the SALT conference when he said “at this point, no one in my family or I have made the judgment to run…I may very well do it.”
Meanwhile, Eric Holder recently raised some eyebrows about his future political aspirations when he told Yahoo News that he was looking “to be more visible.” Here’s more from the Washington Times:
‘Up to now, I have been more behind-the-scenes. But that’s about to change. I have a certain status as the former attorney general. A certain familiarity as the first African-American attorney general. There’s a justified perception that I’m close to President Obama. So I want to use whatever skills I have, whatever notoriety I have, to be effective in opposing things that are, at the end of the day, just bad for the country.’ ‘Now is the time to be more visible. Now is the time to be heard. … I thought, frankly, along with everybody else, that after the election, with Hillary Clinton as president, I could walk off the field. So when she didn’t win, I thought, ‘We’ll have to see how this plays out.’ But it became clear relatively soon – and certainly sooner than I expected – that I had to get back on the field and be in effective opposition.’
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Aug 2, 2017.
There comes a time when it becomes necessary to draw a line in the sand. When the early settlers came to America, they were desperate to find a place where they could live in freedom. And our Founding Fathers worked very hard to draft a Constitution that would guarantee that future generations of Americans would live in a nation where the freedom and liberty of the people were maximized. Unfortunately, the way of life that our founders sought to establish is slowly being killed off by the progressive agenda of ‘the Liberal World Order’. Just about every single element of their progressive agenda is diametrically opposed to the values and the principles that this country was founded upon. And if they ultimately get everything that they want, our way of life will be eradicated for good.
The term ‘Liberal World Order’ is a phrase that is starting to be used quite frequently by the establishment. It was used by the Washington Post to describe Barack Obama’s final speech to the United Nations, and Vice-President Joe Biden used it during his speech at the World Economic Forum in January.
But of course it is a term that doesn’t just apply to Democrats. Many establishment Republicans also believe in the progressive agenda of the Liberal World Order, and that is why before Trump was elected nothing ever seemed to change very much in Washington no matter who was in power.
This post was published at The Economic Collapse Blog on June 6th, 2017.
The Obama administration played an important role to make sure Greece remains in the eurozone, former Vice President Joe Biden said. As KeepTalkingGreece.com reports, in an interview to newspaper Kathimerini, Biden said that he was personally involved in the issue and described the efforts and difficulties he faced to avoid the financial collapse of Greece.
The Obama administration and you personally also played an important role in making sure that Greece remained a part of the eurozone. Could you describe for us these efforts and the difficulties you faced? Was there a close call when you got very concerned about a Grexit and a destabilized Greece? Do you believe that the risk of a Grexit is gone? President Obama and I were engaged with all parties in the Greek financial crisis, because we wanted to prevent Greece from experiencing financial collapse. Grexit would have had very serious long-term consequences for Greece and Europe – and could potentially have triggered a wider crisis of confidence in the global economy.
We were concerned that in the high-stakes negotiation between Greece and its creditors, failure to reach a sensible agreement would have made all parties much worse off in the end. But because of each side’s desire to secure the best possible terms, this worst-case scenario was a real possibility.
While the ultimate decision was up to the leaders of Greece, the IMF, and the eurozone countries, I think we helped steer the conversation in a more pragmatic direction because of the credibility we had in Athens, Brussels and Berlin.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Jun 5, 2017.
Last week at the SALT conference in Las Vegas, Joe Biden sent some mixed messages about a potential 2020 presidential run. First, he took a shot at Hillary saying she “was never a great candidate” though he followed that up by adding that she “would have been a really good president”…which makes perfectly good sense. Then Biden went on to talk about how he has no intentions of running in 2020 just before confirming that he “may very well do it.”
Of course, with politicians you can generally learn more about their intentions through their actions rather than their rhetoric. And Biden’s intense speaking schedule seems to reflect that of a candidate that has presidential ambitions. Per The Hill:
Still, Biden’s busy recent schedule of events and appearances suggests he hasn’t entirely ruled out another bid.
Biden has attended a hedge fund conference in Las Vegas and a fundraiser for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D). His jam-packed calendar also includes upcoming speeches at the Florida Democratic Party and at a few college commencements. Biden will also receive an award at the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) LGBT Gala next month.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on May 22, 2017.
Submitted by Robert Parry via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
Any fair judgment about Barack Obama’s presidency must start with the recognition that he inherited a dismal situation from George W. Bush: the U. S. economy was in free-fall and U. S. troops were bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clearly, these intertwined economic and foreign policy crises colored how Obama viewed his options, realizing that one false step could tip the world into the abyss.
President Barack Obama, with Vice President Joe Biden, attends a meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Dec. 12, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
It’s also true that his Republican rivals behaved as if they had no responsibility for the messes that Obama had to clean up. From the start, they set out to trip him up rather than lend a hand. Plus, the mainstream media blamed Obama for this failure of bipartisanship, rewarding the Republicans for their nihilistic obstructionism.
That said, however, it is also true that Obama – an inexperienced manager – made huge mistakes from the outset and failed to rectify them in a timely fashion. For instance, he bought into the romantic notion of a ‘Team of Rivals’ with his White House trumpeting the comparisons to Abraham Lincoln (although some of Lincoln’s inclusion of rivals actually resulted from deals made at the 1860 Republican convention in Chicago to gain Lincoln the nomination).
In the real world of modern Washington, Obama’s choice of hawkish Sen. Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State and Republican apparatchik Robert Gates to remain as Secretary of Defense – along with keeping Bush’s high command, including neocon favorite Gen. David Petraeus – guaranteed that he would achieve little real foreign policy change.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Jan 27, 2017.
“Frightened” Democrat lawmakers introduced a bill Tuesday that would prevent the president from launching a nuclear first strike without a congressional declaration of war. The bill – proposed by Rep. Ted W. Lieu and Sen. Edward J. Markey – follows through on a policy that was long debated – but never seriously pursued – during the Obama administration.
As FP reports, this isn’t the first mention of such legislation – the idea of it has been mentioned on and off for years, advocated by groups such as the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. At a January event at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, former U. S. Vice President Joe Biden said he is ‘confident we can deter and defend ourselves and our allies against non-nuclear threats through other means,’ adding that he ‘strongly believes’ that ‘deterring and if necessary retaliating against a nuclear attack should be the sole purpose for the U. S. nuclear arsenal.’
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Jan 24, 2017.