Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Thu May 22, 2014, 01:34 PM
Number of posts: 31,106

About Me

Working to keep the agenda of President Obama forever. Michelle, Kamala, Cory, Deval, Eric, Elizabeth, Sheryl, Cecile, Elijah,John Lewis, Dr King, LBJ. And a woman shall lead us. "Doesn't matter I I'm not enough, for the future or the things to come"(C)EG)."There's a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in"(c)Leonard Cohen, anthem

Journal Archives

I predict the anti-Hillary media & opponents won't let the fake scandals disappear anytime soon

Because the McCarthy/Nixon like hearing in the house and the media haven't let a fake scandal just disappear
and the timing, of course, coming right in election season is oh so perfect that I just betchabygolly that
they will keep going on right through the entire season

Of course, the public don't care, Hillary leads in 48 or 49 out of 50 states, and every single moment
spent on Hillary means a moment less on everyone else

Donald Trump seems to be having the same thing as does Presumed Republican Nominee Jeb Bush

Whereas all the others seem to be diminishing in the polls.
Isn't Rand now at 3% and falling into Jim Gilmore and George Pataki area?
(And whilst one article said MR would be rising, he is now mired at 4% and the Wisconsin dude is around that same plateau).

Yes I know in today's mathematics, 17 is higher than 50

but not only will I take Manhattan, Queens and the Bronx, I will take the higher number rather than the lower

Even 30 is still lower than 49.

Or has mathematics changed???

How about a poll-(write your answer in the replies, no actual poll as there are too many dates to fit)

When will Hillary start calling herself "THE COMEBACK KID" and how many times will Hillary be called that in the media, where, once she is an underdog, the press will then still not flock to her.

You know in retrospect, the original Comeback Kid, look how beautiful he is.
When optics mean everything, wow, what an optic.
Posted by graham4anything4HC45 | Mon Aug 17, 2015, 07:45 AM (35 replies) updated main page August 14, 2015

Way to many paragraphs, although I think the vote-master (c) at allows a full
posting if he is given credit, but for now, go to the link

today he has
a chart showing the similiarity (though not reasons) of Trump and Sanders

and talks about in the second half Ted Cruz and his big organization in the south for Super Tuesday,
even if he don't win the first 4
(c)the votemaster

Item Sanders Trump
Draws big crowds ✓ ✓
Good poll numbers ✓ ✓
Supporters are very intense ✓ ✓
Angry with the state of the union ✓ ✓
Opposes immigration ✓ ✓
Doesn't like China ✓ ✓
Opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership ✓ ✓
Opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement ✓ ✓
Pulling his party away from the center ✓ ✓
Regarded as a joke by Serious People ✓ ✓
Mostly talking to white people ✓ ✓
Not all that popular with Latinos ✓ ✓
Disliked by his party's pooh-bahs ✓ ✓
Says what he thinks is the unvarnished truth ✓ ✓
Can't be bribed by party donors ✓ ✓
Not a big fan of Megyn Kelly ✓ ✓
Born in New York City ✓ ✓
Son of an immigrant parent ✓ ✓
Avoided serving in Vietnam ✓ ✓
Been married multiple times ✓ ✓
No chance at becoming President ✓ ✓
Doesn't care if he doesn't become President ✓ ✓
Would refuse an offer to be the other one's Veep ✓ ✓
Posted by graham4anything4HC45 | Fri Aug 14, 2015, 11:23 AM (7 replies)

A big welcome back to the votemaster at one of my favorite political sites

and not a bad forecaster either.
With some of the best graphics.
If the past is any indication, he probably won't update daily until early next year
the figures showing at moment are from the final 2012 tallies.
When you move over each state, it shows the results of the last 6 elections in that state
which includes Bill Clinton's totals.
Posted by graham4anything4HC45 | Tue Aug 11, 2015, 08:31 PM (1 replies)

One can't abbreviate a # as that loses purpose of a #. It's #blacklivesmatter

If this were the 1960s, then possibly like

SDS was the title abbreviated of the Tom Hayden and Mark Rudd's group (I idolized Mark back then)
today it would be #studentsdemocraticsociety or #sds
the SDS had many followers in his led group at Columbia
Bernie Sanders was one of the followers also in the group

By the way, speaking of crowds, the #sds had about a million students in the protest of 1968.
Not 5,000 not 10,000 not 20,000, that is ONE MILLION STUDENTS

it's funny, today followers are someone on facebook (and organization created by some people that make
zucky billions and all those people that hate being spied on, give out all their info and pictures on a site
that stockpiles that info and creates data bases based on it.

a moment in the history of protest in the USA

where protesters like (like, there is another modern word that means something different than it used to)
#PaulRevere in the #americanrevolution1765
much like now the #democraticparty is hoping
turns the #republicanparty
into the
like in the older days

in #blacklivesmatter the spirit of #BernieSanders being in the #sds is being revived

Which after all, is what #berniesanders has called for in the first place isn't it?

Even back then, he was part of (but not in leadership), a group which had the word DEMOCRATIC in it.

I bet #benfranklin would be on the side of #blacklivesmatter and a good spirited #presidentialrace2016
where he would be, like #g4a himself, joyful at voting for either #berniesanders or #hillaryclinton
instead of
#jebbush or #donaldtrump (who hopefully both will be on the ballot in Nov. 2016
#democraticparty wins a #530tozero EV count

I find it inspiring that the youth has been inspired again.
From sea to shining sea, black and white together like in the 1960s protests by Dr. King, in protest against Citizen United, Rightwing Justices, and against people being killed in the streets.

The spirit of Allard Lowenstein, Harry Chapin, Bobby Kennedy, John V. Lindsay, Eleanor Roosevelt lives on in Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. May the Democratic Party win and win big.

and in a Karma Connection-
What is interesting is the #SDS has been revived back in 2006, and one of the causes of the SDS
these days is in support of the Dream Act. Especially in Texas.

from wiki-
In early March 2007, SDS members and allies in Tacoma, Washington led a blockade of the Port of Tacoma, where the US military was loading Stryker vehicles onto ships to be transported to Iraq. After confrontations every night for a week, the police broke the human blockade through the use of rubber bullets and pepper spray.

On March 12, 2007, one week before the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, the New School chapter of SDS held a Campus Moratorium against the Iraq War. Students left classes and proceeded down 5th Avenue to the Chambers Street military recruitment center where they met with the Pace University chapter of SDS. The students entered the Recruitment Center, barricaded the door and held a nonviolent sit-in, effectively closing the recruitment center for about two hours. Twenty members of SDS were arrested and charged with criminal trespassing, a misdemeanor.

On March 17, 2007, SDS groups from across the country met and participated in the March on the Pentagon, in which parts of the SDS contingent along with allies occupied a bridge near The Pentagon. Five demonstrators were arrested.

The University of North Texas and several other chapters opened. In 2008, the University of Houston opened a chapter and added to the efforts of immigrant rights actions that Texas Grassroots Leadership had begun in 2006, holding many protests centered around detention centers in Texas, particularly the family detention center T. Don Hutto that incarcerated immigrant mothers with children in Taylor, the center in Raymondville and Houston's Processing Center who's in contract with ICE. These efforts across Texas saw a big win when the T. Don Hutto detention center changed its policies and stopped incarcerating children in late 2009. SDS at the University of Houston in Houston, Texas has continued the protests of these detention centers and plans for more in 2010. New efforts in Texas SDS chapters are being made to support the DREAM Act, as well as 2010's May Day.

In March 2010, members of the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee's chapter of SDS staged a protest outside the Chancellor's building. The event, designed to protest rising tuition costs, was met with a police presence. Police began using pepper spray, and arrested sixteen members of the protest, including both SDS members and allied organizations on campus through the Education Rights Campaign.

On August 19, 2012, Occupy Colleges officially merged with SDS

So it would seem like two separate generations, 50 years apart, merged in Seattle the other day.

(almost reminiscent of an episode of the Twilight Zone where a man, tired of all that is going on, goes back to the
town of his youth and meets up with himself - one middle aged, one a kid, in the same place at the same time.)

Almost psychedelic

it takes me back

I root on #BernieSanders, #HillaryClinton #blacklivesmatter
Why can't one be positive that there are all 3

The most interesting thing in the conspiracy theories that started the last few days is,
it dawns on me, that this reeks of an almost Nixonian way of stopping protests and stopping the Democratic party straight out of the 1960s. Lee Atwater must be proud. (and Lee's protégée Karl Rove and Roger "Man what a tan" Stone (just in the news two days ago resigning from the campaign of Donald Trump), it's just
their MO.

anyone got any 'rooms?

lastly why is # called a hashtag and not a numbersign?

Posted by graham4anything4HC45 | Mon Aug 10, 2015, 06:08 AM (1 replies)

Bernie Sanders will vote WITH president Obama/John Kerry & multi nation peace plan (for peace)

This is really cool.Goes without saying on this issue, Bernie's vote is the single most important vote in the Democratic party, does my heart proud.
Bernie, the darling of the Democratic party siding with President Obama, Joe Biden, John Kerry,
Kirsten Gillibrand and enough Democratic team mates to insure that they have the votes so if President
Obama has to veto, it cannot be overridden.

Let peace and freedom reign forever.
from Bernie Sanders own website-
On the Issues ‘I Will Support It,’ Sanders Says of Iran Nuclear Pact
WASHINGTON – After a Friday afternoon discussion with President Barack Obama, Sen. Bernie Sanders said he supports an agreement with Iran intended to prevent Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon.

Sanders announced his stand on the nuclear agreement during an interview to air Sunday on CBS News’ “Face the Nation.” He told the host, John Dickerson, that the United States should pursue the diplomatic solution to stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and “make sure that we achieve that goal of Iran not having a nuclear weapon without going to war.”

The Senate is expected to vote when Congress reconvenes in September on a resolution of disapproval designed to block the agreement forged by the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia and Iran. The resolution is expected to pass in the Republican-controlled House and Senate but White House officials are trying to round up enough support to block a veto.

In a separate interview with The New York Times, Sanders said his talk with the president solidified his support for the agreement. “I had some questions that I addressed to the president, and he responded. The answers that he gave me helped me reach the final conclusion.”
Posted by graham4anything4HC45 | Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:45 AM (21 replies)

Complete Letter to NY Times from the official Hillary Clinton for President Website

This is from the official Hillary Clinton for President Website, in full.

©2015 Hillary for America
Letter to the New York Times’ Dean Baquet

Dean Baquet
Executive Editor
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, New York

July 28, 2015

Dear Mr. Baquet:

I am writing to officially register our campaign’s grave concern with the Times' publication of an inaccurate report related to Hillary Clinton and her email use.

I appreciate the fact that both you and the Public Editor have sought to publicly explain how this error could have been made. But we remain perplexed by the Times' slowness to acknowledge its errors after the fact, and some of the shaky justifications that Times' editors have made. We feel it important to outline these concerns with you directly so that they may be properly addressed and so our campaign can continue to have a productive working relationship with the Times.

I feel obliged to put into context just how egregious an error this story was. The New York Times is arguably the most important news outlet in the world and it rushed to put an erroneous story on the front page charging that a major candidate for President of the United States was the target of a criminal referral to federal law enforcement. Literally hundreds of outlets followed your story, creating a firestorm that had a deep impact that cannot be unwound. This problem was compounded by the fact that the Times took an inexplicable, let alone indefensible, delay in correcting the story and removing "criminal" from the headline and text of the story.

To review the facts, as the Times itself has acknowledged through multiple corrections, the paper's reporting was false in several key respects: first, contrary to what the Times stated, Mrs. Clinton is not the target of a criminal referral made by the State Department’s and Intelligence Community's Inspectors General, and second, the referral in question was not of a criminal nature at all.

Just as disturbing as the errors themselves is the Times' apparent abandonment of standard journalistic practices in the course of its reporting on this story.

First, the seriousness of the allegations that the Times rushed to report last Thursday evening demanded far more care and due diligence than the Times exhibited prior to this article's publication.

The Times' readers rightfully expect the paper to adhere to the most rigorous journalistic standards. To state the obvious, it is hard to imagine a situation more fitting for those standards to be applied than when a newspaper is preparing to allege that a major party candidate for President of the United States is the target of a criminal referral received by federal law enforcement.

This allegation, however, was reported hastily and without affording the campaign adequate opportunity to respond. It was not even mentioned by your reporter when our campaign was first contacted late Thursday afternoon. Initially, it was stated as reporting only on a memo – provided to Congress by the Inspectors General from the State Department and Intelligence Community – that raised the possibility of classified material traversing Secretary Clinton's email system. This memo — which was subsequently released publicly — did not reference a criminal referral at all. It was not until late Thursday night – at 8:36 pm – that your paper hurriedly followed up with our staff to explain that it had received a separate tip that the Inspectors General had additionally made a criminal referral to the Justice Department concerning Clinton's email use. Our staff indicated that we had no knowledge of any such referral – understandably, of course, since none actually existed – and further indicated that, for a variety of reasons, the reporter's allegation seemed implausible. Our campaign declined any immediate comment, but asked for additional time to attempt to investigate the allegation raised. In response, it was indicated that the campaign "had time," suggesting the publication of the report was not imminent.

Despite the late hour, our campaign quickly conferred and confirmed that we had no knowledge whatsoever of any criminal referral involving the Secretary. At 10:36 pm, our staff attempted to reach your reporters on the phone to reiterate this fact and ensure the paper would not be going forward with any such report. There was no answer. At 10:54 pm, our staff again attempted calling. Again, no answer. Minutes later, we received a call back. We sought to confirm that no story was imminent and were shocked at the reply: the story had just published on the Times' website.

This was, to put it mildly, an egregious breach of the process that should occur when a major newspaper like the Times is pursuing a story of this magnitude. Not only did the Times fail to engage in a proper discussion with the campaign ahead of publication; given the exceedingly short window of time between when the Times received the tip and rushed to publish, it hardly seems possible that the Times conducted sufficient deliberations within its own ranks before going ahead with the story.

Second, in its rush to publish what it clearly viewed as a major scoop, the Times relied on questionable sourcing and went ahead without bothering to seek corroborating evidence that could have supported its allegation.

In our conversations with the Times reporters, it was clear that they had not personally reviewed the IG's referral that they falsely described as both criminal and focused on Hillary Clinton. Instead, they relied on unnamed sources that characterized the referral as such. However, it is not at all clear that those sources had directly seen the referral, either. This should have represented too many "degrees of separation" for any newspaper to consider it reliable sourcing, least of all The New York Times.

Times' editors have attempted to explain these errors by claiming the fault for the misreporting resided with a Justice Department official whom other news outlets cited as confirming the Times' report after the fact. This suggestion does not add up. It is our understanding that this Justice Department official was not the original source of the Times' tip. Moreover, notwithstanding the official's inaccurate characterization of the referral as criminal in nature, this official does not appear to have told the Times that Mrs. Clinton was the target of that referral, as the paper falsely reported in its original story.

This raises the question of what other sources the Times may have relied on for its initial report. It clearly was not either of the referring officials – that is, the Inspectors General of either the State Department or intelligence agencies – since the Times' sources apparently lacked firsthand knowledge of the referral documents. It also seems unlikely the source could have been anyone affiliated with those offices, as it defies logic that anyone so closely involved could have so severely garbled the description of the referral.

Of course, the identity of the Times' sources would be deserving of far less scrutiny if the underlying information had been confirmed as true. However, the Times appears to have performed little, if any, work to corroborate the accuracy of its sources' characterizations of the IG's referral. Key details went uninvestigated in the Times' race to publish these erroneous allegations against Mrs. Clinton. For instance, high in the Times' initial story, the reporters acknowledged they had no knowledge of whether or not the documents that the Times claimed were mishandled by Mrs. Clinton contained any classified markings. In Mrs. Clinton's case, none of the emails at issue were marked. This fact was quickly acknowledged by the IC inspector general’s office within hours of the Times' report, but it was somehow left unaddressed in the initial story.

Even after the Times' reporting was revealed to be false, the Times incomprehensibly delayed the issuance of a full and true correction.

Our campaign first sought changes from the Times as soon as the initial story was published. Recognizing the implausibility that Mrs. Clinton herself could be the subject of any criminal probe, we immediately challenged the story's opening line, which said the referral sought an investigation into Mrs. Clinton specifically for the mishandling of classified materials. In response, the Times' reporters admitted that they themselves had never seen the IG's referral, and so acknowledged the possibility that the paper was overstating what it directly knew when it portrayed the potential investigation as centering on Mrs. Clinton. It corrected the lead sentence accordingly.

The speed with which the Times conceded that it could not defend its lead citing Mrs. Clinton as the referral's target raises questions about what inspired its confidence in the first place to frame the story that way. More importantly, the Times' change was not denoted in the form of a correction. Rather, it was performed quietly, overnight, without any accompanying note to readers. This was troubling in its lack of transparency and risks causing the Times to appear like it is trying to whitewash its misreporting. A correction should have been posted promptly that night.

Regardless, even after this change, a second error remained in the story: the characterization of the referral as criminal at all. By Friday morning, multiple members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (who had been briefed by the Inspectors General) challenged this portrayal—and ultimately, so did the Department of Justice itself. Only then did the Times finally print a correction acknowledging its misstatement of the nature of the referral to the Justice Department.

Of course, the correction, coming as it did on a Friday afternoon, was destined to reach a fraction of those who read the Times' original, erroneous report. As the Huffington Post observed:

"…it's unlikely that the same audience will see the updated version unless the paper were to send out a second breaking news email with its latest revisions. The Clinton story also appeared the front page of Friday's print edition."

Most maddening of all, even after the correction fixed the description of the referral within the story, a headline remained on the front page of the Times' website that read, “Criminal Inquiry is Sought in Clinton Email Account." It was not until even later in the evening that the word "criminal" was finally dropped from the headline and an updated correction was issued to the story. The lateness of this second correction, however, prevented it from appearing in the paper the following morning. We simply do not understand how that was allowed to occur.

Lastly, the Times' official explanations for the misreporting is profoundly unsettling.

In a statement to the Times' public editor, you said that the errors in the Times' story Thursday night were "unavoidable." This is hard to accept. As noted above, the Justice Department official that incorrectly confirmed the Times' initial reports for other outlets does not appear to have been the initial source for the Times. Moreover, it is precisely because some individuals may provide erroneous information that it is important for the Times to sift the good information from the bad, and where there is doubt, insist on additional evidence. The Times was under no obligation to go forward on a story containing such explosive allegations coming only from sources who refused to be named. If nothing else, the Times could have allowed the campaign more time to understand the allegation being engaged. Unfortunately, the Times chose to take none of these steps.

In closing, I wish to emphasize our genuine wish to have a constructive relationship with The New York Times. But we also are extremely troubled by the events that went into this erroneous report, and will be looking forward to discussing our concerns related to this incident so we can have confidence that it is not repeated in the future.


Jennifer Palmieri
Communications Director
Hillary for America

(note-this is from candidates website itself and accredited as such to be passed on for as many as possible
to see)
Two recent complete messages from Bernie Sanders have been published in their entirety here on the board)
Posted by graham4anything4HC45 | Sat Aug 1, 2015, 06:52 AM (12 replies)
Go to Page: 1