Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Saturday, February 16, 2019

The 2016 presidential primary situation has media types in a bit of tizzy because it doesn’t seem to echo their favorite cliché: Democrats fall in love, and Republicans fall in line.

With about a year and a half until the election, Republicans are only getting in line to run for president, with Ohio’s John Kasich and Michigan’s Rick Snyder now edging toward joining more than a dozen grasping, preening, bumbling GOP candidates in telling Clinton roast jokes that Jay Leno would have rejected in 1998. (STYLE GUIDE TIP: 14 Republican candidates for president shall be known as an “embarrassment.”)

Meanwhile, the political press refuses to believe that the reason Hillary Clinton has cleared the field of her strongest competitors and is holding a presidential incumbent-like lead over the others could be that Democrats actually are quite fond of her. Possibly even “in love.”

The woman who would likely have been the 2008 Democratic nominee had she not faced the extraordinary political talent and ninja-like caucus-targeting strategy of the Obama campaign has skipped exploratory theatrics — and launched a campaign that makes more news with its lunch orders than most Republicans make by announcing their candidacy or threatening to bomb Iran.

And though she was blasted for not including an “issues” page on the website for the launch of her campaign last Sunday, Clinton has checked off an array of stands this week that put her directly in line with the progressive mainstream. She came out for a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United, backed driver’s licenses for the undocumented, backed a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, supported the president’s action to delay deportations of those brought here as children and family members of citizens, and — perhaps, most importantly — named Gary Gensler, the “scourge of the big banks,” as her campaign’s chief financial officer.

Now these actions and even her support for the Iran nuclear negotiations will probably not be enough to assuage liberal critics who still fault Clinton for her early support of the Iraq War and PATRIOT Act. For those critics, the numerous progressive victories of Bill Clinton’s administration — reversing trickle-down economics while passing the Motor Voter Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, the Children’s Health Insurance Program — are marred by its triangulating, not-progressive approach to the drug war, welfare reform, same-sex marriage, and deregulation of financial markets. For this 19 or so percent of the party, there is likely nothing she can do, barring going back in time and reversing these policies or never marrying her husband, will ever win them over.

But Clinton faces a larger challenge when it comes to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The labor movement is summoning all its power to stop Congress from granting the president the “fast track” negotiation power he wants, which will make the already-secretive process even more disconnected from the public. Republicans’ sudden willingness to grant a president they often accuse of tyranny more executive power, worries the left, which counts NAFTA as one of the Clinton administration and the American economy’s worst open sores.

Last Friday, Clinton’s spokesman laid down a few careful markers on the TPP that left room for the candidate to be attacked from the left. And she will surely be forced to take a stand on the negotiations soon.

On most every issue that matters, Clinton has aligned herself with Obama. Defending his legacy on health care, climate change, and LGBTQ rights, along with the prospect that the next president could appoint up to four Supreme Court Justices, helped to lay the foundation for massive Democratic support for her candidacy. Whether she ends up supporting him or opposing him on the TPP, however, she will pay a political cost.

It would be nearly unprecedented for Mrs. Clinton to conquer the primaries without any serious opposition. But until or unless a viable opponent arises, most of the debate that happens in a primary will take place inside her campaign. Even if they cannot win on every issue, progressives can still influence that process by making clear, realistic demands. If they’re loud enough, Clinton will be forced to fight for their approval.

Here are five popular progressive policies that Clinton could support to signal that both she and progressives can win together.

1. A clear vision for sustaining and continuing financial reform.
In a short piece for Time, Mrs. Clinton praised Elizabeth Warren for keeping the feet of the powerful (including “presidential aspirants”) to the fire. The senior senator from Massachusetts would be Clinton’s most serious primary competition. But Warren appears much more interested in influencing the debate from the Senate. Her four-step plan to secure and continue the work of financial reform intends to flip the script on Republicans, arguing that to allow the big banks to write their own rules is fundamentally anti-market. Clinton’s embrace of Gary Gensler cheered reformers. But those who are worried by Wall Street’s unfettered embrace of another Clinton candidacy need a checklist of policies that back up the rhetoric obviously designed to reassure them. She also needs to remind them that any Republican will roll back the achievements of Dodd-Frank, and again leave America vulnerable to the kind of financial shock that cost us trillions in wealth and millions of jobs.

2. Champion preserving and strengthening Social Security.
Clinton says she wants to be a champion of working people—and they really need a champion when it comes to protecting Social Security. Chris Christie decided that he’s so unpopular that he can risk running for the GOP nomination by attacking the most popular thing the government does: provide a humane retirement for all Americans. His plan punishes the most vulnerable by raising the retirement age and punishes middle-class families who have planned for their retirement with a massive tax increase. Jeb Bush hopped on board, agreeing that we should raise the retirement age.

There is a real risk that attacking this fundamental achievement of the New Deal will become politically acceptable.

As a progressive champion, Clinton should stare down this challenge by guaranteeing that she will preserve the benefits of Social Security as is. President Obama reportedly was willing to raise the retirement age and back a “chained CPI” method of inflation adjustments that would shrink benefits. Clinton could get to Obama’s left and embrace a position that has been backed by three-fourths of Americans, simply by saying she will preserve Social Security forever by raising the cap on payroll tax and keeping that cap tied to inflation. And she would thrill progressives by taking a step further to call for expanding the program for those who need it most.

This issue would also give Clinton an easy rebuttal to questions about her age: “So Republicans think I’m too old to be president but not old enough for Social Security.”

3. A plan to save or improve Obamacare with a role for a public option.
The Supreme Court may do Democrats a huge favor — and the American people a huge disservice — by gutting the tax breaks in the law. Suddenly the benefits of the law to the middle class will be extremely clear. Running on restoration of those tax breaks, which drive down the premiums of all Americans, will be simple for Clinton. But it won’t be enough. Obamacare is the most successful expansion of government since Medicare, bringing coverage to over 11 million Americans while the predicted costs of health spending have been cut by $2.4 trillion. But our system was so screwed, one law could never fix it.

The most pressing problem for the American economy is the lack of wage growth, made worse by the rising cost of medical care. Obamacare didn’t reverse the trend of high deductibles siphoning away wage gains from families. There are a lot of little fixes that need to be made to the law, but the biggest one needs to be a hedge against high medical costs. The law already has provisions for a “basic plan,” which allows states to start a sort of public option for Americans who earn less than twice the poverty level. New York just became the second state to do this. A national basic plan or public option should be available to all residents in any state where insurers don’t set out-of-pocket costs below a reasonable level. This appeals to a sense of competition and Americans’ biggest need: more money in their pockets.

4. Back worker organizing as a civil right.
Progressives who are really worried about Clinton’s economic ideals should read the Report of the Commission on Inclusive Prosperity. Prepared by the Center for American Progress as a foundational approach to reducing the rapid accumulation of wealth by the richest, it includes a catalog of important approaches, including greater worker representation in the workplace, reforming executive compensation, raising the minimum wage, and increasing infrastructure spending. The report also suggests improvements to the U.S. National Labor Relations Act to strengthen the right to organize. But progressives should demand even more and embrace an idea cited in the report’s footnotes: making the right to organize a civil right. This would fundamentally transform workers’ capacity to negotiate on their own behalf and help reverse the corrosive shift of power from capital back to labor.

5. Propose national decriminalization of marijuana.
This isn’t just a simple way for Clinton to demonstrate that she won’t be the drug warrior Bill Clinton was. It’s also a wedge issue that could really help in the general election. While 59 percent of Democrats and 58 percent of independents support legalization, only 39 percent of Republicans do, as shown in a recent PEW poll. Legalization is probably a leap too far for a national candidate, but decriminalization just makes sense. Letting states flout federal law because we all know a policy that is outdated is bad for the rule of law, and will lead to the sort of unequal prosecution that has defined the drug war. With this one simple stand, Clinton can stake her claim as a candidate of the future by saying, “I trust the states to decide this one.”

Franklin Roosevelt once told activists of his era, “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.” With Democrats having won the popular vote in five of the past six presidential elections, now is the time for Democratic leaders to meet the Democratic base at the new progressive center.

No one champion can save the middle class. The millions of voters who lean Democratic but stay home on Election Day need to be convinced that they can help transform America. The Democratic nominee — whoever she may be — can play a crucial role in doing that.

By reaching out to the left, Clinton won’t just grow her support, she’ll boost turnout and help to build an enduring progressive majority.

Photo: Alexander Wrege via Flickr

 

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 685

154 responses to “5 Ways Hillary Clinton And Progressives Could Win The Democratic Primary”

  1. Dominick Vila says:

    The main issues for me, and what I hope to hear from Hillary, or whomever happens to be the Democratic nominee are: strengthening the economy to the point that we can count on sustainable economic growth, solid job creation, reducing the trade deficit, taxing foreign investment, eliminating tax loopholes, solving the problems affecting the safety net, investing in education and infrastructure, changing our immigration laws to reflect our current needs, and reducing financial inequality.

    • bernieo says:

      The main issue for me is saving our democracy. That requires a strong economy that benefits all, not just the 1%. It requires strong public, not corporate education, and that education should be first and foremost about educating citizens not worker bees. Well prepared citizens need to know history and civics but they also need to be economically, mathematically and scientifically literate to understand important issues like climate change and to not be bamboozled by statistical manipulation, voodoo economics and junk science. That kind of education would also be a good basis for a career because it is a well rounded one. It also requires getting big money out of politics, justices that are not ideologues, and increased voter participation.
      To paraphrase James Carville “It’s our democracy, stupid!”

    • paulyz says:

      Yes we do need those things accomplished, many are exactly what Conservatives have been trying to get done, but mostly opposed by Obama & the Democrats, especially a balanced budget, national debt, job creation, national security (border security), & a much better economy. Most people on these posts say that under Obama, these have been accomplished. We need action, not more promises like we have seen broken over the last 7 years. Excessive immigration & releasing criminal aliens certainly don’t help Americans either.

      • 788eddie says:

        I just don’t see it, Paulyz. The conservative Republicans in congress had, I feel actually held back our economy. They could have passed a Jobs bill years ago; they could have passed legislation to address infrastructure; they could have legislated closing tax loopholes. The only way they can see fit to try to balance the budget is by cutting services to those who need them the most (and most economists agree that supplying these services will actually pay for themselves with a populace that will be more productive), instead of raising the tax rates on the super-wealthy back up to where they used to be (keeping them low only benefits the super-wealthy).

        Where is the evidence that conservative thinking has helped at all?

        • mike says:

          Your take is the bigger the govt. the better the economy, it doesn’t work. Name a product that the govt. makes that produces a profit and increases revenues.
          What held the economy back are Obama’s policies and unknowns, that forced many business to be concerned about their future and the ability to stay in business, which in turn slowed growth.
          Obama has never been pro business, you remember when he said a “if you have a successful business, you didn’t build it”, was a slam at every business. His people said the was referring to bridges, roads, education, which are all paid by taxes from the business he was attacking.

          • bobnstuff says:

            Government is not meant to turn a profit, it’s meant to serve peoples needs. The Democrats are not the big government party, that’s in fact the republicans {check government growth under the last three republican presidents}. The democrats are the big idea party. However if you want to know something that the government runs at a greater cost control look at Medicare. We pay the insurance companies 20% to run health care, we spend 9% to run Medicare. We need to cut government waste and control spending on thing we don’t need. The military is a classic place for waste and misspent money. Every time someone tries to cut waste here they are meet with screams from congress. Just try closing a base we don’t need and see what happens. We are rehabbing tanks the Army has said they don’t need but a factory in Ohio needs the business. We would get more bang for our buck by cutting military spending by 10% then by getting rid of 90% public assistance.

          • mike says:

            Nor does govt produce a product, it demands are taxes, and spends it foolishly. If you don’t think govt. isn’t wasting our tax dollars you are living in another universe and part of the problem. There is waste and fraud in every department but you on the left want more and more.
            http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2014/01/13/government-programs-have-become-one-big-scammer-fraud-fest/
            Just 2013 there was 58 Billion in bogus Medicare payments, but collected 2.7 billion.
            http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-recovers-3-3-billion-in-federal-health-care-fraud-1426737703
            “big ideas” but a crock!!!

          • bobnstuff says:

            Who builds your roads, your ports, your schools? Who brings the water to your house and takes the sewage away? The government produces a lot as well as providing services you
            wouldn’t want to live with out. As far as ripping of the government, look at who is getting caught. It’s both parties with a number of high profile case involving big time republicans lately. Out of $492 billion spent 5%.is lost . The insurance estimates it That’s half the percentage that loses $40 billion per year to fraud.

          • bobnstuff says:

            People are wasteful. Most business waste 3% to 5% that they keep track of plus more that they don’t. In the case of the government they want waste, that’s one way to kick money back to their donors. All government spending is controlled by
            congress and all spending bills come first from the house so if you don’t want waste that’s were you start. By the way if you want to stop fraud in government programs you need to employ people to stop it. For every dollar we spend going after cheats we recover $6. So what did congress do, they cut funding to the IRS so they had to layoff the people going after the cheats. If you look at the money wasted as a percentage of the money spent the picture is different then just looking at the waste. There was a time when the government hired the brightest and the best to do the peoples work. That ended under Reagan. He believed that if the government did to good a job people would want it to do more and the private sector would lose out. Reagan in fact supported bad government.

          • mike says:

            Quit trying to make excuses for the wasteful spending of our tax monies, govt does a lousy job. If people or a business wants to waste their own money that is their decision and right but that doesn’t give the govt. the right.
            All spending is not controlled by congress, just their budgets. How they spend their monies is decided in each department.

            Now it’s Reagan fault, what a crock. As to his reasons what a crock. Tell you what, make me look bad and show me that exact quote. Not about limited govt.! Exact quote!! Not your slanted interpretation.

            What Reagan did say “governments don’t produce economic growth people do.”

          • bobnstuff says:

            The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them right away.

            Ronald Reagan

          • mike says:

            And that quote by Reagan is how you base that Reagan supported bad government? No, cigar again.
            And the stockholders can always sell their stock if not happy, something the tax payer can not do nor control.

          • The lucky one says:

            This pretty funny. Nearly everything you’ve said negatively about the Dems is true. Nearly everything your antagonists have said negatively about the repubs is also true. Face the obvious, both parties serve the rich and the large corporations. One thing you said though is a ridiculous though common canard, that is that private business is more efficient and serves it’s “customers” better than government. Both systems are riddled with incompetence and self-serving managers but at least with government you don’t have a few CEOs skimming all the cream for themselves.

          • mike says:

            No, business is much more effective than govt.. All you have to do is look at VA, and watch the mangers lying, cheating, for better bonuses.
            Ineffective businesses won’t survive, but all the ineffectiveness in govt., doesn’t change, just more money thrown at it. Govt. has a constant cash flow but not the private sector if they are cost efficient and on top of their business.

            Look at the Secret Service, DEA and the corruption and funny business that has been going on and no one can be fired.

            No, govt. is far more ineffective and wasteful.

          • The lucky one says:

            I won’t dispute the waste, inefficiency and mismanagement of much of the government. There are plenty examples. What you said about business needing to be profitable is true of small-medium size business. However many large businesses rely on government welfare and social welfare for their workers to remain profitable. In many cases, such as the postal service it is not the government service that is the problem it is the meddling from politicians trying to undercut the program or department to open the way for privatization to feed their donors. Education is another example. Yes there are problems but experience thus far shows that the privately run charter schools perform no better than the public schools.

          • mike says:

            What you have missed again is the fact it is the small businesses that do the majority of hiring. It isn’t the corporations. If they don’t control waste and cost they go under, which is just the opposite of the Federal Government with the flow of tax dollars. How many programs go away in the Fed govt.? Probably none.
            As to postal service, yes it is independent, but it is still under the influence of Congress. It continues to lose Billions and still not that efficient.
            https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43162.pdf

            Education continues to get more money and results are still pathetic.

          • The lucky one says:

            The postal service is very efficient and is in the red only because of the ridiculous mandate they are under to fund retirement for employees that haven’t even been born yet much less hired. I do get your point about congressional interference and we probably do agree on the worthlessness of the majority of its members. But don’t equate the greedy corrupt politicians with the people who actually make the government services work.

            “Education continues to get more money and results are still pathetic.” Don’t know where you’re getting your info but education funding has been cut every year. Here in NYS the Democrat led government has been reneging on its statutory financial obligation to the Community Colleges for years. Maybe the public school system s not performing adequately but it’s been well documented that the charter schools (private sector) are doing no better,

          • mike says:

            Education has increased but just barely. More money is spent per child and the results have not gotten better.

            http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget15/15action.pdf

            As to postal service, they were forced into taking care of the future, They are getting more efficient but they are not efficient. On about a 70 billion dollar budget they can’t even put 5 billion into towards future benefits. Just like SS they have fewer paying in to cover the growing number receiving payments.

          • The lucky one says:

            The 5 billion is their projected loss, in 2013 anyway, so the money they are forced to deposit for employees they do not yet have is roughly equal to their projected loss, hmmm? As others have mentioned government provides needed services. Of course we should minimize waste and bad mgt but it’s not meant to show a profit. If it was the first thing they would do is raise prices. If their prices were more in line with private carriers like ups and fedex they’d be showing a profit.
            I’m fully aware that public education is failing in many instances. I teach in a community college and have seen many high school grads who cannot write a literate sentence. My point is that privatization will not improve the situation neither will all the testing they’re pushing merely to fatten the bottom line of companies like Pearson. It’s a multifaceted problem. Throwing money at it won’t help but making schools into profit centers for corporations won’t help either.

          • mike says:

            Sorry if I have confused you on govt profit, we all know they are not in business to make profit, just collect taxes, spend money, with little accountability.
            The postal system can’t compete and is structured like it is in the Jurassic period.
            Until the family unit returns education will continue in a downward spiral as will this country. My wife is math teacher and has watched now unprepared this kids continue to be each year.

          • jmprint says:

            Look at the banks and they are not government run, just bailed out by average joes. Stupid, there is waist everywhere, and with everything that involves money, are you going to get rid if everything. Well I would hope we would try and fix things instead of getting rid of things ie ACA, Medicare, SS, VA. Congress should be working together on this.

          • mike says:

            More ridiculous remarks I see!!!

          • bobnstuff says:

            Sorry about the bad edit, I was sleepy it should have read that insurance companies lose $40 billion to fraud every year.

            http://kff.org/medicare/fact-sheet/medicare-spending-and-financing-fact-sheet/

          • jmprint says:

            Yes, investigation after investigation, frivolous law suits, subsidies to the rich, they do spend our taxes foolishly.

          • mike says:

            Are you really as dumb as you right????
            You really are pathetic.

          • jmprint says:

            Why are you saying that, you mean investigation after investigation, frivolous law suits, subsidies to the rich, doesn’t cost the tax payer a penny? If it doesn’t then yeah I guess I’m dumb or just not as dumb as you.

          • mike says:

            Those so called investigation are only a very, very, very, small smidgen of the wasted money by the Fed. govt.
            And for you to think those dollars amount to something shows what a dunce you are.

          • jmprint says:

            “Your take is the bigger the govt. the better the economy, it doesn’t work.

            Don’t chock on your saliv when you answer this questions:

            1) When the republican repeal ACA, what are they implementing to take it’s place.

            2) When the republican make social security a private investment thing, how are they going to pay for the retirements of all these people, when: Name a product that the govt. makes that produces a profit and increases revenues.

          • mike says:

            Let’s see what SCOTUS says in a few months, until this nothing more than a circle jerk and waste of time. There are quite a few proposals from republicans but until SCOTUS all is moot.
            As 2. you really do have a problem with coherent thought. SS every American pays into, what you can’t understand is the ratio of payees to recipient is about 3 to 1, and unsustainable.
            Are you trying to say SS produces a profit?? If so you are absolutely ignorant.

          • jmprint says:

            Why do you put word into people post, I didn’t say it made a profit. How much money did honest people lose with the crash of 2008. It wasn’t handled by the government, now was it?

          • mike says:

            Your point on losing money has nothing to do with this discussion. I never said a word about privatization of SS. I explained without changes SS will not survive.
            I guess it went over your head, again.

          • 788eddie says:

            Bigger government is better? not necessarily, Mike. But just remember the one basic axiom: government and the laws made by government protect us from bad people and a__holes. We have seen time and time again too many examples to back this up.

            Bad people include bankers who sell investments they know are not good, or brokers working for mortgage companies who encourage first-time home buyers to purchase homes that they really cannot afford, and even support lying on documents to be able to get those mortgages.

            Bad People also include people who want to commit murder or mayhem, hurting other people physically.

            A__holes include people who, through their ignorance or selfishness impinge upon the rights or lawful pursuit of happiness of their neighbors and others. Our laws encourage everyone to behave properly.

            Do I want to limit government or make it smaller. I guess it would be fine…as long as the government and the laws that are left still protect me and my family. That’s what I pay my fair share of taxes for. If you don’t mind giving up your protections, I guess I can live with that. Just don’t complain later.
            And as for The President’s statement to business about “if you have a successful business, you didn’t build that” being a slam at business, it wasn’t He was absolutely correct! The taxes paid for the roads and other infrastructure that built this great country were mainly paid for by individual taxpayers. Yes business also helped, but let’s not forget taxpayers like you and me.

            And as for businesses hurting, let’s remember to took at the record profits that major corporations are enjoying, and the record high Dow Jones Average.

            My original point (please see above) was that the conservative congress has been holding back the economy. If they actually helped (again, see above) then everyone, including you and me, would benefit.

          • mike says:

            Oh!! but I never said govt. was totally bad, some things are good and important. But to try and control every aspect of our lives is not the best path, and that is the way Obama is trying to do.

            Obama’s remark about business even though inarticulate was understood by any sane person to be an attack on capitalism.

            Not even play that stupid game about the Stock Market being so good. it is good for one reason only, the FEDERAL RESERVE keeping interest rate almost zero. Yes corporation are enjoying large profits because they are lean and mean, fewer employees and lower costs.

            When the Fed starts raising rates then you can crow about the economy. Unemployment still weak, more people walking about look for a job.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/21/economists-have-discovered-how-bad-the-economy-really-is/

            http://www.profitconfidential.com/economic-analysis/economic-outlook-for-2015/

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-20/the-u-s-economy-keeps-disappointing

            As to congress holding back, only in the mind of a socialist.

      • Dominick Vila says:

        Conservatives talk about…and do the exact opposite. They hold the all-time record on deficit spending and accumulation of debt. President Obama reduced the deficit by 2/3, and reduced the need to raise the national debt from 18 times in the Reagan era, to 3 times since he was inaugurated. He inherited an economy on the verge of collapse, according to what his predecessor said, and in spite of the obstructionism acknowledged by Mitch McConnell to make sure he was a one-term President, his policies and leadership allowed us to turn economic Armageddon into a growing economy, admittedly not as robust as we would like, but much better than what he inherited. In spite of GOP opposition to investment in infrastructure, and the Veterans Jobs Act, among other proposals, President Obama managed to turn a net loss of 800,000 when he became President into an average of 200,000 jobs created every month since the economy turned around.
        As for national security, let’s not forget that the worst foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil happened when George W. Bush was President and when both chambers of Congress were controlled by Republicans.
        President Obama has not been demonized because he has been ineffective, but because of his ethnicity and his accomplishments. The latter are poison for the GOP as they establish an irrefutable contrast between the record of Republican Presidents such as Reagan and George W. Bush, and that of Clinton and now Obama. Your are right though, we don’t want promises, we want measurable accomplishments and a vision we can believe in.

        • Elliot J. Stamler says:

          Right on Dominick but if the president did not have the personality he has he would have hammered these points relentlessly to the public as my hero, Harry Truman did (I lunched with him in college) and today we’d have a Democratic congress. A president who is temperamentally simply unable to take off the gloves and wallop his mortal political enemies is a failure regardless of his programmatic successes.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            In my opinion, President Obama is one of the best Presidents we ever had, but I have to agree with you, he is so non-confrontational that he allowed the opposition, and those who hate him because of what he represents to them, and because what his successes mean to conservative orthodoxy, control public opinion, perceptions, and win Congressional and State elections they did not deserve to win.

        • mike says:

          Up to your idea of the truth again.

          What you ignore and are dishonest about is the fact that Democrats controlled the HOUSE for both the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations, and the democrats controlled the Senate for 100th, 101st 102nd congresses. But yet it is all Republicans fault, just more of your bull s$$t.

          As to your asinine comment on 9/11 and the republicans control of both houses and executive branch. Wrong again you simpleton. The Senate was controlled by the Democrats from May 2001 to 2003. Can you ever tell the truth?

          To say 0/11 was Bush’s fault after on 7 months in office and the years Clinton did nothing, is wrong, Just more of dishonest partisanship by you.

          Here’s some facts.

          Rice, Tenet wrote, reacted positively to the briefing and asked her
          counter terrorism adviser, Richard Clarke, if he agreed with the
          assessment. Clarke said he did, and Tenet said he and his aides left the
          meeting feeling that Rice understood the threat. However, he wrote,
          the White House never followed up on the presidential finding that Tenet
          had been asking for since March, authorizing broader covert action
          against al-Qaida. That finding was signed by President Bush on Sept.
          17, six days after the attacks.

          Roger Cressey, who was Clarke’s
          deputy and is now an NBC News counter terrorism analyst, says one thing
          that is missing from Tenet’s description of the events is that the
          intelligence pointed to overseas attacks. although CIA did tell
          officials that they couldn’t discount an attack on the US homeland.

          “Everything we had (from US intelligence) pointed overseas,
          specifically to the Gulf,” he said. “There was no actionable
          intelligence that pointed to the homeland. What we did know, and what we told domestic agencies, was there was “a disturbance in the force” and we were very worried about an attack.
          Wrong again on that ethnicity thing, he is ineffective because of his poor leadership and policies.
          “Turned the economy around”, Really?? More delusion from the Dom. Keep dreaming.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Sorry, I forgot that when Reagan was in office – and when W was in office – everything that happened was someone else fault. From Lt. Colonels to Congress. You are correct, however, about Democrats, under the leadership of Tip O’Neill, getting things done, working with Reagan, and objecting to the Gipper’s policies when necessary. That’s what Congress is supposed to do.
            I did forget about a Republican (Gifford’s?) changing party affiliation in May 2001 and becoming an Independent. A fact that resulted in Democrats gaining control of Congress and Tom Daschle becoming Senate Majority leader.
            There was no actionable intelligence requiring the Bush administration to prepare against a likely foreign terrorist attack?
            First of all, American presidents are expected to take our national security seriously.
            Secondly, there is the inconvenient truth of a Fatwa signed by Osama bin Laden in which he promised to attack and kill Americans wherever we were. The following is an excerpt of his Fatwa:
            In a Fatwa faxed to the London newspaper Al-Quds, Al Qaeda wrote: `We — with God’s help — call on every Muslim
            who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money
            wherever and whenever they find it”
            President Clinton briefed President Bush on this issue. The NSA and CIA did as well, and the issue was discussed during the Daily National Security briefings that W was too busy to attend.

          • mike says:

            There you go again with your stupid comments. The democrats controlled the House budget for all but 2 congressional sessions since 1933, the Senate for all but 2 congressional sessions also from 1933, until Clinton. What I hear is all this terrible debt and why the republicans didn’t balance the budgets, and they are the cause of all the debt.

            The inconvenient truth is the Dems controlled the budgets for Reagan and Bush. Your idea of “getting things done” no matter if it raised the debt is OK as long as it is blamed on Reagan and Bush. Total BS.
            Fatwa was in 1996 and what did Clinton do about it or plan, zilch.

            You continue to ignore the facts.

            Rice, Tenet wrote, reacted positively to the briefing and asked her counter terrorism adviser, Richard Clarke, if he agreed with the assessment. Clarke said he did, and Tenet said he and his aides left the meeting feeling that Rice understood the threat. However, he wrote, the White House never followed up on the presidential finding that Tenet had been asking for since March, authorizing broader covert action against al-Qaida. That finding was signed by President Bush on Sept. 17, six days after the attacks.

            Roger Cressey, who was Clarke’s deputy and is now an NBC News counter terrorism analyst, says one thing that is missing from Tenet’s description of the events is that the intelligence pointed to overseas attacks. although CIA did tell officials that they couldn’t discount an attack on the US homeland.

            “Everything we had (from US intelligence) pointed overseas, specifically to the Gulf,” he said. “There was no actionable intelligence that pointed to the homeland. What we did know, and what we told domestic agencies, was there was “a disturbance in the force” and we were very worried about an attack
            You can’t have your form of the truth. You are again being Intellectually Dishonest, not surprised.

          • charleo1 says:

            Intellectually dishonest is he really? I’d love to read your take had Al Gore been sitting in FL. reading My Pet Goat, when the second plane hit in NY. But the Bush team was was, “very worried.” Well, bully for them! But just let an adjunct embassy get hit half way around the World, under a Democrat, and you don’t care who talked to who, or said what. You want an impeachment! Now that’s, what? Oh yeah! That’s, intellectual dishonesty! Too bad Dom don’t believe in name calling. Good thing I do though! You’re a moron, Mike!

          • mike says:

            Intellectually dishonest just like you!!
            Still living in the past, sad!
            What a silly little person you are.

          • charleo1 says:

            Correctly recalling, and learning from past mistakes is what must be done. Rather than covering it up as you do with a fairy tale for political expediency. It’s moronic, and dangerous. How else are we to keep people such as was the Bushies, and Dick Cheney, who should be in prison for war crimes. From ever gaining control of military, and intelligence operations again? If we let deniers, and apologists re-write history to protect their own political power, what does that make us as a people? Smart, or stupid?

          • mike says:

            Partisan dishonesty is all yours.
            I haven’t denied anything, but what you continue to harp on is that everything was the fault of Bush, which it wasn’t.
            :People with an ounce of gray matter know the meltdown started with Clinton and reform was blocked by democrats in the house and senate(Barney and Chris).
            http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09

            As to 9/11, show me the documents that stated where, when, and how the attack was going to happen.

            http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/07/24/The-Government-Is-Wasting-More-Money-than-You-Think

          • charleo1 says:

            What meltdown? The financial meltdown 8 years after Clinton left office, was his fault? And, I suppose Mrs. Lincoln shot Abe, and blamed Booth! And you’re telling me, there was nothing in the 8 years Republicans completely controlled Congress, 5 of that, with a Republican President in the WH. to prevent the collapse? Couldn’t raise any alarms? Propose any legislation? Advise Allen Greenspan, over at the Fed.? Anything that President Bush himself could have suggested to prevent a financial meltdown Only that it was these two minority Congressmen, 1 in the Senate, and 1 in the House, weren’t able to stop? It’s ridiculous on it’s face, to say that these 2 men in minority positions, were able to push around Wall Street, Bush’s own appointee to the Federal Reserve, and the majority of their own Party. While it’s on their voting records, that the overwhelming majority of Republicans supported deregulation. Or, on the matter of terrorism. That it wasn’t the job of National Security Advisor Rice, to read the reports sent to her desk by the FBI. about advisements they had received about several men of Arab decent, taking private flying lessons in FL. paid for in cash. not interested in landing, or taking off, just steering the jet? Or her ‘success’ at her job as National Security Advisor warranted her promotion to Secretary of State? Or that one of the most respected persons in the Country, Colin Powell. Resigned in disgust at the dishonesty from the lying deceitful administration. Tells you what? The outcome tells you what? That you need to
            scrounge around for more excuses for the inexcusable, evidently.

          • mike says:

            I am truly sorry if you can’t comprehend, so one more time.
            http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09

            (from Wikipedia)
            Senator Dodd was involved in issues related to the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis.

            As part of Dodd’s overall mortgage bill the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 before Congress in the summer of 2008, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson sought provisions enabling the Treasury to add additional capital and regulatory oversight over these government sponsored enterprises. These provisions were part of the bill signed by President George W. Bush. At the time, it was estimated that the federal government would need to spend $25 billion on a bailout of the firms. During this period, Dodd denied rumors these firms were in financial crisis. He called the firms “fundamentally strong”,[52] said they were in “sound situation” and “in good shape” and to “suggest they are in major trouble is not accurate”.[53] In early September, after the firms continued to report huge losses,[54] Secretary Paulson announced a federal takeover of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Dodd expressed skepticism of the action, which the Treasury estimated could cost as much as $200 Billion. Dodd is the number one recipient in Congress of campaign funds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.[55] Critics also charge that Dodd ignored repeated warnings that the two firms were in need of major reform.

            https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/democrat-barney-frank-admits-his-role-in-causing-the-recession/

            Keep those blinders on old boy!!!

          • charleo1 says:

            And Dodd had control of the entire Congress then? Not at all that he has been smeared, because he co-sponsored the very Financial Reform Bill with Rep. Barney Frank, that every single Republican opposed? Why pray tell, were they asking Dodd? Dodd did not Chair any oversight committees in the Senate. Nor, did he have control of what bill was brought to the floor under reconciliation rules, that would have governed such a bill. The person who was saying the banks had plenty of liquidity was President Bush. Who was also saying the state of the economy is fundamentally strong. Don’t tell me, I heard him say in August. Right before the economy started falling apart, and Paulson showed up on Capital Hill in September, saying the banks needed nearly a trillion dollar bailout, or the economy was gonna crash. The Repubs were all for it. It failed on the first try on a Party line vote in the newly controlled Democratic Congress. So don’t tell me, I watched it!

          • mike says:

            Quit trying to put words in my mouth. You keep forgetting that the 107th congressional senate was controlled by the Democrats after May 2001 and until the 108th congress.
            Try comprehension some time.

            http://www.ecominoes.com/2012/05/frank-and-dodd-started-mortgage-crisis.html

            http://worth-reading-blog.blogspot.com/2011/05/economic-meltdown-fueled-by-barney.html

          • Dominick Vila says:

            If the past is irrelevant to you, why do you and people like you obsess about Benghazi? How about offering a vision or solutions to the problems we still have?

          • mike says:

            I never said the past was irrelevant but this obsession of you on the left is just plain ridiculous and accomplishes nothing.
            Benghazi is still relevant because of all the missing parts and emails, emails conveniently deleted.
            Your asking me for solutions?? Really!!! Mr. Maven asking for solutions, now that is funny!!!

          • jmprint says:

            Even after ALL the Generals involved state under oath that the administration had nothing to do with decisions made.

          • mike says:

            So the Commander and Chief had nothing to do with the decision making? Really!!!
            What the hell are you smoking???
            You don’t know all the facts nor do I, but we should. We will see when Hillary testifies who is right.

          • jmprint says:

            Hey mike thanks for the great smoke, it must have affected you a little different, because yes, the Generals involved stated under oath, but you don’t believe them either! What are more facts going to do that the millions of dollars wasted on this investigation haven’t done already.

          • mike says:

            I guess you don’t know the chain of command. The generals had to pass it by Obama and it was his decision to stand them down, not the Generals.

          • jmprint says:

            Wrong again bud, I learned the chain of command at boot camp. It’s the republican senators that don’t know the chain of command, that’s why they sent that letter to Netanyhu. Without passing it it through Obama. If they had passed it to the President they would have said so, or is every but you lying.

          • mike says:

            Really???
            The Senators are not part of the chain of command, you doofus. They don’t report to the president, they are an equal branch of govt..
            Obama is Commander and Chief, all decisions of this importance the president would be informed and approval granted.
            Tell you what, get the video of the generals testimony and then we can put in to context what was really said.

          • jmprint says:

            He is still over them, and they are suppose to brings for hm approval first. He is the Commander is Chief, stupid.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Where were you when 11 U.S. diplomatic facilities were attacked when W was President? Do you remember what happened after those attacks? Let me refresh your memory. Nothing! Those attacks made headlines for a couple of days, not to accuse the administration, even when our consulate in Karachi was attacked a second time, but to demonstrate how vicious our enemies are. No finger pointing or second guessing.

          • mike says:

            Where were you when 8 U.S. diplomatic facilities were attacked under Obama as President? Do you remember what happened after those attacks? Let me refresh your
            memory. Nothing! Those attacks made headlines for a couple of days, we have always known now vicious our enemies are.
            When you support a president who called ISIS a J-V team, who drew a red line in the sand with Syria and did NOTHING, we now find with Iran negotiation that he knowing lied to the American people last fall about Iran’s Nuclear production saying it was a year away and now changes his story to three months, which by the way, Bebe was was saying last fall. What a huge admission.
            The dishonest partisan still fits you.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Would you care to list the 8 diplomatic facilities that were attacked since President Obama was inaugurated? Are you referring to bombings 200 meters (two blocks) away?
            You are, without a doubt, the Grand Ayatollah of distortion and make believe.

          • mike says:

            Poor little Dom has been hit with another inconvenient truth.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities

          • Dominick Vila says:

            I provided you with a list of 11 (eleven) terrorist attacks against U.S. consulates and embassies during W’s tenure. The list included the locations of those facilities, the dates when the attacks took place, and the number of casualties or injuries. You responded with a Wikipedia website. Please provide evidence to substantiate your claim of 8 terrorist attacks against U.S. consulates or embassies since President Obama became President. The only one I am aware of is Benghazi. BTW, bombings 200 meters away, demonstrations outside a U.S. diplomatic facility, and painting graffiti on the walls of our installations are not considered terrorist attacks. I am waiting.

          • mike says:

            Did you even look at the site?? It gave everything, dates, places, casualties, etc.. Write Wikipedia if you don’t believe them.
            Here’s some more, OMG!!! it is from the Department of State. Notice the word “Significant”. Not my words!
            http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/211361.pdf

            You didn’t provide a list so get off that crap. Am I aware of them, Yes!! But you didn’t provide a list
            Poor Dom!! Proven wrong again. I gave you two sources and one being the Federal Government.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            § Terrorist attacks during George W. Bush’s tenure:

            2001 – World Trade Center, New York and Pentagon, DC; 3,000 killed.

            2002 – U.S. Consulate in Karachi Pakistan attacked, 12 killed; 51 injured.

            2003 – International Compound, Saudi Arabia, 17 killed .

            2003 – U.S. Consulate, Karachi, Pakistan, 2 killed.

            2004 – U.S. Embassy bombed in Uzbekistan, 2 killed 9 injured.

            2004 – U.S. Consulate Saudi Arabia, 8 killed.

            2006 – U.S. Consulate, Karachi, Pakistan, 4 killed including a U.S. diplomat.

            2006 – U.S. Embassy, Syria, 1 killed and 13 wounded.

            2007 – Grenade launched into the U.S. Embassy in Athens. No casualties.

            2008 – U.S. Embassy, Serbia, attacked by thousands, no one killed.

            2008 – U.S. Consulate, Turkey, 3 killed.

            2008 – U.S. Embassy in Yemen bombed, 13 killed.

            – Terrorist attacks during George
            H, W, Bush’s tenure: 12 Embassy attacks with 60 killed.

          • mike says:

            My, My, Can’t refute my sources so you list all that I said I was already aware of.
            Once again, you have shown just how much of a dishonest partisan you continue to be.

          • paulyz says:

            YYesyyy

          • Dominick Vila says:

            I see. When we remind people of who was in charge when the worst foreign terrorist attacks on U.S. soil took place, it is an obsession, and not relevant. When we remind people that there were 11 terrorist attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities (consulates and embassies), it is an obsession and not relevant, apparently because it happened in the past. But when you and people like you obsess about our consulate in Benghazi, it is all current. Alas, given a chance you may turn it into the near future!
            I provided a list of priorities important to me a couple of days ago. You responded by saying that Republicans supported those priorities, or something to that effect, which I thought it was interesting since some included strengthening the safety net, gender equality, and changing our immigration laws.

          • mike says:

            Still is obsession with you and the left when the facts show just the opposite. No one member of the intelligence community had any idea where, when and how it would happen overseas or in the US. That’s a fact.
            I tell you what produce those priorities you claim I made.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            I don’t blame Bush for not being able to prevent 9/11. Precisely because nobody knew where, how, or when the attack was going to be carried out. I criticize him for his lackadaisical attitude, for his inability to understand a potential danger and not act upon it. If he had done anything, even if it had just been issuing a warning and alerting our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, nobody would criticize for what happens. The problem is that he did nothing, other than chop fire wood and read primers to little kids in Florida.

          • mike says:

            Pure Bull S$$t to the lackadaisical attitude. What you continue to lie about is the fact the experts had it happening overseas not here. Only you would think it appropriate to shut down the country because of an unknown attack with not one concrete fact to tell the American people.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            If a Fatwa issued by the mastermind of 9/11, promising to kill Americans wherever we were, was not concrete enough to alert the country about a potential terrorist attack on U.S. soil, I will have to assume that, for you, concrete is limited to the material used in construction.
            BTW, there was quite a bit of discussion on the U.S. media following the issuance of that Fatwa, speculating where an attack would take place, if it ever did. I am not talking about shutting down a country, I am talking about alerting the entities responsible for our national security. Hyperbole may impress your Tea Party audiences, it is not going to take you very far in this forum.

          • mike says:

            And what did Clinton do after the USS Cole? nothing!!!Now when did Clinton alert the country, which you claim to be so concrete?? Four years and not one alert by Clinton. So get off your high horse.
            Lets see all the media coverage, if there was, why didn’t Clinton respond to these so called discussion??? Did he increase the intelligence agencies ability to get information?? No, Democrats were actually cutting the budget in 1992 and 1993.
            This should help you!!
            http://blog.stephenleary.com/2008/09/intelligence-budgets-during-clinton.html

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Looks like when it is convenient you blame Congress for budget decisions, and when it helps your argument you blame the Administration, in this case President Clinton, for budget reductions that, allegedly, impacted our intelligence community. Typical Republican.
            Should we assume that President Obama’s and Nancy Pelosi’s budgetary decisions allowed us to locate OBL and kill him?

          • mike says:

            Where’s all those media articles.??
            I just gave you the facts, but to you just another inconvenient truth. Nice try, trying to find a way to change the conversation with stupid questions.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            I could not open the Wikipedia website you sent me, but I Googled it and found it. Looks like a pretty desperate attempt by you to find a parallel between 11 terrorist attacks that resulted in death, injuries, and extensive property damage, to a list that includes protesters breaching into our embassies and consulate compounds to burn a U.S. flag, protest the making and release of an offensive film, or someone firing a shot in the direction of our diplomatic facility.
            Is this the best you can do to find a parallel to 9/11 and eleven terrorist attacks against U.S. embassies and consulates. One of them (Karachi) was attacked twice. Over 100 people were killed during those attacks. Try a little harder.

          • mike says:

            No desperation at all. Were there 8 attacks against US facilities? yes or no???
            You claim 11 attacks under 43, l gave you 8 under Obama. No matter how you try and frame it there were attacks, with the death of 3 Americans and one Ambassador in one attack.
            You sure are ignoring the Department of State report, looks like you’re desperate not to face the facts that the State Department considered “Significant” attacks on US facilities.

            http://www.state.gov/documents

            As I have said you are dishonest partisan. The video was disproved over and over again but you as a liar try and use it to defend the failure of Obama and Hillary.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            If your definition of a lethal terrorist attack, that involves death, maiming, and destruction includes protesters breaking into the grounds of an Embassy before being led away, or someone burning the American flag, the answer to your question is yes.
            The offensive video was not “disproved”. It was very real and it provoked the ire, and violent demonstrations throughout the Islamic world. The makers and financiers of that video, and its release knowing the consequences, should be investigated.
            What the Benghazi investigators concluded was that, in their opinion, the attack against the consulate was not influenced by the video. In my opinion, the video elicited demonstrations, and terrorists took advantage of the mayhem to attack the consulate.

          • mike says:

            Keep living in la la land old boy. I gave you the Department of State report on “Significant attacks”.

            If you are saying that their were no deaths in the 8 attacks I gave you, and which you said you Googled, then you are an outright liar or you can’t read and comprehend. People died besides the 4 Americans! It might not fit your agenda but there were deaths.

            If the video was so important, why was it dropped a few weeks later. You seem to forget the previous attacks, although smaller, but still attacks. It was not a spontaneous attack, it had happened before and it was 9/11.
            What you can’t answer, why did Hillary have Stevens go there on that day? as Hicks testified. Why meet with Turkish Ambassador there and not in Tripoli. Was it about arms?? Many facts are missing but you think Benghazi is a witch hunt, far from it.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Anything that happens against our country or interests, regardless of how minimal it may be, is considered significant as it may be a sign of discontent that could degenerate into violence. It does not mean that protests were a major threat to our diplomatic facilities.
            Nobody said that there were no terrorist attacks or protests before the release of the video. That video, and the crazy Florida preacher that promised burning the Qu’ran, were instruments used, deliberately to inflame passions and create havoc in a part of the world where any reference to their Prophet, no matter how benign, is considered blasphemous and elicits turmoil. That was done on purpose, and the perpetrators or planners should be investigated.
            The Secretary of State is not expected, nor does, get involved in the daily activities of U.S. Ambassadors and Consuls. They do get involved when an Ambassador is going to meet a foreign leader or dignitary as a representative of the USA and, therefore, promoting or supporting U.S. policies. I take it the closest you have been to a U.S. Embassy or consulate may have been during a 3-day Carnival cruise to the Bahamas.

          • mike says:

            Dom, you made a big deal out of the 11 attacks under Bush, I pointed out the 8 under Obama, who has 18 month to go, and the deaths that occurred in those attacks, you don’t get to write your own history. People died in those 8 attacks!!
            Save me your sarcasm, the buck stopped with her. She lied about the video for convenience. Attack was not spontaneous, and you can’t answer the questions of why Hillary wanted him there, why his meeting with Turkish Ambassador, many unanswered questions that you as a dishonest person don’t want answered.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            First of all, there have not been 8 terrorist attacks against U.S. embassies or consulates since President Obama was inaugurated. Using protests by enraged Muslims to establish a parallel with the attacks carried out against our diplomatic facilities when W was President, which resulted in death, injury, and destruction is pure hyperbole. With the exception of Benghazi, you have nothing in that area.
            Hillary, President Obama, and the entire national security team concluded, initially, that the attack against our consulate was prompted by the video released just before that attack because that was the obvious and only thing we could assume at the time. Al Libby, one of the main Muslim leaders involved in that tragedy confessed that the video played a role in their decision to demonstrate at the consulate. Obviously, things escalated and the initial protests turned violent and ended tragically.
            The claim that Ambassador Stevens went to Benghazi to meet the Turkish Ambassador does not make any sense. The Turkish embassy is within blocks of the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.
            I suspect that his trip had more to do with what a pro-Western Muslim leader told Mr. McFarland, a U.S. Embassy employee a couple of days earlier to the effect that he could no longer guarantee the safety of Americans in the Benghazi region. Ambassador Stevens probably traveled to Benghazi on a fact finding mission. I don’t expect you to agree with anything I say, since your mind is influenced by sources whose intent is not to find the truth but to demonize President Obama, and now Hillary Clinton. Without a record to run on and, most importantly, without a vision to offer, the GOP has not choice but to engage in ridiculous claims that are not relevant to the foreign and domestic problems we still have. The 2016 election is going to be decided on the platforms and proposals offered by the candidates, rather than the speculation, over reactions, or indifference of former Presidents.

          • mike says:

            No, Dom you are wrong. Since 2010 there have been 8 attacks with a total of 22 killed including 4 Americans. Those are the facts I gave you the site but you are hell bent on lying again.
            I will take Hick’s testimony over what you think was going on. Steven’s was told go to Benghazi.

            Probably, Probably, Probably, you don’t know squat but you don’t want to know the truth either. If you were even half as honest you try to proclaim, you would want to know, you are nothing more than a dishonest ideologue.

            We will see on Hillary, looks like there could be some real scrambling for a candidate for the democrats if any of the allegations are true about Hillary and the donations to Her Foundation, that the New York Times and others are reporting.
            The video was not the cause but just an excuse. Their was much more in play.
            On June 29, newly elected Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi pledged to free Omar Abdel-Rahman, who he described as a political prisoner.[33] On August 2, Egypt formally requested that the United States release Abdel-Rahman.[34]

            On August 30, according to Eric Trager, al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya called for a protest at the US embassy in Cairo on September 11 to demand the release of Abdel-Rahman.[35]

            On September 8, El Fagr reported on a threat to burn down the US embassy in Cairo unless Abdel-Rahman was released. Raymond Ibrahim described this threat as a unified statement by Egyptian Islamic Jihad and al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya.[36]

            A DHS report released on September 11 and reported by Fox News on September 19 indicated that a web statement incited “sons of Egypt” to pressure America to release Abdel-Rahman “even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it.” The Web statement was apparently posted on an Arabic-language forum on September 9, two days before the attack, and was in reference to the embassy in Egypt

            The mess in the Middle East falls mostly in Obama’s lap because of his dithering and his incompetence, It is chaotic and getting worse.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Bill Clinton did a lot more than what W did during the 7.5 months before 9/11, and during the 7 years after 9/11, to find and punish OBL.
            Clinton ordered a missile strike against the site where OBL was supposed to be. He left the premises moments before the missile hit. W chopped fire wood and read primers during his first 7.5 months in office; could not find OBL after the invasion of Afghanistan, and invaded Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, using false pretenses. after years of useless searches, a frustrated W stated that getting OBL was not a big deal!
            President Obama dealt with OBL.

          • mike says:

            Not moments before, but hours, he was long gone before the missiles hit. Can you get anything right???
            Do a little reading for once. Read what General Zinni said about the missle attack. “Surprisingly, General Zinni said that getting bin Laden was never one of his objectives.” So Clinton’s man in charge of the attacks had no desire to get Bin Laden, and Clinton went along with it, interesting.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Not as interesting as W stating publicly that finding, arresting or killing the mastermind of 9/11 was not a big deal. Or Reagan admitting after more than 200 U.S. Marines were slaughtered near the Beirut airport that the struggle in Lebanon was not our war, and ordering one of the most embarrassing cut and runs in U.S. history.

          • mike says:

            You still got it wrong again, Dom.
            keep changing the subject old boy since you can’t prove Zinni’s statement was wrong.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            None of us can prove whether Gen Zinni’s statement was right or wrong. Read the article I sent you regarding President Clinton’s actions against OBL and Al Qaeda, if you are truly interest in this subject, instead of the advancement of partisan excuses to deflect attention from Republican failures.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            The enclosed website contains detailed information on actions taken by the Clinton administration against OBL.
            http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2011/05/osama-bin-laden-nawaz-sharif-white-lies.html

          • mike says:

            http://www.nationalreview.com/article/218683/facts-about-clinton-and-terrorism-byron-york

            http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/attack/2001/11/12/clinton-usatcov.htm

            The former president said he authorized the CIA to kill bin Laden and overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan after the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, but the action was never carried out. Clinton said that was because the United States could not establish a military base in Uzbekistan and because U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies refused to certify that bin Laden was behind the bombing.
            You forgot about this one, didn’t you!!!
            Clinton also defended withdrawing U.S. forces from Somalia in 1993, after 18 servicemen were killed in Mogadishu when their Black Hawk helicopter was shot down.
            Sept. 22 2000, bin Laden said he would attack U.S. ships – Oct 12 2000 he struck the USS Cole
            Despite the fact that bin Laden had declared war on America in 1998 the Clinton Administration never countered that we were at war with terrorists. In a radio address on October 14, two days after the attacks, Bill Clinton said “even when America is not at war, the men and women of our military risk their lives every day.” In an October 18 memorial service, Clinton only devoted one small paragraph to the terrorists. He never mentioned any grave threat by name, not even Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda. In a “Meet the Press” interview just 3 days after the attack, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger did not even bring up Al Qaeda or the risk it posed to Americans. His neglect to address the subject of our biggest enemy came just one month before the 2000 election. Top officials like Madeleine Albright and William Cohen ignored Richard Clarke’s calls for attacking Al Qaeda targets for fear of derailing the Arab-Israeli peace process and creating perceptions that America is indiscriminately bombing Muslims. All of this despite the fact there was a foiled attempt on 3 U.S. targets on January 3, 2000, including an attack on “The Sullivans” in, of all places, the port of Aden, Yemen

            In fact, the Clinton Administration should have had knowledge of bin Laden’s desire to carry out attacks on American forces. Osama bin Laden and members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad appeared in a Qatar TV tape on September 22, 2000 making specific threats to attack American ships. Osama bin Laden followed through on his promise on October 12, 2000, killing 17 Americans

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Typical Mike. I provided you with an article that lists all the retaliatory or preventive measures we carried out against AQ and OBL, and you respond with subjective claims and second guessing.
            No, I have not forgotten the attack against the USS Cole. Never claimed President Clinton accomplished all his foreign policy goals are that his foreign policy was 100% exemplary. He did make mistakes, often because of his reluctance to put boots on the ground and his determination to save American lives.
            Are you comparing what happened in Somalia to the cut and run in Lebanon? We engaged the enemy in Somalia, fought them…and withdrew when it became evident that Somalia was disintegrating and that the only thing we could hope for what the loss of more American soldiers. Reminds me of what happened in Vietnam, but at a much smaller scale.
            The reason I bring up debacles such as the Beirut issue is not because I support military intervention. I only support war when our country or interests are at imminent risk. I prefer diplomatic solutions. I raise these issues to remind Republicans of what transpired when you guys were in charge, every time you try to portray President Obama’s foreign policies as reckless or unprecedented.

          • mike says:

            What retaliatory or preventive measures? It listed little to nothing. A blog, big deal.
            A CIA group trained and never used? Or plans with helicopters.
            Here is a fact from the article that sure blows your remark about just missing Bin Laden.
            Here are some excerpts

            Intelligence that reached
            top Clinton administration officials after the raid said that bin Laden
            had left the camp two or three hours before the missiles struck. Other
            reports said he might have left as many as 10 or 12 hours before they
            landed. Sources in the U.S. military said the launch time was adjusted
            some to coordinate it with the Sudan attack andto launch after sundown
            to minimize detection of the missiles. This had the effect of delaying
            the launch time by several hours. An earlier launch might have caught
            bin Laden, two sources said.

            In the aftermath of last month’s attacks on the United States, which the Bush administration has tied to bin Laden, Clinton officials said their decision not to take stronger and riskier action has taken on added relevance. “I wish we’d recognized it then,” that the United States was at war with bin Laden, said a senior Defense official, “and started the campaign then that we’ve started now. That’s my main regret. In hindsight, we were at war.”

            Outside experts are even more pointed. “I think that raid really helped elevate bin Laden’s reputation in a big way, building him up in the Muslim world,” said Harlan Ullman, a defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. “My sense is that because the attack was so limited and incompetent, we turned this guy into a folk hero.”

            Now what did Clinton do after the Cole bombing? Nothing.
            Obama policies are reckless and dangerous. Because of his policies the world is descending into chaos because our retreating form power position overseas.
            1. Obama pulled troops out of Iraq, ISIS moved in.
            2. Thousands of people in Syria have been driven from their home, killed by chemical weapons, in a civil war. Obama draws a line in the sand if Chemical weapons are used and does nothing.
            3 Obama claims Yemen a success and govt.shortly falls and it is now chaotic.
            4. Putin has taken Crimea and parts of Ukrainian territory, saber-rattles, Obama refuse to give arms to Ukraine to fight back.
            5, NATO overthrows Gaddafi and doesn’t even leave a peace keeping force which results in the takeover of much of the country.
            6. China seizing territory that was the philippines and Vietnam
            7. BOKO HARAM takes hundreds of young women and Obama dithers.
            He will not recognize the slaughter of Christians.
            The world is falling apart and he thinks “there is less violence now”.
            He is much like you living in another universe.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            I don’t have a problem with most of the statements in the article. In hindsight, there are many things we should have done differently and more aggressively. As to being at war with Bin Laden, let’s not forget that neither OBL nor Al Qaeda were leaders or members of the government of a country, a fact that made it extremely difficult for us, or anybody else, to find them and deal with them. AQ is a terrorist group that, incredibly, enjoys considerable support and are, therefore, difficult to locate.
            Are you suggesting that we should have remained in Iraq indefinitely? That we should have continued to sacrifice young Americans to prevent the establishment of a Caliphate?
            I am glad we did not get involved in the Syrian civil war. Not only because it is none of our business, but because it is almost impossible to determine who are our friends and who are our enemies.
            Yes, for a brief moment it looked as if Yemen was moving in the right direction, when they elected a pro-Western president. Sadly, that was short lived, largely because some neighbors are more interested in perpetual instability than peaceful coexistence.
            Are you suggesting we should have gone to war with Russia to keep the Crimea as part of the Ukraine.
            Sorry but I have better things to do with my time than waste my time answering ridiculous claims.

          • jmprint says:

            Dominic – they don’t have solutions to give. They only have solutions for embryos not being disposed and solutions on the rich getting richer, while the middle class pay MORE taxes, and solutions for redistricting, to make it harder for dems to vote, and solutions making corporations people, you know with a heart beat and limbs.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Trickle down economics, deregulation and irresponsible tax breaks are not part of the Democratic agenda. In fact, the GOP takes great pride in highlighting those policies as a panacea, and accuse Democrats for doing the opposite. Reagan’s policies, which the GOP adores, produced a major recession and contributed to the near collapse of the S&L industry. W’s economic policies, and his indifference, contributed to the worst recession since the Great Depression. Are you suggesting that trickle down is a failed economic policy, that irresponsible tax breaks are counter productive, and that Republican deficit spending is not a good idea?
            As soon as President Clinton became aware of OBL’s whereabouts he authorized is missile attack. Unfortunately, the missile stroke minutes after OBL left the premises.
            Rice and Tenet were not President. George W. Bush was. He is the one that should have attended the briefings and taken steps to do everything he could to prevent 9/11. I don’t blame Rice for not succeeding. The intelligence available lacked the specificity needed to prevent the attack. We didn’t know where, when, or how the attack was going to be carried out. I blame W for his ineptitude and indifference. 9/11 happened when he was President, and CiC, and that is an undeniable fact.

          • mike says:

            Who controlled the budget for all of Reagan and Bush’s terms. Democrats. Democrats controlled Congress during Bush and the last 3 Congresses under Reagan, but it is all Reagan’s fault.
            Are you suggesting that the Democrats who controlled the House played no role. That seems to be your position, which is false.
            So there was no tangible evidence of when, how, where the attack would occur and yet Bush was inept and indifferent, what a disingenuous statement on your part. So Bush was suppose to put the country on high alert and with noting to show for it, the critics and press would have had a ball.
            You totally ignored Clarke’s deputy that stated they felt the attack was going to happen overseas with a possibility of hitting here. Roger Cressey, who was Clarke’s deputy and is now an NBC News counter
            terrorism analyst, says one thing that is missing from Tenet’s
            description of the events is that the intelligence pointed to overseas
            attacks. although CIA did tell officials that they couldn’t discount an
            attack on the US homeland.
            You can blame Bush all you want but your opinion doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Democrats controlled the purse when Reagan and Bush I were in office, but they did not control the decisions involving cutting taxes to the point that revenues could not cover outlays, a concept known as trickle down economics that proved to be a failure…and that Republicans continue to defend.
            Not knowing where, when, or how a terrorist attack is going to take place is not an excuse, and has absolutely nothing to do with evidence, which was available in the form of a Fatwa. If Bush has done something – anything – to prepare the country, including putting our intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, and the military on high alert nobody would criticize him. Unfortunately, he not only delegated responsibility to attend the daily national security briefings (dereliction of duty), but spent his time chopping firewood in Crawford and reading primers to children in Florida. You can do all the tap dancing you want, 9/11 occurred when a Republican President was in the White House, and that is a fact that not even you can refute.

          • mike says:

            Come on Dom, Democrats controlled the budget, taxes and all, but yet it is all Reagan”s fault. Laughable.
            A fatwa that was 4 years old, Now what did Clinton do about the Fatwa? Did he put the country on alert? Give me a break.
            Yes, if happened under the Bush watch, just 7 months into a new administration, with no intelligence of when, where or how it would happen, but he should have put the country on alert. Bull S$$T!!!!

          • Dominick Vila says:

            The out of control budget deficits, accumulation of debt, and the need to raise the debt ceiling 18 times was Reagan’s fault. Even Stockman, the man that proposed the trickle down economic theory was horrified when the Gipper embraced it. His tax breaks were all his, and so were the deregulation that almost bankrupted the S&L industry, and demonization of government. Yes, the so called Reagan Democrats were complicit, but the proposals cited above, his decision to deal with the Ayatollahs, and the cut and run in Lebanon were all his…and Republicans adored him for it.
            What did Clinton do about OBL’s Fatwa? He ordered a missile strike that almost killed him, and ordered the CIA to find him. He also debriefed his lackadaisical successor, who did not seem to be too interested.
            I have to agree with you on the 7 plus month between W’s inauguration and 9/11. That was definitely not enough time for W to absorb such a complex issue. Bad intelligence was, indeed, a problem, but it did not involve the NSA, CIA, or FBI. It was the empty space between W’s ears.

          • mike says:

            And those 18 time were all done by Reagan, right???? The House was controlled by Democrats for all of Reagan and Bush but Little Old Reagan raised without a peep from the Democrats. Another of your asinine statements.
            Know who voted and passed those tax breaks, etc..
            House and Senate(3 congresses) were controlled by Democrats. Nothing could be done with the democratic majority.
            As to your last page, nice try, but again no cigar. Your dishonesty continues.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Trickle down economics was conceived by David Stockman, and used as propaganda throughout Reagan’s presidential campaign. Most Republicans support it to this day. It was proposed by Reagan, shortly after becoming President, and while he enjoyed overwhelming popular support. It is true, however, that the so-called Reagan Democrats rolled over and supported his proposal. Shame on them for lacking the courage to stand by their values and what they must have known was best for the country. The same goes for the Democrats who supported W’s decision to invade Iraq.

          • mike says:

            Talk about the Ayatollah of lies. Did the democratic party control the House the whole time of Reagan and Bush? Yes or No? Did the Democrats control the Senate for all of Bush’s term and half of Reagan’s? Yes or No? Was there more deficit added after the Democrats had control of Congress during these Republican presidents?? Yes or NO?
            But the debt/deficits is all on Reagan and Bush!! Keep that dishonesty thing going at it, you have it down to a science.

          • jmprint says:

            So what you are saying is that the republicans CANNOT get anything done, even when they control both the house and the senate.

          • mike says:

            Really!!! Enjoying the chuckle from an asinine comment.

          • jmprint says:

            Me too mike, you keep spitting the same spew of yesterday and it’s all very laughable.

          • mike says:

            No, the mental midget status is all yours.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Republicans met the day after President Obama was inaugurated to develop a plan to derail his, alleged, agenda and ensure he was unable to govern.
            You can excuse W’s ineptitude all you want. The fact remains that he was the President of the United States, and Commander in Chief, when 9/11 took place, and that is a fact.

          • mike says:

            Showing your ignorance of history again, I see. Republicans met the night of the inauguration. Can you get anything right???

            The fact remains that Obama was President of the United States when Yemen fell, Libya fell, Iraq lost at least 1/3 of its territory, half of Syria has been taken by ISIS. All done by a JV Team in Obama’s mind.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            The fact that people in Yemen, Somalia, Eritrea, Nigeria, Syria, Iraq, the Ukraine, the old Yugoslavia, and so many other countries embrace ideologies that are different than ours does not mean they “fell”. People have the right to choose what is best for them, and they have the right to reject the imposition of values by others.
            I find it interesting when people forget what tyrants like Pol Pot and Idi Amin did, the fact that nobody blame American Presidents for the atrocities they committed, and the fact that their countries eventually emerged stronger and are now our trade partners, and blame President Obama for not sacrificing American lives to ensure our will prevails in countries where our values and interests are not welcome.
            Perpetual babysitting to ensure our will prevails is not a sign of success, it is an admission of failure. Under no circumstances should we put boots on the ground, and resume the arrival of young American in body bags in the middle of the night, to please the arms industry, ideologues, and a political party with nothing to offer but violence, intolerance, and hatred.

          • mike says:

            Quit changing the subject. You couldn’t even get your information straight about the meeting.
            Yemen was Obama’s success story, and then it fell, taken by Iran backed Houthis.
            Just because you feel isolation is best for this country, doesn’t mean it is correct.
            ISIS is a major danger to the world and is expanding every day and only you and your ilk think we should look the other way. ISIS is far more dangerous that Pol Pot and Idi Amin, if you can’t see that then you really are lacking the understanding of todays world.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Isolationism is not the same as imperialism, which is what you are proposing. You are not talking about trade agreements, or international agreements, you are criticizing President Obama because he ordered the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, on a timetable consistent with what his predecessor established, implying that you favor a perpetual occupation, even if it means sacrificing American lives. Mine is the exact opposite. I believe we should not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, I believe we should respect the decisions of other people and their sovereignty, and I oppose unwarranted occupations. Your insistence on blaming President Obama because of his alleged failure to impose our will on others may make sense to you, it does not make any sense to me. I would not sacrifice a single American life to impose our will on the people in Iraq, Syria, Yemen or anywhere else. It is up to them to decide what is best for them. If they want thugs to rule them, that’s their business.
            Having said this, my greatest concern on this issue is that President Obama is likely to succumb to Republican pressure and will order a re-occupation of Iraq. I can’t wait to hear your criticisms of that decision.

          • mike says:

            I am not proposing isolation. it is you that wants Isolationism.
            A timeline that was to be further negotiated as to training and support. You keep ignoring that fact.
            Don’t you dare try to put words in my mouth about sacrificing our Troops.
            You idiot, Obama on his own has put American troops in harms way, they are all ready there not because of republicans.PS: I never said once the word “Occupation”. Only you would think that destroying ISIS is through occupation of Iraq.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            The essence of your criticism of President Obama’s decision to withdraw from Iraq, in a manner consistent with the agreement reached by his predecessor with the President of Iraq, implies that you support a continuous American presence in Iraq to ensure the regime we put in place remains in power. There are consequences, and a cost, associated with the occupation of another country, especially when that country does not want us there. The most painful for us is loss of American lives. If you are against that, endorse President Obama’s decision and shut up!

          • mike says:

            Obama negotiated with little interest in keeping troops in Iraq, ignored the generals and the need to stay, ignored Maliki’s wish to keep a greater force. even though publicly saying the opposite(not denied by Ben Rhoades in New Yorker article).
            No you shut up!!! I NEVER SAID “OCCUPATION”, YOU IGNORAMUs. Kill them, yes!! With combined forces and countries not just U.S..
            You would rather see a whole region under ISIS control and policies.
            The fact is that ISIS grows stronger, Obama dithers, innocent people are slaughter.
            Once again, this is all happening on Obama’s watch and the debacle is from his lack of leadership.
            He can’t bury his head. it is real, it is deadly and it is coming to the States.

          • CPAinNewYork says:

            “W” is an incompetent buffoon.

        • paulyz says:

          See my reply above, plus the fact that the Democrats always Oppose a balanced-budget amendment, because the ONLY way they remain in power, is by taxing & spending us deeper in debt, so they can “give” stuff to others. Obama is a classic example of saying one thing and doing the exact opposite, like a transparent government, eliminating pork, letting the People know what is in bills before passing, saying he can’t give Amnesty without Congressional approval, then doing so anyway, telling the People we can keep our health insurance & Doctors, then finding out that was BS along with getting $2,500. Doing nothing to shore up SS & Medicare for the future People, indeed, even taking $716 BILLION from Medicare for Obamacare………

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Just in case you forgot, the only budget surplus in over half a century occurred when President Clinton was in office. It evaporated in less than a year when W took over. as for President Obama, he cut the budget deficit by 2/3, compare that to the GOP record on this issue.
            President Obama did say that granting amnesty to illegal immigrants required Congressional approval, that is why he did not do it. He issued an Executive Order granting TEMPORARY WORK PERMITS and a reprieve from deportation for those who have been in the USA for over 5 years and who have children born in the USA. Amnesty is a full and irreversible pardon that allows the recipients to, among other things, become naturalized U.S. citizen. A temporary work permit is, as its name implies, temporary and can be reversed in our immigration laws are changed and render it obsolete.
            I am on MEDICARE and neither I nor any of the folks I know had to change doctors because of the ACA. On the contrary, people who did not have coverage can now get the preventive medical care they need. Doctors don’t turn patients away when they have insurance.
            MEDICARE was not cut $716B. Changes, mostly process improvements and greater oversight made the system more efficient by eliminating duplication and reducing the incidence of fraud and abuse.
            As for Social Security, the easiest way to ensure that program remains solvent for decades to come involves raising the contribution cap to $200K. Republicans consider that a tax on the rich, and do not support it.

          • paulyz says:

            Remember, today is Tax Freedom Day. The Federal Government took all your money from Jan. 1st. till today, & redistributed it for you. But they still need more. Maybe they can extend Tax Freedom Day. As for you being on Medicare, that is why you are safe from Obamacare, for now, & the surplus was from gutting our Military, and after the Dems. regained full control of Congress Bush’s last 2 years bringing us the Dodd/Frank subprime loan disaster; erased that in a hurry.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            How do you expect to pay for our Interstate system, bridges, tunnels, ports, airports, the CDC, NASA, NOAA, the State Department, the INS, DEA, CIA, FBI, Social Security, MEDICARE, the DoD and all the other government programs we need and benefit from? Nothing is free, and borrowing or stashing some of the cost of unfunded crusades in areas such as unfunded liabilities, and pretending that is not a problem or that nobody will notice is not a solution.
            The surplus that Bush inherited was erased by gutting the military and when Democrats gained control of the House in January 2006? You may want to recheck your history.

          • paulyz says:

            The surplus (Clinton) got was from gutting the Military. Bush’s first 6 years the economy ran quite well, especially after the 911 & Katrina disasters, & getting our Military strong again. All the problems the last 2 years was mostly from Democrats having complete control of Congress & the Dodd-Frank sub-prime fiasco.

            Of course there is the need for some government involvement, just not the excessive, wasteful, out-of-touch Federal Government. The Fe should only be doing limited things that the Constitution spells out, the rest left to the States & the People. The waste & fraud of favors & pork are a result of this. The bloated Federal Government is exactly the result of unfunded mandates, because of favors for votes, “giving” something for FREE to obtain power. You have it backwards.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            The Clinton surplus did include spending reductions. I was working at NASA when it happened, but the cuts were not as severe as most people think, and they were definitely not limited to the DoD. Much of the Clinton surplus was caused by the dot.com explosion, job creation (23 million new jobs), and the subsequent increases in government revenues through corporate and individual taxation, at a time when economic prosperity was booming. W wiped out the surplus he inherited during his first year in office, first by proposing and signing irresponsible tax breaks, and by engaging in two unfunded crusades with their cost charged to the nebulous unfunded liabilities. The “prosperity” we enjoyed during the Bush II presidency was a bubble caused by huge military budget increases and handing money out to corporations in the form of sole source contracts in Iraq, tax breaks, subsidies, and loopholes for the wealthy. Deregulation contributed to the problems that followed, and to the widespread fraud of companies and individuals such as ENRON, AIG, Lehman Brothers, and Bernie Maddof. Corruption and fiscal irresponsibility were the basis for the economic debacle that followed.
            Democrats took control of the House in January 2007, the Great recession began in July 2007. Cite a few examples of policies proposed by Democrats during that period that contributed to the Bush bubble bursting.
            Frank-Dodd was identical to Bush’s “ownership society”. The problem, when it comes to the real estate collapse was greed, irresponsibility, and inadequate government oversight.
            Accusing the Federal government of handing out money in exchange for votes is disingenuous and an over simplification.

          • dpaano says:

            Dom, you can talk until you’re blue in the face, but you’ll never be able to make these people see the truth for what it is….they are so enmeshed in the GOP mantra that they will never believe anything you say even the truth! It’s pretty sad, but true.

          • dpaano says:

            Gee….I think most of the so-called “pork” came from mostly Republican senators…….good thing they put a stop to that!

          • dpaano says:

            Pauly doesn’t understand that, Dom…..he thinks the country runs on beans!!! Maybe in his world, but not in the REAL world!

          • dpaano says:

            Pauly: When you agree to pick cotton or any of the other crops out there that people on work permits would do for you, or when you decide to become a gardener or sell food on corners from little carts…..then, and ONLY then, can you complain about anything, especially about illegals taking jobs from Americans! As for taxes, what do you think pays for our government….taxes!! What pays for our roads, our infrastructure, our police and military, our security, etc…..it’s taxes!!! If you don’t raise taxes to meet inflation, you end up in a worse situation!!! Personally, I wouldn’t mind having my taxes raised a little to pay for these items…..I think they are all important. Apparently, giving more money to the rich is more important to the GOP than paying for the services that they use on a daily basis!

      • jmprint says:

        Name ONE thing they (the reublicans) have accomplished for the people, just ONE thing.

        • paulyz says:

          Under free-market conditions & getting regressive & excessive Federal Gov. taxes, regulations, & intrusion that hinder the People’s ability to be successful, thereby creating better economic conditions & employment. Socialist Democrats try to use Government to create jobs with favors, subsidies & taking from others to “give” to others. What Communist countries have tried & failed at for decades. Also, by establishing a strong National Defense, we have kept our freedom, but with Liberals constantly gutting it, we risk losing it. We don’t measure success by how much Legislation with pork is passed, but by the Federal Government abiding by it’s limited duties expressed in OUR Constitution by the People.

          I could list more, like eliminating slavery as well.

          • jmprint says:

            1) Translation: hand cuffed the EPA, so the hell with our water and with fracking, they allowed us to not know what chemicals are being sanblasted into our earth. So if your drinking water lights up in flames, who cares!

            2) What they intended to do is not the same as what they have accomplished.

            3) You DIDN’T LIST NOT ONE THING THEY HAVE ACOMPLISHED FOR THE PEOPLE.

            You want to try again! And can we just try and stay focused on the years that President Obama has been in office and not the accomplishments of the 60s.

          • The lucky one says:

            I think jm meant republicans in the 20th century. The republican party of Lincoln is long gone.

          • paulyz says:

            I just threw that slavery issue in for S & G, since libs always like to play the race card

      • Jmz Nesky says:

        Neither is gutting social programs in order to balance the budget when there are far more programs available to do this that wouldn’t damage the ‘record’ profits of certain corporations.. Lessening the words ‘record breaking’ possibly because the entitlements and breaks gov gives accentuates those words but in profits itself there would be little harm yet the focus is on social programs where the people involved can’t do anything about it as they have no lobbyists to represent them so to the GOP it’s a duck shoot and to hell with any after effects such as a rise in starvation and criminal activity, that’s why we have cemeteries and prisons. And job creation has nothing to do with the job makers as much as the buying consumer.. A job maker can create a large company selling many products but so long as those products don’t move neither will jobs be created.. They can build the shop but without buyers they can’t fill the shop with employees. So a businessman can use his own funds to create a shop just as his speculating ancestors did in their day then sell good wares for reasonable prices which will bring in the customers which in turn will cause the businessman to have to hire employees in order to keep up with the demand. To give entitlements to the wealthy on the promise or even assumption that they can or even will create jobs is living in a ‘trickle’ down fantasy world.. And furthermore, those things you claim the cons are trying to enact are solely on THEIR terms, no compromise especially when it comes to Obama thus appears the opposing force, no one in business or politics has the right to demand things operate ONLY on their terms.. it will always split the votes and separate the parties.

  2. The lucky one says:

    All laudable goals as are those espoused by D Vila and Berneio but putting Clinton’s name in the same sentence with progressive is quite a stretch and actually an insult to true progressives who behave like it rather than just talk it.

    • Dominick Vila says:

      I don’t consider Bill and Hillary Clinton liberals. Their record is center-right, which is fine with me. They lean right on foreign policy and economic policy; and they lean left on social programs, abortion, gay rights, immigration, financial inequality, the environment, education, and several other social issues.

      • The lucky one says:

        I’ll do some more research before decision time comes but I’ve never viewed either Clinton as particularly to the left on the environment or financial inequality. In word perhaps but not in deed.

      • TZToronto says:

        For forty year in Ontsrio, the Progressive Conservative party formed the government. While they were somewhat fiscally conservative, they were socially progressive–kind of odd in light of today’s GOP. After an experiment with the NDP (a socialist party), the government reverted to the PCs again–except that the PCs had turned into a far right-wing party. For example, they had a high school dropout as education minister. (Suddenly teachers became the provincial scapegoat–under-worked and overpaid.). They slashed provincial social programs and burdened the municipalities with those functions–criticizing those same municipalities for having a difficult time balancing their budgets–all the while running up deficits of their own, in the best neo-conservative style.. . . Not that anyone in the U.S. really cares about what happens on Ontario. The point is that the differences between right and left have widened both North and south of the international border. We know that the Clintons are not progressives in that they, as you note, are centrists on many issues. But, like President Obama, they agree with socially progressive ideas. It is for this reason that the Democrats need to retake the Senate as well as keep the White House. Unfortunately, the Democrats won’t have 60 Senate seats following the 2016 election, which will mean that a Democratic President will have a hard time putting reasonable people on the Supreme Court.

      • Independent1 says:

        You really have a lot of patience to carry on a conversation with Mike who I’m convinced is a paid troll who will never agree with any of our points of view even when it’s clear he’s arguing from the losing side.

        But aside from that, here’s an article I came across in Salon just a bit ago which if you haven’t seen it, you may find it of interest. It’s apparently sparked by David Koch’s comment today that Scott Walker should be the GOP’s 2016 candidate for president.

        See this from Salon if you haven’t already (it really tells it like it is):

        From tragedy to farce: The GOP primary shows the rapid collapse of American democracy

        http://www.salon.com/2015/04/21/from_tragedy_to_farce_the_gop_primary_shows_the_rapid_collapse_of_american_democracy/

    • jmprint says:

      At least they are goals, comedians are a dime a dozen, the republicans running for president think this comedy centrral.

  3. FT66 says:

    My hat off to HRC Campaign Advisors and to HRC herself. You are doing a fantastic job. Keep focused and engaged we will all reach there. Try hard to work first on some differences which exist among Democrats. Once you sove that problem, the way for winning will be paved. Don’t worry the other side (GOP), they seem not having any new agenda in mind and don’t have anyone in particular to support. That boy, (Rubio) shouldn’t worry anyone. He lacks confidence a lot. Having a dry mouth all the time, shows he is not ready to take major tasks like leading the biggest nation on earth. Independents won’t allow this to happen even if all republicans might vote for him.

  4. Elliot J. Stamler says:

    I LOVE THIS ARTICLE. We know Hillary here in NY..she is our fellow citizen and former senator and wildly popular when she was serving. She is liberal-moderate which is exactly where most Democrats and most Americans are. She is “progressive” (a nice word but an abdication of intellectual courage on the part of many liberals who accepted the Republican defamation of that word.) The strong leftist minority in my Democratic Party are just the people who brought us George McGovern and Michael Dukakis. I admire and contributed to Sen. Warren-a fine senator, but when I listen to these leftists carp and grumble about Mrs. Clinton not being sufficiently “progressive” I point out that THIS COUNTRY IS NOT MORE LIBERAL AT ITS MOST LIBERAL THAN HILLARY CLINTON. Face it, leftist..you are and will continue to be a minority in this country. IT IS HILLARY CLINTON OR A QUASI-FASCIST IN THE PRESIDENCY AND A SUPREME COURT OF 7 OR 8 ANTONIN SCALIAS, IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT??????

    • TZToronto says:

      Pragmatism is required. We may have to hold our noses when it comes to some aspects of Ms. Clinton’s policies, but at least we can still breathe. However, I can’t decide what would make me hold my nose when I cast my vote for her. I’m a pragmatic progressive, and I know that getting some of what we want is a lot better than getting everything we abhor.

    • charleo1 says:

      There is no great T-Party Left. Only a lot of distracted, family aged voters, who are historically terrible at turning out in mid term elections. And who also probably relied too heavily on a corporate owned press, and a less than competent DNC to inform them of the direct consequences to the President they just elected, should they fail to turn out, and vote. The thing is, voters who enthusiastically elected this very progressive, and pragmatic President, twice. Failed to have his back when it counted, and he, like us, lost our majority Congress. And now some feel betrayed. Because, like I said, they’ve been too busy trying to keep their heads above water to realize it was, in fact, their sitting home in 2010, that has created much of the dysfunctional mess we have today. And being on the Left side of the Democratic Party, as I am. Doesn’t mean we will refuse to vote for a Hillary Clinton, if she’s nominated. What it does mean is, we want a President, or our Representatives in Congress, who will not just go along to get along with the radical factions who have abducted the Conservative Right, until we can fix the disastrous effects of one vitally important election. And if that takes another decade of ugly partisanship, and dysfunction. We feel that is far better than the alternative we would get otherwise.

    • The lucky one says:

      You’re right we leftys are a minority and that’s a large part of the reason the country is in the sorry shape it is in. When Hilary starts campaigning against the TPP then I’ll consider voting for her but until then it’s 3rd party. Yah I know you’ll say that’s a wasted vote. IMHO a vote for Hilary or any of the gop candidates is also a wasted votes no matter which one of those dirtbags wins.

      • Elliot J. Stamler says:

        I don’t know what TPP stands for. My only other comment is that whatever your age you have not learned some of the rules of life: you do not cut your nose off to spite your face; half a loaf is better than none..especially when half a loaf is all you are ever going to get; we all would like to get our own sweet way all the time but in all aspects of life compromise is crucial.

        • The lucky one says:

          It’s been a long time if ever since we the people have had anything close to half a loaf, a few slices at best. When your hero is done pushing through the tran-pacific partnership we’ll be lucky to have few crumbs. I’m not surprised you don’t know what it is since it’s been cloaked in secrecy, privy only to the corporate lobbyists serving their masters. NAFTA on steroids in few words.

          You really should avoid preaching to others when you are so woefully uninformed.

          • Elliot J. Stamler says:

            I had only heard the agreement referred to as the Trans Pacific Trade Agreement. I will not respond to your remark about being “uninformed.” People like you bring about political disasters because as I wrote in my above comment you have not learned the rules of life. It’s happened with Dukakis and McGovern and I was there to see it happen.

          • The lucky one says:

            Well I think it’s people like you that bring about political disasters through your refusal to see that virtually all the dems and repubs serve their corporate masters not the people, Obama and Hilary are certainly not exceptions. I’m no longer voting for the lesser of two evils. Personally I’d rather oppose the evil instead of going along because this or that side will give me a pat on the head or a crumb when they want my support.

          • Elliot J. Stamler says:

            I just have to add one more word: go down your fanatic path and you will not get a pat on the head, you will get a bunk in a concentration camp or a cell in a prison when the country is totally taken over by one-party authoritarian fascists who now ARE the Republican party.

          • The lucky one says:

            I too have one more word. No argument here about the Republican party being fascist but the majority of Dems, including Obama and Clinton are scarcely any better. I know being the house slave is better than being the field slave but I’ll choose to oppose slavery and if I suffer the fate you describe at least I’ll know I didn’t give up like all the lesser of two evils cowards.

  5. greenriverkate says:

    MY PROBLEM, THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY! WARREN AND SANDERS HAVE FOUGHT FOR YEARS TO DO RIGHT BY THE CITIZENS!!!! THEY HAVE A SOLID GROUND TO STAND ON WITH A HISTORY OF PROOF OF BELIEFS. HILLARY, NOT SO MUCH. WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF DOING WITHOUT SO OTHER COUNTRIES CAN GET HANDOUTS, WARS, FOODS ETC WHILE OUR CHILDREN, SENIORS AND MIDDLE CLASS CRASH AND BURN. WE HAVE HOMELESS, HUNGRY AND SAD CITIZENS! TIME TO FIGHT FOR US AND TELL THE OTHER COUNTRIES, OUR BIG BUSINESS’S THE WEALTHY TIME TO TAKE A BACK SEAT TO OUR COUNTRY AND HER CITIZENS. UNTIL WE CLEAN UP THE GOP MESS, VOTE AND GET THEM OUT OF OFFICE, I HAVE LITTLE FAITH THIS COUNTRY WILL STAND! WE ARE CRUISING FOR A LABEL AS 3RD WORLD COUNTRY, AT THIS POINT!

    • TZToronto says:

      Glad you mentioned that. The GOP true believers probably look at their list of potential candidates as an unlimited pool of talent. They probably figure that the primary process will result in the cream rising to the top. The problem is that there is no cream. It’s all milk, and it’s all curdled. The simple fact is that even though it looks like Ms. Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, there are at least half a dozen others who won’t pursue the Democratic nomination who would be better candidates than anyone on the GOP side.

  6. Godzilla says:

    Hillary Clinton, the most famous corrupt “BAG LADY” In the history of earth.

  7. BOC says:

    I think everyone knows, including the GOP that Hillary is the candidate to beat overall. The democratic primary race isn’t the challenge for her at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.