Tag Archives: candidate

Hillary Clinton Does Not Like the Daily Mail

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

From the LA Times:

Clinton campaign gets into another scuffle with the press corps

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s long-frosty relationship with the media hit another icy patch in New Hampshire on Monday when campaign officials told major news organizations that certain reporters were not welcome at the candidate’s events.

….The campaign early on asked the press corps to establish and run a pool system in which a small group of reporters would cover such events and file reports that all reporters could share. The pool duty rotates among a group of roughly 14 news organizations that have committed to send a reporter when their turn comes.

Monday, that turn fell to the Daily Mail. The campaign did not approve. Campaign aides told the paper’s reporter, David Martosko, that he would not be allowed into the day’s pooled events….To many reporters, the campaign was crossing a line….The pool arrangement is designed to keep campaign officials out of the business of deciding which reporters can represent the media at what events.

The HRC campaign says the problem is that the Mail is a foreign news outlet, but it’s hard to take that excuse at face value since they’ve had no problem with allowing other foreign news organizations in the pool. They also apparently gave no warning that Martosko wouldn’t be allowed his turn. (Martosko’s version is here.) So what’s going on?

Whenever I read stuff like this, I can’t figure out what to think. On the one hand, the press is what it is. It’s part of the campaign landscape. Even if they act badly, what’s the point in deliberately pissing them off, especially in dumb little ways that don’t really accomplish anything?

On the other hand, maybe the Clinton folks have decided that the traditional press simply doesn’t matter anymore. So the hell with it. She doesn’t like the way they treat her, so she’s going to screw with them without worrying about it.

I dunno. I really can’t make sense out of it.

NOTE: I’m not asking whether the press treats Clinton badly. I think the answer is pretty obvious, but that’s not what this post is about. I just want to know what motivates an obvious professional like HRC to keep giving them reasons not to like her.

View original:  

Hillary Clinton Does Not Like the Daily Mail

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hillary Clinton Does Not Like the Daily Mail

Hillary Clinton: Master Schemer or Garden Variety Pol?

Mother Jones

Jonathan Allen recycles a familiar refrain today:

There’s a term for the way Hillary Clinton has handled policy in the early stages of her campaign: Clintonian. That is, on the issues that most divide the Democratic base from its centrist wing, she refuses to box herself into a position.

….It’s true that Clinton has rolled out a string of positions that please constituencies on the left, from support for LGBT rights and voting rights to repudiating the results of her husband’s 1994 anti-crime law and vowing to enhance President Obama’s executive action on immigration. These are important issues, perhaps more important than the exact level of a wage increase that surely won’t be $15 an hour as long as Republicans control either the House or 41 seats in the Senate. But Clinton has been very selective about how she’s courted her party’s progressive base, speaking as much to identity politics as to actual policy. On some of the more controversial policy questions, she’s taking a pass.

I’ll concede right up front that Hillary Clinton has been in the national eye for more than 20 years, and maybe that means we should expect more from her. But I gotta ask: Is there now, or has there been in the past, any other candidate who has been so routinely disparaged for not having positions on every single topic seven months before the first primary? Correct me if I’m wrong, but every candidate rolls out positions over time during presidential contests. And they all do it the same way: based on a combination of (a) their own genuine beliefs, (b) interest group pressure, (c) internal polling and focus groups, and (d) weeks or months of research and discussion among their advisors and messaging staff.

Everyone who’s serious about running for president does this, and it’s been this way for decades. This is simply not something that’s unique to either Bill or Hillary Clinton.

So….what’s up with the press corps pushing this narrative so assiduously? Are they just so stuck on the tired old “triangulation” metaphor that they can’t escape from it? Do they genuinely think Hillary is slower about taking positions than other candidates? Do they think those positions are routinely fuzzier than those from other candidates? Are they stuck in the 90s and convinced that all Clintons are connivers and liars? Or what?

I don’t understand this. In terms of campaigning and political positioning, Hillary strikes me as a pretty garden variety candidate. Am I wrong?

Original article:

Hillary Clinton: Master Schemer or Garden Variety Pol?

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hillary Clinton: Master Schemer or Garden Variety Pol?

Hillary Clinton Isn’t Ready to Disclose Who’s Funding Her Campaign

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton has been pushing hard to overhaul of the country’s broken campaign finance system. “We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccounted money out of it, once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment,” Clinton said during one of her first official speeches in Iowa last month.

Clinton’s campaign finance rhetoric appears to be aimed at super PACs, the quasi-independent organizations that bolster campaigns by buying ads. But when it comes to the major funders behind her own presidential campaign, the Democratic front-runner has yet to answer questions about how transparent she’s willing to be. When Mother Jones questioned the Clinton camp about whether it will disclose the names and fundraising totals of the key supporters—known as “bundlers”—who raise vast sums of cash, a spokesperson declined to provide an answer, saying only that the campaign was still figuring out its plans.

What exactly are bundlers? Donations to campaigns from individuals are capped at $2,700 for the primary election and $2,700 for the general election (meaning donors can give up to $5,400 to a candidate over the entire cycle). In theory, these restrictions limit the amount of influence that individual donors can exert over a campaign. But bundlers get around these caps by raising tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars from their wealthy friends and colleagues and channeling these massive sums to candidates. Even in an era when a few super-rich donors can give as much money as they please to independent super PACs, bundlers are essential to most presidential bids. Super PACs might be able to fund expensive ad buys with million-dollar donations, but it’s large bundled contributions that allow campaigns to hire staff, conduct polls, and carry out the rest of their day-to-day operations.

Because of the outsized role that bundlers play in paying the bills for would-be presidents, advocates for campaign finance reform have long called for a robust system of disclosure. But under current law, it’s up to each candidate to decide whether the names of these fundraisers will ever become public.

The Clinton campaign is initially asking bundlers to collect $27,000 each (that is, 10 donations at the maximum amount of $2,700). Those who reach this goal will earn the designation of “Hillstarter” and score an invitation to a special campaign confab at the end of May. The campaign refused to say whether it will disclose the identities of these Hillstarters—or whether it plans to release information about bundlers who end up raising far more than $27,000 during what is likely to be a billion-dollar campaign.

Lavishing bundlers with perks is standard practice for presidential campaigns. George W. Bush created tiers of bundlers with hokey names such as “Rangers” and “Pioneers.” In June 2012, Mitt Romney invited over 800 people who had bundled at least $50,000 for his campaign to an exclusive retreat in Utah, where they could hobnob with the candidate and his senior campaign staff. Bundlers may also receive more valuable rewards. A 2011 study by the Center for Public Integrity found that 184 of the 556 publicly named bundlers from Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign had landed administration roles for themselves or their spouses. That figure increased to about 80 percent for the top bundlers who raised more than $500,000.

In most cases, there are no rules mandating that candidates release the names of their bundlers. Federal law does require campaigns to list lobbyists who bundle more than $16,000, but even this modest rule is easy to skirt. Large lobbying firms can divvy up the fundraising among various partners to avoid being listed.

In the absence of legal mandates, it’s up to each campaign to decide whether or not it will reveal its biggest fundraisers. Some candidates choose to disclose some information about bundlers. (Since this disclosure is entirely voluntary, however, there is nothing to stop campaigns from omitting unsavory names.) In 2012, Obama released information on bundlers that was divided into four tiers: those who raised between $50,000 and $100,000; those who raised between $100,000 and $200,000; those who raised between $200,000 and $500,00; and those who raised more than $500,000. Romney, on the other hand, refused to release the names of any bundlers, except for the lobbyist disclosure required by law.

In 2008, Clinton offered minimal information about her bundlers. Donors who bundled more than $100,000 for her campaign earned the title of “HillRaiser,” and their names were released to the public. According to the watchdog group Public Citizen, whose White House For Sale project has tracked bundlers during recent presidential elections, a total of 324 people earned that designation.

But the ’08 Clinton campaign refused to release more specific bundler categories. It remained a mystery which fundraisers just barely crossed the $100,000 threshold, and which ones raised truly massive sums. “‘The problem is that it’s just in large increments, as opposed to an actual number,” says Public Citizen’s Craig Holman. “It needs to be better than this. When all we can say is, ‘At least $100,000,’ it could be $10 million or $20 million, we don’t know. And the individual who is going to bring in millions of dollars is going to be treated differently than someone who just brought in $100,000. We need to know more information.”

Link:  

Hillary Clinton Isn’t Ready to Disclose Who’s Funding Her Campaign

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hillary Clinton Isn’t Ready to Disclose Who’s Funding Her Campaign

Mike Huckabee Has Launched a 2016 Exploratory Committee. Read These 6 Stories About Him Now.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Friday, Mike Huckabee, the Baptist preacher and former Republican governor of Arkansas, let it slip that he recently formed an exploratory committee in anticipation of a potential presidential bid. He followed up by appearing on Bret Baier’s evening Fox News show to announce that… he will soon be announcing whether or not he will run for president.

The 59-year-old has hinted for over a year that he might run in 2016 after he sat out the 2012 race and failed to win the nomination in 2008. Since leaving office in 2007, Huckabee has maintained a high profile, hosting a Fox show for several years and writing books, including the 2015 manifesto God, Guns, Grits, and Gravy.

Huckabee would face tough competition in a field that could draw plenty of social conservatives—think Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry—but he has had some success before, having taken the 2008 Iowa GOP caucuses decisively.

Here’s some of the best of Mother Jones‘ coverage of Mike Huckabee.

His leadership PAC didn’t give much to fellow Republicans, but it gave nearly $400,000 to his family.
Huckabee criticized Hillary Clinton over the email scandal. Maybe he shouldn’t have, considering his administration’s hard drives were destroyed on his way out of office.
He made some serious dough while he was toying with a presidential run.
Could Huckabee beat Rick Santorum in the Duggar Primary?
When he ran in 2008, did Huckabee the candidate shun Huckabee the pastor?

If you need a good chaser after that, read up on the fringe historian beloved by social conservatives, including Huckabee.

See the article here:

Mike Huckabee Has Launched a 2016 Exploratory Committee. Read These 6 Stories About Him Now.

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Mike Huckabee Has Launched a 2016 Exploratory Committee. Read These 6 Stories About Him Now.

Why Hillary Clinton Needs Martin O’Malley to Run for President

Mother Jones

One Democratic source tells me that Hillary Clinton’s camp has sent a clear message to former Gov. Martin O’Malley (D-Md.): Challenge her for the Democratic presidential nomination and you’re dead to us. Another source says that the Clinton crew has sent a different clear message to O’Malley: Feel free to take her on in the primaries; she could use the competition. I don’t know which source is correct. Perhaps both are, for Hillaryland may well be populated by advisers and strategists with different takes on this question. But it does seem clear that Clinton, who finally jumped into the 2016 race with a tweet and video splash on Sunday, could benefit if she is challenged in her party’s primaries by O’Malley or someone else.

There’s about nine months to come before the first voting occurs in the Iowa caucuses—and 19 months until the general election. That’s a long time. Clinton, who is hardly a fresh face, will find it tough not to appear stale to some voters during that stretch. She is already at a super-saturation level of media coverage. There are endless tweets, blog posts, and articles about every aspect of her campaign. All her moves—her logo!—receive inordinate press attention. Though she and her aides insist this race is not about her—it’s about everyday Americans and how to improve their lot—the campaign is likely to be much ado about Clinton: how she campaigns, what she says, what’s her vision, where she goes, how she’s performing, what’s her strategy, what’s up with her husband, her connection with voters, her trustworthiness, her likability, and so on. Her every utterance and move will be dissected everywhere—again and again. (And the various dissections will be dissected.) On the Republican side, all the 2016 wannabes will be directing attention at her, as they each angle to be seen as the candidate best able to obliterate Clinton. Sure, the GOPers will eventually form a circular firing squad—they won’t be able to resist the urge to attack one another—but they will direct many shots at Clinton. The around-the-clock Hillary Bashathon will never end.

It would be tough for any candidate to withstand this degree of hyperscrutiny for such an extended period. Might voters become bored with Clinton, through no fault of her own, before any voting starts? Might her message, whatever its merits, seem tired and worn out by then? If the Democratic half of the 2016 primary story is only about Clinton going through elections and caucuses with preordained results and being compared solely to herself, that will likely not engage undecided voters. What’s exciting or interesting about a cakewalk and no substantial debates over political qualifications and important policy matters?

Clinton needs a foil in the Democratic primaries—someone she can joust with, someone who will expand the narrative, and someone she can beat. Waltzing through one election after another will not boost her commander-in-chief credentials. A fight or, at least, a tussle—even a lopsided one—will give her campaign more of a story to tell, and, presuming she wins the primaries, will position her as, well, a winner, not a candidate who is skating toward the general election on the easy ice of entitlement and inevitability. Barack Obama’s ability to dispatch Clinton in 2008 demonstrated his moxie and his mettle. His glow intensified with each victory. Everyone likes a winner, right? And these battles were great training for the match-up to come against Republican John McCain. Clinton will not face as formidable a primary foe as Obama did. But a face-off against any opponent of consequence is better than a breezy promenade toward the main event.

O’Malley, who’s considering a presidential bid, would make a good sparring partner. He’s a smart guy with sass, but he’s not a slasher who could inflict long-lasting political damage. In fact, the clichéd conventional wisdom about tough primary contests pulling candidates too far toward an ideological extreme and hurting nominees in the general election may not hold true. In 2012, Mitt Romney did veer far to the right to capture the Republican nomination, and McCain also sucked up to conservatives in 2008—and both men were harshly assailed by their party rivals during the nomination phase—but each still had a fighting chance in the general election that came next. Both were undone by errors made in the postprimary period rather than decisions and dustups of the primaries. General election voters have short memories—or don’t bother to pay a lot of attention to the nomination battles. If O’Malley manages to score some points against Clinton, they would probably matter little after the convention.

Clinton’s rival need not be O’Malley. But the choices for this spot are limited. James Webb? Lincoln Chaffee? Bernie Sanders (who’s not a Democrat)? It may be tougher for any of them to engage her in a serious fight. O’Malley, too, is not likely to threaten her path toward that glass ceiling. But at the moment he seems the possible contender with the most oomph.

A primary battle—even a limited one—introduces risk into the equation. It’s not hard to imagine Clinton and her strategists yearning for less uncertainty than more. (What if O’Malleymentum takes off?) And the Clintonites may not have a say in whether O’Malley enters the ring. Yet a primary fight that makes Clinton earn—not inherit—the nomination would cast her in a different role. She’d be a fighter, not a dynastic queen. The press and the public would have something to ponder beyond just Clinton herself. And all politics are relative; candidates usually look better when compared to another candidate rather than to a nonexistent ideal or even themselves. So perhaps Team Hillary should welcome the upstart Marylander into the contest. A slam dunk is more impressive when waged against a competitor, and even the Harlem Globetrotters needed the Washington Generals.

This article is from: 

Why Hillary Clinton Needs Martin O’Malley to Run for President

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Hillary Clinton Needs Martin O’Malley to Run for President

Marco Rubio Is Running for President. Read These 7 Stories About Him Now.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

That makes three: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has told donors that he will mount a presidential bid. He is scheduled to officially announce his candidacy Monday evening in Miami with a speech on the steps of the Freedom Tower, the historic landmark where the US government processed Cuban refugees in the 1960s.

The first-term Florida senator was considered one of his party’s brightest rising stars until a doomed immigration reform push in 2013 eroded his support among conservatives. Rubio has since worked his way back to prominence, casting himself as a leading foreign policy hawk. His candidacy is not a surprise at this point, but it does set up a political soap opera, given that Rubio will be challenging another establishment-minded Florida Republican—Jeb Bush—who was once seen as Rubio’s mentor. Bush’s expected (official) entry into the race will likely diminish Rubio’s chances.

Here are some of the best Mother Jones stories on Rubio.

Meet the billionaire car dealer who could be Rubio’s Sheldon Adelson.
His presidential bid could revive interest in a number of past scandals—some of which have not been resolved.
Rubio was once his party’s leading advocate of immigration reform. Then he retreated.
He used to believe in climate science. What happened?
His ideas on how to beat ISIS are a little odd.
Will Rubio be the candidate of Silicon Valley?
Our original Rubio cheat sheet from 2012, when he was considered a potential Romney running mate.

Source article: 

Marco Rubio Is Running for President. Read These 7 Stories About Him Now.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, Landmark, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Marco Rubio Is Running for President. Read These 7 Stories About Him Now.

Dinesh D’Souza Indicted for Campaign Finance Fraud

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I see via TPM that conservative crackpot Dinesh D’Souza has been indicted for violating federal election laws. But is this real fraud, or the sort of picayune thing that anybody might get entangled in simply for not being an expert in the finicky details of campaign finance regs? Here’s the Reuters report:

According to an indictment made public on Thursday in federal court in Manhattan, D’Souza around August 2012 reimbursed people who he had directed to contribute $20,000 to the candidate’s campaign. The candidate was not named in the indictment.

Hmmm. This would be the real deal. Telling other people to make contributions and then reimbursing them is an obvious no-no, something that D’Souza could hardly plead ignorance about. If this turns out to be true, he’s in trouble.1

1Alternatively, it could be a godsend, something he can milk forever as proof that he’s being hounded by Obama administration thugs determined to shut down their conservative critics.

Continued here: 

Dinesh D’Souza Indicted for Campaign Finance Fraud

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dinesh D’Souza Indicted for Campaign Finance Fraud