presidentially

nytimes.com
NYT Editorial: Hillary Clinton For President
In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate — our choice, Hillary Clinton — has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.)

In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate — our choice, Hillary Clinton — has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.)

But this endorsement would also be an empty exercise if it merely affirmed the choice of Clinton supporters. We’re aiming instead to persuade those of you who are hesitating to vote for Mrs. Clinton — because you are reluctant to vote for a Democrat, or for another Clinton, or for a candidate who might appear, on the surface, not to offer change from an establishment that seems indifferent and a political system that seems broken.

Running down the other guy won’t suffice to make that argument. The best case for Hillary Clinton cannot be, and is not, that she isn’t Donald Trump.

The best case is, instead, about the challenges this country faces, and Mrs. Clinton’s capacity to rise to them.

The next president will take office with bigoted, tribalist movements and their leaders on the march. In the Middle East and across Asia, in Russia and Eastern Europe, even in Britain and the United States, war, terrorism and the pressures of globalization are eroding democratic values, fraying alliances and challenging the ideals of tolerance and charity.

The 2016 campaign has brought to the surface the despair and rage of poor and middle-class Americans who say their government has done little to ease the burdens that recession, technological change, foreign competition and war have heaped on their families.

Over 40 years in public life, Hillary Clinton has studied these forces and weighed responses to these problems. Our endorsement is rooted in respect for her intellect, experience, toughness and courage over a career of almost continuous public service, often as the first or only woman in the arena.

Mrs. Clinton’s work has been defined more by incremental successes than by moments of transformational change. As a candidate, she has struggled to step back from a pointillist collection of policy proposals to reveal the full pattern of her record. That is a weakness of her campaign, and a perplexing one, for the pattern is clear. It shows a determined leader intent on creating opportunity for struggling Americans at a time of economic upheaval and on ensuring that the United States remains a force for good in an often brutal world.

Similarly, Mrs. Clinton’s occasional missteps, combined with attacks on her trustworthiness, have distorted perceptions of her character. She is one of the most tenacious politicians of her generation, whose willingness to study and correct course is rare in an age of unyielding partisanship. As first lady, she rebounded from professional setbacks and personal trials with astounding resilience. Over eight years in the Senate and four as secretary of state, she built a reputation for grit and bipartisan collaboration. She displayed a command of policy and diplomatic nuance and an ability to listen to constituents and colleagues that are all too exceptional in Washington.

Mrs. Clinton’s record of service to children, women and families has spanned her adult life. One of her boldest acts as first lady was her 1995 speech in Beijing declaring that women’s rights are human rights. After a failed attempt to overhaul the nation’s health care system, she threw her support behind legislation to establish the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which now covers more than eight million lower-income young people. This year, she rallied mothers of gun-violence victims to join her in demanding comprehensive background checks for gun buyers and tighter reins on gun sales.

After opposing driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants during the 2008 campaign, she now vows to push for comprehensive immigration legislation as president and to use executive power to protect law-abiding undocumented people from deportation and cruel detention. Some may dismiss her shift as opportunistic, but we credit her for arriving at the right position.

Mrs. Clinton and her team have produced detailed proposals on crime, policing and race relations, debt-free college and small-business incentives, climate change and affordable broadband. Most of these proposals would benefit from further elaboration on how to pay for them, beyond taxing the wealthiest Americans. They would also depend on passage by Congress.

That means that, to enact her agenda, Mrs. Clinton would need to find common ground with a destabilized Republican Party, whose unifying goal in Congress would be to discredit her. Despite her political scars, she has shown an unusual capacity to reach across the aisle.

When Mrs. Clinton was sworn in as a senator from New York in 2001, Republican leaders warned their caucus not to do anything that might make her look good. Yet as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she earned the respect of Republicans like Senator John McCain with her determination to master intricate military matters.

Her most lasting achievements as a senator include a federal fund for long-term health monitoring of 9/11 first responders, an expansion of military benefits to cover reservists and the National Guard, and a law requiring drug companies to improve the safety of their medications for children.

Below the radar, she fought for money for farmers, hospitals, small businesses and environmental projects. Her vote in favor of the Iraq war is a black mark, but to her credit, she has explained her thinking rather than trying to rewrite that history.

As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton was charged with repairing American credibility after eight years of the Bush administration’s unilateralism. She bears a share of the responsibility for the Obama administration’s foreign-policy failings, notably in Libya. But her achievements are substantial. She led efforts to strengthen sanctions against Iran, which eventually pushed it to the table for talks over its nuclear program, and in 2012, she helped negotiate a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas.

Mrs. Clinton led efforts to renew diplomatic relations with Myanmar, persuading its junta to adopt political reforms. She helped promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an important trade counterweight to China and a key component of the Obama administration’s pivot to Asia. Her election-year reversal on that pact has confused some of her supporters, but her underlying commitment to bolstering trade along with workers’ rights is not in doubt. Mrs. Clinton’s attempt to reset relations with Russia, though far from successful, was a sensible effort to improve interactions with a rivalrous nuclear power.

Mrs. Clinton has shown herself to be a realist who believes America cannot simply withdraw behind oceans and walls, but must engage confidently in the world to protect its interests and be true to its values, which include helping others escape poverty and oppression.

Mrs. Clinton’s husband, Bill Clinton, governed during what now looks like an optimistic and even gentle era. The end of the Cold War and the advance of technology and trade appeared to be awakening the world’s possibilities rather than its demons. Many in the news media, and in the country, and in that administration, were distracted by the scandal du jour — Mr. Clinton’s impeachment — during the very period in which a terrorist threat was growing. We are now living in a world darkened by the realization of that threat and its many consequences.

Mrs. Clinton’s service spans both eras, and she has learned hard lessons from the three presidents she has studied up close. She has also made her own share of mistakes. She has evinced a lamentable penchant for secrecy and made a poor decision to rely on a private email server while at the State Department. That decision deserved scrutiny, and it’s had it. Now, considered alongside the real challenges that will occupy the next president, that email server, which has consumed so much of this campaign, looks like a matter for the help desk. And, viewed against those challenges, Mr. Trump shrinks to his true small-screen, reality-show proportions, as we’ll argue in detail on Monday.

Through war and recession, Americans born since 9/11 have had to grow up fast, and they deserve a grown-up president. A lifetime’s commitment to solving problems in the real world qualifies Hillary Clinton for this job, and the country should put her to work.



h/t: The New York Times Editorial Board

nytimes.com
Hillary Clinton for President
Our endorsement is rooted in respect for her intellect, experience and courage.

The New York Times endorsed Hillary Clinton for President, and what they shared resonates deeply with how I feel about her candidacy as well. Clinton is not without her flaws, nor is she a progressive idealist, but she’s a smart, compassionate, and tenacious political force, and the candidate I will support come November.

Mrs. Clinton’s work has been defined more by incremental successes than by moments of transformational change. As a candidate, she has struggled to step back from a pointillist collection of policy proposals to reveal the full pattern of her record. That is a weakness of her campaign, and a perplexing one, for the pattern is clear. It shows a determined leader intent on creating opportunity for struggling Americans at a time of economic upheaval and on ensuring that the United States remains a force for good in an often brutal world.

politico.com
Trump team builds 'psychological profile' of Clinton for debate
The GOP nominee and his team are taking a more sophisticated approach to debate preparation than previously known. By Kenneth P. Vogel, Ben Schreckinger, Alex Isenstadt and Darren Samuelsohn

Donald Trump’s team has created a detailed analysis of Hillary Clinton’s debate style — including her body language and verbal tics — with the goal of helping the GOP nominee exploit weaknesses during Monday’s debate, according to three sources familiar with Trump’s preparations.

The “psychological profile,” as the analysis is being called, is based on a statistical analysis of videos from 16 years’ worth of Clinton’s debates, dating back to her 2000 campaign for Senate in New York, according to the operatives. They said it was assembled with assistance from a political data firm called Cambridge Analytica that specializes in “psychographic” modeling of voters and donors, and that Trump’s top advisers have been pleased with the results.

The advisers believe that the profile proves that Clinton has significant weaknesses and that they have identified her ‘tells’ — words, phrases or gestures she uses when she’s unsure of an answer, or is trying to deflect her way out of an uncomfortable question, according to the operatives familiar with the preparations.

Read more here

thenewcivilrightsmovement.com
Bruce Springsteen: 'Embarrassment' Donald Trump Is a 'Moron'
'The Republic Is Under Siege by a Moron, Basically'

‘The Republic Is Under Siege by a Moron, Basically’

Rock icon Bruce Springsteen is calling Donald Trump a “moron,” an “embarrassment” to America, and lamenting his “very dangerous ideas” supporting “white nationalism and the alt-right movement.”

“The republic is under siege by a moron, basically. Without overstating it, it’s a tragedy for our democracy,” Springsteen tells Rolling Stone magazine.

“The ideas he’s moving to the mainstream are all very dangerous ideas – white nationalism and the alt-right movement. The outrageous things that he’s done – not immediately disavowing David Duke? These are things that are obviously beyond the pale for any previous political candidate. It would sink your candidacy immediately.”

The 20-time Grammy Award winner chastised the Republican nominee’s simplistic attempts to solve complex issues, like deindustrialization and globalization.

“I believe that there’s a price being paid for not addressing the real cost of the deindustrialization and globalization that has occurred in the United States for the past 35, 40 years and how it’s deeply affected people’s lives and deeply hurt people to where they want someone who says they have a solution. And Trump’s thing is simple answers to very complex problems. Fallacious answers to very complex problems.”

Springsteen, who celebrated his 67th birthday Friday, also weighed in on Hillary Clinton, saying, “I like Hillary. I think she would be a very, very good president.”

Happy birthday to the one and only, Bruce @Springsteen. Photograph by Annie Leibovitz. pic.twitter.com/HJHkSQCK4q

— VANITY FAIR (@VanityFair)

September 23, 2016

In a separate interview with “Skavlan,” a talk show that airs in Norway and Sweden, Springsteen said of Trump’s candidacy: “The absurdity is beyond cartoon-like. But he’s gotten close enough [to the White House] so it can make you nervous.”

“I don’t think he’s going to win, but even him running is a great embarrassment if you’re an American,” he added.

Springsteen also attributed Trump’s rise to people who are “uncomfortable with the ‘browning’ of America.”

“We have certain problems in the United States – tremendous inequality of wealth distribution. That makes for ripe ground for demagoguery,” Springsteen said.

“He has a very simple answer to all these very, very complex problems.”

Next week Springsteen’s memoir, Born to Run will be released.



Bruce Springsteen FTW.

h/t: David Badash at The New Civil Rights Movement

September 23, 1952: Richard Nixon Delivers Weird Checkers Speech

On September 23, 1952, Republican Vice Presidential candidate Richard Nixon gave a weird, long speech on national television about his dog Checkers.

Officially, Senator Nixon was denying his involvement a campaign finance scandal, but people mostly seemed to remember the part about his dog.

In mid-September, a New York Post story alleged that Nixon used campaign contributions to pay for personal expenses, and in return provided political favors to donors. 

Nixon’s use of campaign funds wasn’t technically illegal, but Nixon frequently campaigned on promoting ethics and transparency in government. Soon, several Democrats and some Republicans called for Nixon’s removal from the Republican presidential ticket.

On September 23, Nixon addressed the issue in a 30-minute speech on NBC. The airtime cost the Republican National Committee $75,000. In the speech, Nixon admitted to accepting the funds. However, Nixon also attacked the campaign funds of his opponents, denied providing favors to donors, and attempted to spin his actions as an attempt to save taxpayers’ money. 

According to Nixon:

“I am sure that you have read the charges, and you have heard it, that I, Senator Nixon, took $18,000 from a group of my supporters.

Now, was that wrong? And let me say that it was wrong. I am saying it, incidentally, that it was wrong, just not illegal, because it isn’t a question of whether it was legal or illegal, that isn’t enough. The question is, was it morally wrong. I say that it was morally wrong – if any of that $18,000 went to Senator Nixon, for my personal use. I say that it was morally wrong if it was secretly given and secretly handled.

And I say that it was morally wrong if any of the contributors got special favors for the contributions that they made.

And to answer those questions let me say this: not a cent of the $18,000 or any other money of that type ever went to me for my personal use. Every penny of it was used to pay for political expenses that I did not think should be charged to the taxpayers of the United States.”

After detailing his financial history and personal belongings, Nixon promised that he would never return the family dog Checkers, a gift from a supporter. According to Nixon

“A man down in Texas heard Pat on the radio mention the fact that our two youngsters would like to have a dog. And, believe it or not, the day before we left on this campaign trip we got a message from Union Station in Baltimore saying they had a package for us. We went down to get it. You know what it was?It was a little cocker spaniel dog in a crate that he’d sent all the way from Texas. Black and white spotted. And our little girl—Tricia, the 6-year-old—named it Checkers. And you know, the kids, like all kids, love the dog and I just want to say this right now, that regardless of what they say about it, we’re gonna keep it.”

The speech was watched by an estimated 60 million people, and the term “Checkers speech” became synonymous with an emotional speech by a politician.

Ike showed the same uneasiness about displaying his work later in life. In 1967, New York’s Gallery of Modern Art (now defunct) hosted an exhibition of his works. Attending the show, the former president remarked that he wished he had burned many of the paintings.
—  From Dwight D. Eisenhower’s section in “Presidential Doodles”
To the Sanders fans pissed about Bernie endorsing Hillary

You do realize why he is doing this right?

He’s consistently said again and again after the primaries that his #1 goal is to: STOP DONALD TRUMP FROM BECOMING PRESIDENT.

So, with that goal in mind, it would be an absolute fuckton of a disaster if Bernie were to run third-party or begged his supporters to vote for him write-in, you know why? Because it would split the Democratic vote up in half.
And because of that this would give them way less votes in order to beat Trump, and because of that Trump would lead in national votes in most states, and thus lead in the electoral vote, making him president.

Don’t believe me? Look at the 1912, 1968 and 2000 elections and tell me I’m wrong.

Bernie knows this too, that’s why he’s urging his supporters to vote for Hillary. He wants the Democrats united so Trump will be defeated.

He’s not “selling out”, he’s doing this so no supporter of his will either vote Trump or abstain from voting, and to make sure America continues progress. Progress that, unfortunately will be thwarted or reversed with Trump as president.

The political revolution fails if Trump is elected.

the people that are pissed @ bernie and screaming “never hillary” and “sell out” n want to vote green party are gonna get trump elected

ask yourself this: “do i want trump to be president?”

no?

vote hillary

bernie endorsed her so /the democratic party isnt split up/

his entire campaign was to beat trump, and lets be honest he never could have beat someone with such huge name recognition and predetermined support

do i like hillary? no. do i prefer her over trump? fuck yes i do

and if you cant see why bernie endorsed her and just scream at him more about how he betrayed you, you’re immature. plain and simple. by being bitter and voting jill bc of spite youre voting for a trump presidency.

WHAT THIS MEANS:

  • 34 Senate seats are up for election this year.
  • All 435 House of Representative seats are up for election this year.
  • A total of 469 seats in the US Congress is up for election in November 8, 2016.
  • In order to TAKE BACK the chamber, Democrats need to gain 5 seats.
  • In order to FLIP the chamber, the Democrats need to gain 30 seats. 
  • Democrats only have 10 seats to defend while Republicans have 24.
  • Confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice requires 60 votes in the Senate
  • Should Democrats fail to retake the Senate in 2016, it is unlikely that they will get another opportunity until at least 2020.

It’s incredibly important that we place attention not only to the presidential candidates, but to the Senators and Representatives that are up for election this year. 

For more info about who’s running, please check this website: https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Congress_elections,_2016