Gotta love Shrike, he's pretty much willing to excuse any behavior, statement, or act as long is it's by a member of his team.

The Washington Post could probably publish an email from Hilary to Bill that said, "hey whatever happened to that guy we hired to kill Vince Foster?" and he'd still say that there was nothing to see.

Yeah, these emails thus far are pretty dry, but if you don't at least take issue with the fact that she had a private server and the white house lied about not knowing that she was utilizing that private server then you lose any credibility you might have had.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10622146353071804867804581084390421645776

She's a liar, and what's more she has so much hubris that she doesn't even care that everyone knows it.

7/3/2015 9:52:13 PM

What's the latest on Hillary?

It doesn't really surprise me the secretary of state, who certainly was using ill gotten information from the NSA in her work, would have emails that she wouldn't want scrutinize.

It doesn't seem like they actually have anything ON Hillary, it's just a fishing expedition. It doesn't excuse it, but it's not meaningful to me, unless they can somehow prove some real wrongdoing.

7/3/2015 11:56:15 PM

So far, no smoking gun or any proof of wrongdoing, which is hardly surprising given the fact that they only released a very small portion thus far and they were edited prior to release. It's also entirely possible and maybe even likely that anything damning was deleted or "lost."

I wish that WSJ article wasn't behind a pay wall, I should have copy/pasted a portion.

There's nothing in the emails themselves which is particularly damning, but the way the whole thing was set up, the denials, the lies about who was aware of the private server, the fact that yes confidential information of national security importance was sent back and forth on this unsecured system, etc. all adds up to yet more of Clinton playing by her own set of rules and being dishonest about every aspect of this situation.

7/4/2015 5:35:29 AM

Where was the outrage when bush did it?

Amusing to see dems excited about Hillary when she is just as scummy as bad as bush

7/4/2015 7:36:39 AM

It's amazing how strong the Clinton hate still is. Frivolous and inevitably fruitless witch hunts against that family rival only the Iraq war in money wasted by the GOP. They will never get anything to stick but they just. keep. trying. 11/08/16, can't wait

[Edited on July 4, 2015 at 9:36 AM. Reason : .]

7/4/2015 9:36:14 AM

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/why-wont-hillary-clinton-talk-to-reporters/397745/

7/6/2015 5:18:14 PM

Is Biden gonna run?

7/8/2015 10:50:17 AM

I doubt it. The optics of Obama campaigning for Hillary while Biden is attacking her would be bad for the whole party.

7/8/2015 11:22:15 AM

Don't think we've discussed him, but Webb is in.

7/15/2015 11:13:00 AM

Quote :

"It's amazing how strong the Clinton hate still is. Frivolous and inevitably fruitless witch hunts against that family rival only the Iraq war in money wasted by the GOP. They will never get anything to stick but they just. keep. trying. 11/08/16, can't wait "

Like there aren't a lot of Democrats out there that hate Hillary too. The left of the party completely hated her and her husband when he was president (Nader's strong performance for a third party in 2000 would've never happened without left outrage at Clinton policies, at a more mainstream level this was represented by Bill Bradley's failed bid to defeat Al Gore for the party's nomination that year), and she was pretty hated in the primaries in 2008 by Obama supporters.

As far as Bernie, he's the Democrats' version of Ron Paul 2008. I can see him on a cold day perhaps winning New Hampshire, but come time of South Carolina dear God he would get destroyed. There's no Democratic constituency in that state outside of USC students that'd vote for him. And blacks and Latinos have always been strong Clinton supporters (the Congressional Black Caucus in '08 initially supported Hillary, something no one remembers), so he's not getting any minorities to vote for him...IN DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARIES!

[Edited on July 15, 2015 at 2:30 PM. Reason : .]

7/15/2015 2:24:07 PM

Look I was like, uh, 7 years old when Bill became President so I can't claim to have any personal experience with the politics of that time. But Wikipedia shows the Democrats getting demolished election after election for over a decade before the Clintons came along. Their politics were a necessity of the time and you shouldn't define Hillary by what her husband did as President.

7/15/2015 6:58:10 PM

Have you listened to a speech of hers lately? Oh wait, there's been what, two of them since she announced? Her campaign won't even let her talk because every time she opens up her mouth, things get worse.

She's un-energizing, monotonous, her phony attempts at identifying with a crowd are laughable. How the big D party still sees her as a frontrunner, I haven't a clue.

I say get Bernie Sanders all up in the nomination, so any one of the craptastic candidates the right is putting up can trounce in the election. Shit, even Carson would have a chance up against Sanders, and I think Carson would be a disaster for the country.

7/16/2015 7:57:22 AM

Blacks like all voterrs are pretty retarded. The only reason they arent voting for bernie is because they a have never heard of him or b do not know his policies.

Im what universe would bernies policies not level the playo g foeld for black folk? Hillary is more of the same. WAKE UP AMERICA

7/16/2015 8:13:44 AM

Quote :

"Look I was like, uh, 7 years old when Bill became President so I can't claim to have any personal experience with the politics of that time. But Wikipedia shows the Democrats getting demolished election after election for over a decade before the Clintons came along. Their politics were a necessity of the time and you shouldn't define Hillary by what her husband did as President."

Clinton was supposed to lose in '92. That's the only way a governor of Arkansas with a drawl would've won the party's nomination. All the Democratic Party's bigshots, e.g. Cuomo in New York, were passing on '92 expecting to run in '96 after Bush finished his 2nd term.

7/16/2015 9:05:32 AM

Quote :

"her phony attempts at identifying with a crowd are laughable"

you say that as if it's unique to her

that's pretty much every politician ever

[Edited on July 16, 2015 at 9:45 AM. Reason : .]

7/16/2015 9:45:14 AM

Quote :

"How the big D party still sees her as a frontrunner, I haven't a clue."

You know what a poll is right?

7/16/2015 9:51:37 AM

My point exactly. I don't understand why she's polling like she is. Unless the poll #'s are BS.

7/16/2015 10:47:05 AM

Quote :

"She's un-energizing, monotonous, her phony attempts at identifying with a crowd are laughable. How the big D party still sees her as a frontrunner, I haven't a clue."

As soon as she agreed at the '08 Convention to step aside and become the Secretary of State she's been making herself far above the potential field to scare serious people from running against her and her resources (Bernie Sanders is not a serious person).

Even her time at Secretary of State it seems like she was more about running for President than what the job called for, which Secretary of State is not a position I want a person concerned with electoral politics running. From a P.J. O'Rourke article after Russia invaded Ukraine pretty much stating "how have the morons from the post-Cold War Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations gotten us to this point in international politics?" Good article, read in full: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/28/p-j-o-rourke-orwell-was-right.html

Quote :

"How Did We Manage It That When the Berlin Wall Fell It Fell on Us?… ... Then Came Hillary Clinton Who, as Secretary of State, Traveled to 112 Countries… Which makes for an interesting point of comparison with some of America’s other famous diplomats. William Seward… The Secretary of State under Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson skinned the guy who used to have Putin’s job (Czar Alexander II—he was assassinated). Seward bought Alaska for 2 cents an acre. Plus, he crafted the Lyons-Seward Treaty, joining the U.S and Great Britain in suppressing the international slave trade. Seward never, to my knowledge, went anywhere. He stayed home and got some work done. The Same for John Hay… Secretary of State under Presidents William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt. Without leaving town, he negotiated the end of the Spanish-American War and the treaties making the Panama Canal possible, and he authored the “Open Door Policy” that prevented China from being divvied up by Japan and the European colonial powers. (P.S. His boss Teddy won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing something—making peace between Japan and Russia.) Charles Frances Adams… Lincoln’s ambassador to the Court of St. James almost single-handedly kept Great Britain from allying with the Confederacy during the Civil War. He went to just one country, Great Britain, to do it. And Robert R. Livingston… President Thomas Jefferson’s ambassador to France traveled only to France. He came back with the Louisiana Purchase."

Taking a "Restart" button to Moscow in 2009 was the height of political naivete. Clinton said she wanted relations with Russia to go back to the '90s like they were during her husband's presidency...y'know, when Russia had a drunkard for president and the country was in freefall collapse.

7/16/2015 11:19:04 AM

Quote :

"My point exactly. I don't understand why she's polling like she is. Unless the poll #'s are BS."

Because the #1 goal of the next election for Democrats is cementing Obama's legacy achievements. That means winning the office, and Hillary represents the best shot of that happening. It's almost a near certainty she will win. She's also the only candidate with the financing to run a true 50 state campaign, affecting down ticket races and increasing the chance Democrats can regain ground in all local, state, and federal elections.

By the way, it's the GOP's own crazed rhetoric that's led to this. If we weren't so goddamn sure a GOP President + Congress would repeal Obamacare, reimplement the Bush tax cuts, and flood the Middle East with ground troops, we might be more open to fringe candidates like Bernie.

7/16/2015 11:30:41 AM

You're convinced that Clinton won't flood the Middle East with troops? I'm not.

7/16/2015 12:46:31 PM

I doubt it. We've been arming our Sunni allies to the teeth and Iran's nuclear program has been contained. ISIS will be significantly diminished by the time she's President and she's not nearly hawkish enough to send ground troops into the Syrian meat grinder. Besides that, the ME's geopolitical significance is diminishing with the price of oil and shift to renewable energy. If she sends troops anywhere, it'll be eastern Europe or Asia.

7/16/2015 1:00:24 PM

Haha it's cute that you think Hillary is a sure thing. Cute.

7/16/2015 7:24:13 PM

She is tho.

7/17/2015 4:10:38 AM

It's laughable that you don't think she's hawkish enough to continue our overseas misadventures. She makes anyone not named John McCain look like a dove.

7/17/2015 7:15:11 AM

^

bitch is a neo-con

7/17/2015 8:17:00 AM

So have any of the Democratic candidates been asked by major media outlets about their position on the latest Planned Parenthood undercover video or President Obama's latest effort to fundamentally change the country through HUD's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule? If so, I must have missed the coverage of their responses.

7/19/2015 6:52:36 AM

Bernie drew 11,000 people in the liberal stronghold of Arizona

7/19/2015 8:12:14 AM

Considering the Planned Parenthood video was another James O'Keefe, highly edited hit piece, it's getting the lack of coverage it deserves.

7/19/2015 9:13:27 AM

So that's a no, right? No major media outlet has yet to question any major democratic candidate about their position on the Planned Parenthood video discussing the sale of dead baby parts or about HUD's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule?

7/19/2015 9:52:46 AM

Why would the media ask any candidate who isnt libertarian about a government rule against segregation?

7/19/2015 10:06:12 AM

Your attempt at demagoguery aside, still a no, right? Still no questions from any major media outlet about either issue?

7/19/2015 11:08:14 AM

Your attempt at demagoguery...

lol

7/19/2015 11:54:43 AM

Quote :

" discussing the sale of dead baby parts"

It's incredible that some people are this willfully ignorant.

7/19/2015 12:23:41 PM

Given my level of wilful ignorance, perhaps it would be helpful if you would explain why those words are ignorant instead of simply pointing out my ignorance.

[Edited on July 19, 2015 at 12:54 PM. Reason : ...]

7/19/2015 12:38:31 PM

everyone here already knows that you are happy to live in your Fox News world, no one gives a shit enough about you to correct your ignorance

7/19/2015 1:34:37 PM

Well if anyone does care to point out my ignorance, I'll be hitting refresh every few minutes today while finishing Ted Cruz's new NY Times Bestseller, A Time for Truth.

7/19/2015 2:51:45 PM

Of course the media isnt going to ask questions about issues that are only concerning to a small fringe. Its ignorant for you to make an issue out of something the media isnt wasting candidate time on because most people have already dismissed and adressed it. Not just that but you are insinuating its because of some media bias.

7/20/2015 4:34:26 PM

Maybe the major media outlets are practicing journalism and checking into the story first before covering it.

Novel idea I know...

7/20/2015 4:53:21 PM

So just to clarify, the selling of dead baby parts is a fringe issue? The HUD rule possibly - to people who can't understand the ramifications or simply aren't paying attention, but you said issues plural.

^ Yes, you could be right. Hopefully the major media outlets will finish their thorough review before any actual votes are cast for any of these candidates so the public can be fully informed on their positions.

[Edited on July 20, 2015 at 5:12 PM. Reason : ...]

7/20/2015 5:11:43 PM

Quote :

"the selling of dead baby parts is a fringe issue"

I watched the entire video and heard no mention of a financial transaction to obtain dead baby parts.

7/20/2015 5:34:38 PM

can we get back to talking about Bernie Sanders now

7/20/2015 5:56:09 PM

My last response on this point and I'll leave you all to discuss Bernie Sanders again.

a) If you think the HUD rule is a fringe issue, you trust your elected officials far more than I do. b) The transcript of the entire Planned Parenthood video is online, it's not difficult to find. A few excerpts below for anyone who is interested. Seems like the 2009 recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood - Hillary Clinton - may have an opinion about whether the organization she received an award from should be investigated for selling dead baby parts.

---

Quote :

"PP: It makes a huge difference. I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps. The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is the calvarium, the head is basically the biggest part. Most of the other stuff can come out intact. It’s very rare to have a patient that doesn’t have enough dilation to evacuate all the other parts intact."

Quote :

"Buyer: So yesterday was a clinic day. So for example, what did you procure?"

Quote :

"PP: You know I asked her at the beginning of the day what she wanted, yesterday she wanted, she’s been asking, a lot of people want intact hearts these days, they’re looking for specific nodes. AV nodes, yesterday I was like wow, I didn’t even know, good for them. Yesterday was the first time she said people wanted lungs. And then, like I said, always as many intact livers as possible. People just want—"

Quote :

"PP: Some people want lower extremities too, which, that’s simple. That’s easy. I don’t know what they’re doing with it, I guess if they want muscle."

7/20/2015 9:31:49 PM

you are aware of medical research that is dependent on donated organs, right?

7/20/2015 9:35:07 PM

Quote :

"The transcript of the entire Planned Parenthood video is online, it's not difficult to find. "

Like I said, I've watched the entire video. I don't need a transcript.

Quote :

"A few excerpts below for anyone who is interested..."

Fuck man. If you were even an average anti-abortion partisan hack asshole you could have identified other parts of that conversation that *very* remotely support the ridiculous assertion that PP is actually selling dead baby parts...but the shit you quoted is weak as fuck. Just stop.

[Edited on July 20, 2015 at 11:17 PM. Reason : ^ obviously not]

7/20/2015 11:16:39 PM

you know who the democrats need as their candidate?

a guy whose career was started by the NRA, who is anti-waiting period, and who voted against the brady bill.

that'll solidify the base

[Edited on July 21, 2015 at 10:05 AM. Reason : ,]

7/21/2015 10:05:19 AM

Interesting look at a book draft regarding Silicon Valley's potential influence on the Democratic Party moving into the future. https://medium.com/book-drafts/silicon-valley-s-political-end-game-in-15-charts-a647c6074367

7/22/2015 8:20:29 AM

^^ of the major issues, gun control is routinely considered one of the least important.




The fact that he calls himself a Socialist is what's going to scare Americans away. At least he has the balls to call himself what he is, knowing the perception

7/22/2015 9:16:23 AM

Quote :

"It's the economy, stupid"

[Edited on July 22, 2015 at 10:01 AM. Reason : ^ yup that socialist thing could be an effective beating stick if needed]

7/22/2015 10:00:40 AM

he's described himself as a democratic socialist, but that's a poor description and he doesn't seem to be in favor of replacing capitalism. social democrat is probably a better label.

[Edited on July 22, 2015 at 11:14 AM. Reason : .]

7/22/2015 11:12:14 AM

new poll, currently an outlier, has hillary trailing republicans.

[Edited on July 22, 2015 at 12:52 PM. Reason : ]

7/22/2015 12:52:00 PM