Gail Collins, "You Choose or You Lose": You Lose Either Way

Tweet

Have a look at Gail Collins's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "You Choose or You Lose," which is bereft of even a modicum of objectivity. Our little Candy Crush Saga devotee informs us:

"Faced with a choice between a guy who could compromise national security and a woman who wants universal early childhood education, the former chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee [Senator Susan Collins] claimed to be at a loss for an answer."

Well, as you all know, I believe that Trump potentially threatens the existence of life on this planet. On the other hand, Collins might have wanted to note Hillary's use of a home server through which classified material passed and which actually compromised national security.

Collins goes on to say:

"Right now we live in a world that’s been messed up by the bad decisions George W. Bush made about invading Iraq."

Heck, all this while, I thought Hillary supported Bush's Iraq mess.

And then there's that new matter involving the Clinton Foundation's ties to the State Department, i.e. influence peddling.

Yup, it's going to require a cast-iron stomach to enter an American voting booth this November.

Gail Collins, "Trump’s Celebrity Shortage": And Hillary's Credibility Shortage?

Tweet

Don't get me wrong: Hillary is reptilian and venomous, but she poses no threat to the world.

That said, have a look at Gail Collins's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Trump’s Celebrity Shortage" in which this Candy Crush Saga devotee informs us:

"Of course, none of us actually cares there aren’t going to be any quarterbacks at the Republican convention. But if Trump can’t negotiate some cheesy diversions, what makes anybody think he can negotiate a new trade deal with China?"

Well, I don't understand the connection between celebrity attendance at the Republican convention and a new trade deal with China. On the other hand, NFL quarterbacks are apparently smart enough to stay away from a party celebrating an electoral nightmare in the making.

Collins goes on to say:

"We’ll be hearing a lot about Hillary and her emails. The difference is that Clinton, like most people at the highest level in the American political system, can balance her disasters with a history of achievements."

Ah yes, Hillary's achievements. Do you remember State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki's April 2014 response to a request "to "identify one tangible achievement" while Hillary was secretary of state: "I am certain that those who were here at the time, who worked hard on that effort, could point out one." How reassuring.

But don't worry, Hillary fans. Others are prepared with answers:

• Bill Burton listed "Her role in killing Osama bin Laden." Yup, Hillary flew in a helicopter with the SEALs into Pakistan, and while under withering sniper fire, she administered the coup de grâce.
• Howard Dean tells us that "Hillary Clinton was the principal author of the sanction [one sanction?] on Iran that brought them to the table." In fact, there had been many rounds of sanctions against Iran by successive administrations, long before Obama became president and "made nice" to Iran, the chief perpetrator of terror around the globe.
• Chuck Schumer says, "She negotiated the cease-fire in Gaza that stopped the Hamas ["the" Hamas?] from firing rocket after rocket into Israel." Hillary sure stopped Hamas cold in its tracks in 2012 ... until Hamas fired another 4,000 rockets into Israel in 2014.

Indeed, no achievements of any consequence, but she remains the lesser of the two evils in an election that marks the end of American exceptionalism.

Gail Collins, "Hillary, Beyond Email": Beyond Redemption

Tweet

Gail Collins declares in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hillary, Beyond Email":

"But nobody wants to be remembering 2016 as the year America elected its first woman president by default. Since at least she didn’t get indicted.

Clinton can spend the next four months listing all the ways Trump would be worse. Or she can use her intelligence, experience and fortitude to turn her story around."

Yup, disregard everything the State Department IG had to say. Ignore Comey. Hillary's now an honest human being!

Yeah, right. Collins's brain has obviously been addled by Candy Crush Saga.

Gail Collins, "Memorial Day Weekend Ranting": Ignoring the IG's Report

Tweet

Yes, something "bad" happened to Hillary's presidential campaign yesterday, but you would never know it after reading Gail Collins's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Memorial Day Weekend Ranting," which is devoted to airlines fees for checked baggage and $3 snacks. (Gail, it wouldn't harm you to lay off the junk food.)

The State Department IG's Report concerning Hillary's email practices? Why should that bother Gail, who told us one week ago that Hillary "is one of the most qualified people ever to run for the office." Hey, Gail, surely you remember what Hillary told reporters at the UN in March:

"First, the laws and regulations in effect when I was secretary of state allowed me to use my email for work. That is undisputed.

. . . .

I fully complied with every rule I was governed by."

If fibbing was a presidential qualification, Hillary would indeed have this election all sewn up.

More to the point, if Hillary cared more about the United States than herself, she would drop out of the race and save us from Donald Trump.

Sadly, she doesn't.

Gail Collins, "The Donald Trump New Normal": Monica Lewinsky for VP!

Tweet

Gail Collins is in panic-mode.

You will recall how, in 2012, Collins made a point of alluding to the Romney "dog on the car roof" story, i.e. her lame running joke, in almost all of her opinion pieces leading up to the presidential election. Today, however, the shoe is on the other foot, given how Trump once sent her a copy of her column with “The Face of a Dog!” written over her picture.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Donald Trump New Normal," Collins writes of Trump's upcoming efforts to land a vice presidential candidate:

"Once you eliminate all the people who have already announced they’d rather be kidnapped by manatees, there’s a pretty short list. Maybe Chris Christie? Never in modern America have we had a presidential ticket composed entirely of guys who specialize in insulting people and yelling at the top of their lungs."

Christie? Not a chance! Heck, my understanding is that Monica Lewinsky is at the top of Donald's short-list.

But before we get there, maybe the Republican convention should adopt a resolution demanding that all prospective presidential candidates undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Better still, testing should be live and formatted along the lines of "The Apprentice," i.e. "You're delusional!"

Please wake me up and tell me that this is just a bad dream ...

Gail Collins, "Hillary and Bernie Meet New York": Truth Not Be Told

Tweet

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Hillary and Bernie Meet New York," Gail Collins pokes fun at Bernie Sander's claim that Hillary is not "qualified" to be president:

"Lately, Bernie Sanders seems to have been acting a little … off. There was the terrible interview with The Daily News. ('I don’t know … It’s something I have not studied … I haven’t thought about it a whole lot.') Then there was the strange series of claims that Clinton is not qualified to be president, the most improbable description he could pick short of 'lazy.'"

I'm no fan of Sanders, but I don't lackadaisically dismiss his rationale, including: receipt by Hillary of millions of dollars in donations from special interest groups, her support of the Second Gulf War, and her support of the Panama Free Trade Agreement.

And then there's Hillary's history of scandals, which goes unmentioned by Sanders and Collins.

The FBI investigation of her private email server? Hillary is now calling this a mere "security review."

Honesty from either Hillary or Gail? Don't be expecting it anytime soon.

Gail Collins, "Trump, Truth and Abortion": Golf Partners for Eternity

Tweet

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Trump, Truth and Abortion," Gail Collins tells us of Donald Trump's position on abortion:

"There’s no reason to imagine Trump ever gave a millisecond of thought to the details of abortion policy until he got trapped in that merciless interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC."

Agreed. But more to the point, a self-absorbed Trump probably never gave a millisecond of thought to the details of any policy. Trumps suffers from a severe narcissistic personality disorder and is incapable of thinking about anything but himself.

Abortion? I am pro-choice, but I am more concerned with the danger Trump poses to all life on this planet. Can you imagine allowing him to press the launch buttons of America's nuclear arsenal with his little fingers? May the Lord have mercy on us.

Meanwhile, President Obama, another narcissist, yesterday criticized Donald's comments concerning the proliferation of atomic weapons. As reported by Stephanie Condon in a CBS News article entitled "Obama responds to Donald Trump's comments about nuclear weaponry":

"Speaking to reporters at the end of the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, President Obama on Friday gave a critical response to Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump's recent remarks about nuclear weaponry.

Without referring to Trump by name, Mr. Obama said, 'The person who made the statements doesn't know much about foreign policy, or nuclear policy, or the Korean Peninsula, or the world generally.'

Trump this week said that Japan and South Korea might have to acquire their own nuclear weapons. In a separate incident this week, he refused to rule out using nuclear weapons in Europe if elected president."

Excuse me, but the person who referred to ISIS as the "jayvee team" knows more than Trump about foreign policy? Yes, I know, he thinks he does.

Trump's nightmarish suggestions concerning the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons are off the wall. But was it a rational decision on Obama's part to enter into an unsigned nuclear deal with Iran's mullahs, extending Tehran's "breakout time" from three months to all of one year (if it abides by the agreement, which it won't), while removing sanctions and effectively permitting these psychopaths to engage in ballistic missile testing, i.e. delivery of these weapons of mass destruction?

My fantasy: That many years hence (may they both live to 120), Trump and Obama will be golf partners for eternity in a netherworld of fire and brimstone.

Gail Collins, "The Republican Gun-Free Zone": Is Trump "Mental"?

Tweet

Gail Collins obviously knows little about terrorism and guns.

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Republican Gun-Free Zone," Collins writes:

"The theory is that once everybody is armed 24/7, no matter what bad thing occurs, there will always be good guys on hand to shoot the evildoer. In the real world very few people — including police officers — are skilled enough to aim accurately during a scary emergency. But if you want to win the Republican presidential nomination, it’s important to pretend otherwise."

However, in Israel, Collins has repeatedly been proven wrong.

On the other hand, should Trump supporters, packing heat, be allowed to attend the Republican National Convention, particularly if it should be "brokered"? After all, none other than Donald himself stated that if he is denied the nomination owing to a shortfall of 100 votes, "I wouldn’t lead it, but I think bad things would happen."

Yup, as even Ann Coulter, a Trump supporter, acknowledged on Monday, Donald is "mental" (her word, not mine):

"Drastic measures may have to be taken so he doesn’t send tweets like last night.

. . . .

I want to take him to a urologist and get electrodes inserted into what is apparently a very large ‘schlong,’ and whenever he does something like this, I want to have the button."

As long as we're on the topic of doctors and buttons, how about sending Trump to a psychiatrist to obtain medical assurances that this man should be allowed anywhere near America's nuclear arsenal launch button.

Sorry, Gail, small arms should be the least of your concerns.

Gail Collins, "The Republicans’ Sin of Endorsement": Salivating Over a Romney Nomination

Tweet

In yet another vacuous New York Times op-ed entitled "The Republicans’ Sin of Endorsement," Gail Collins concludes by suggesting the possibility that Mitt Romney could walk away with the Republican nomination in a brokered convention:

"None of these new converts to the Cruz camp seem to have any actual arguments about Cruz being a good potential president. Bush, in his announcement, complained that 'Washington is broken' but made no attempt whatsoever to explain how things would be improved by the nomination of a senator whose sole achievement in office was an effort to shut down the government. Maybe they think if Cruz is the spoiler at the convention, it’ll be easier to shove him away to make room for a brand new superhero? (Looking at you, Mitt.)"

Can you imagine, Collins might again be able to pad her columns with her lame dog-on-the-roof "running joke." She must be salivating over the possibility.

Elsewhere in the news, probably unbeknownst to Gail, Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari announced that Tehran is planning to send warships to the Atlantic "to help improve international peace and security."

"International peace and security"? Iranian warships that can fire missiles at Manhattan and shake the foundations of Gail's Candy Crush Saga world? Oh my goodness!

More developments involving Iran? As reported by Reuters in an exclusive article entitled "U.S. to charge Iran in cyber attacks against banks, New York dam" by Dustin Volz, Nate Raymond and Jim Finkle:

"The Obama administration is expected to blame Iranian hackers as soon as Thursday for a coordinated campaign of cyber attacks in 2012 and 2013 on several U.S. banks and a New York dam, sources familiar with the matter have told Reuters.

The Justice Department has prepared an indictment against about a half-dozen Iranians, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter. It is one of the highest-profile U.S. indictments against a foreign nation on hacking charges."

This is the same Iran whose banks are being reconnected with the SWIFT network. And this is the same Iran which, a few days ago, was commended by Obama in his annual Nowruz address:

"Over the years, you've heard me say that the United States was prepared to engage with Iran in a spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect. Well, that's exactly what we did. In the last few years, our diplomats and nuclear scientists sat down together and negotiated face to face, and last summer, along with our international partners, we reached the historic deal on Iran's nuclear program.

. . . .

I firmly believe that we can continue to expand the connections between the American and Iranian people."

I don't know if Obama also plays Candy Crush Saga, but he is obviously also living in a fantasy world.

Gail Collins, "Take the Trump Quiz": "I Think You'd Have Riots"? Frightening, Not Droll

Tweet

"I think we’ll win before getting to the convention, but I can tell you, if we didn’t and if we’re 20 votes short or if we’re, you know, 100 short and we’re at 1,100 and somebody else is at 500 or 400, cause we're way ahead of everybody. I don’t think you can say that we don’t get it automatically. I think it would be — I think you’d have riots. I think you'd have riots. You know, I'm representing a tremendous many, many millions of people."

- Donald Trump, CNN's "New Day," March 16, 2016

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Take the Trump Quiz," Gail Collins presents us with a droll multiple choice quiz highlighting the horrors underlying the Donald Trump candidacy. Yes, Gail, Trump is despicable, but there is nothing amusing about this man, particularly after his warning, this week, of riots if he falls short of the mandatory delegate count and is not nominated.

Riots if he is not nominated? Some hear Trump's warning and remember the Democratic Convention in Chicago in 1968.

Me? I think of how Hitler threatened to let his Brownshirts run amok in August 1932 when, after the Nazis won 230 seats in the Reichstag and became the dominant political party in Germany, he was denied the chancellorship.

Sorry, Donald, but there won't be "riots" if you tell your supporters to respect the law and that you won't pay their legal fees if they are arrested. Moreover, God willing, should you not be nominated, there is nothing to prevent your marvelous self from mounting a third party candidacy, thereby making absolutely 100% certain that Hillary - barring an indictment - enters the White House.

Frightening, not droll.

Gail Collins, "Kasich, the Boulder Between the G.O.P. and Trump": Boulder or Pebble in Trump's Shoe?

Tweet

Agree with Gail Collins? Me? Never! At least not until this loathsome morning . . .

In a terse New York Times op-ed entitled "Kasich, the Boulder Between the G.O.P. and Trump," Collins writes of the Republican debates and Ohio Governor John Kasich:

"At times it was like a bunch of gladiators smashing into one another at the coliseum while one chipper combatant wandered around shaking his head and urging everybody to get along."

Gladiators? You're being too kind, Ms. Collins. How about professional wrestlers? You will recall how Trump pinned Vince McMahon at the WrestleMania Battle of the Billionaires and then shaved McMahon's head, demonstrating to the world that he has what it takes to be the next American commander in chief.

Labeling Kasich "the only non-appalling option the Republicans have," Collins holds out a laser-thin ray of hope:

"Can Kasich go all the way? Doesn’t seem likely. But then Ohio does like to call itself the Mother of Presidents. Eight came from Ohio in one way or another. True, that included Warren Harding and William Henry Harrison, who lasted for only a month. But on the plus side there’s … William McKinley."

Also worth noting that in recent polls, Kasich destroys Hillary. Gail also ignores another possible outcome: A brokered Republican convention resulting in Mitt Romney as the Republican candidate. Wow! Gail could again bore us with her running dog-on-the-roof "joke."

Kasich the Republican nominee? From your lips to God's ears, Gail. Now if only the FBI recommends indicting Hillary, and Biden throws his hat in the ring, wrestling or otherwise. But don't be expecting too many miracles: God is also getting tired of America's electoral shenanigans.

Gail Collins, "Trump Clarifies, and It’s Worse": Welcome Back the Brownshirts?

Tweet

In yet another vacuous New York Times op-ed entitled "Trump Clarifies, and It’s Worse," Gail Collins concludes by referring to Donald Trump's decision in Miami to double down on his declaration that "Islam hates us":

"Imagine a president coming out with a statement like that. Rubio pointed to Muslim Americans serving in the military, and the Arab countries that were currently cooperating in the war on terror. 'Marco talks about consequences. Well, we’ve had a lot of consequences, including airplanes flying into the World Trade Center …,' rejoined Trump.

That’s it. He’s going all the way. Running for president on an anti-Muslim platform. Good God."

Actually, there's more to Trump's platform. He's also telling us that all of America's economic ills can be remedied by negotiating better deals. That, and it's perfectly okay to say, "I'd like to punch him in the face," which was followed by a supporter sucker punching a protester in the face and subsequently declaring "The next time we see him, we might have to kill him."

Trump's Chicago rally cancelled after fights erupted? Who would have ever imagined ...

Reminiscent of Hitler's Brownshirts terrorizing political opponents? Decide for yourself.

More to the point, when, if ever, does this nightmare end? In a must-read Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Are we finally reaching ‘peak Trump’?," George Will writes:

"'Peak Trump' — the apogee before the dwindling — might be approaching for the perhaps bogus billionaire (would a real one bother with fleecing those who matriculate at Trump University?) who purports to prove his business wizardry, colossal wealth and stupendous generosity not by releasing his tax returns but by displaying a pile of steaks. The eventual end of our long national embarrassment might be foreshadowed by Donald Trump’s pattern of doing better among early voters than among 'late deciders': He firmly has those he entranced early; others are more elusive.

. . . .

Mitt Romney’s denunciations and ridicules, reciprocating Trump’s, are not designed to dissuade Trump voters. It is axiomatic that you cannot reason a person out of a position that the person has not been reasoned into. The adhesive that binds Trumpkins to their messiah can be dissolved by neither facts nor eloquence. Romney and other defenders of Republican traditions are trying to prevent a stampede to Trump of 'Vichy Republicans,' collaborationists coming to terms with the occupation of their party."

So what could dissuade Republicans from making Trump their nominee? If they can't be persuaded by logic, might they ultimately be nauseated by the violence plaguing his campaign stops? Don't hold your breath. The Grand Old Party is beginning to look like the Angry White Man's Party, which is willing to steal defeat from the jaws of victory, if Hillary, also a narcissistic self-serving politician willing to trash the mother of a Benghazi victim, goes unindicted.

Gail Collins, "Hillary! Bernie! Debate!": Hillary's Pompom Girl

Tweet

Commenting upon Wednesday’s Democratic debate in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Hillary! Bernie! Debate!," Gail Collins dismisses Bernie Sanders:

"Nobody hates Bernie Sanders. But he’s a maverick legislator, a man without a party. That’s a way, way different kind of life than being the person who has to run the country."

She then absolves Hillary from all her sins:

"Clinton is a stupendous debater, and she’s developed smooth and sensible-sounding answers to sticky matters like the State Department emails and Benghazi. But she still hasn’t been able to handle Sanders’s attacks on her $225,000 speeches to finance industry insiders. She shrugs and says she’ll release the transcripts when 'everybody else does,' which generally involves mentioning that President Obama 'took a lot of money from Wall Street.'

'I don’t have any comment,' she said when she was questioned earlier in the week about campaign donations. 'I don’t know that. I don’t believe that there is any reason to be concerned about it.'

This is the stuff that makes Democrats want to send a message. Hillary Clinton is by far the best qualified candidate for president. But at this point in the campaign, you can understand why some people feel that voting for her against Bernie Sanders is like rewarding Washington for its worst behavior."

Got it: As observed by Marc Thiessen in a January 25, 2016 Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Clinton’s email excuses are falling apart," changing her explanation regarding the emails from "there was 'no classified material' on her private server" to "none of the intelligence on her server was 'classified at the time'" to "there was no information that was 'marked classified'" was smooth as silk.

And telling the parents of the Benghazi victims that the attack resulted from a silly video was even more "sensible-sounding."

Collins concludes:

"In the end, Clinton is the one who knows how to make the system work. But she’s just got to be clearer on how she can work against the system."

Indeed, Hillary knows how to make the system work . . . for herself (the Clintons' combined net worth is some $111 million). She is almost as disgusting as Donald Trump.

Gail Collins, "Call Me Mister Trump": The Noose Tightens Around Hillary's Neck

Tweet

In headline news, Bryan Pagliano, who set up Hillary's home server in 2009 and later took the Fifth when appearing before the House Select Committee investigating Benghazi in September, has been granted immunity by the Justice Department as part of the FBI's criminal investigation of classified information which passed through the server. As reported by Adam Goldman in a lead Washington Post article entitled "Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server":

"As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents are likely to want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said.

. . . .

Clinton and the State Department have said that none of the material was marked classified at the time it was sent. However, it is the responsibility of individual government officials to properly handle sensitive material."

Now have a look at how The New York Times is treating the story. If you currently go to the homepage of the Times, under a lead story entitled "Trouble Lurks Beneath Clinton’s Victories," you will see a link in smaller letters to "As Campaign Unfolds, So Do Clinton Email Inquiries." Clicking on this link brings you to a story entitled "As Presidential Campaign Unfolds, So Do Inquiries Into Clinton’s Emails" by Steven Lee Myers and and Matt Apuzzo, which informs us:

"The bureau’s investigators have already interviewed Bryan Pagliano, a former aide who installed the server Mrs. Clinton had in her home in New York and used exclusively for her private and official email while secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

Mr. Pagliano, who last year invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify before Congress, has cooperated with the investigation, according to the law enforcement official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. Mr. Pagliano’s lawyer declined to comment."

Mention of a grant of "immunity" to Pagliano in the article? None.

The Times article goes on to say:

"Federal law makes it a crime to mishandle classified information outside secure government channels when someone does so 'knowingly' or — more seriously — permits it through 'gross negligence.' Mrs. Clinton has correctly pointed out that none of the emails on her server were marked as classified at the time."

Fascinating. However, as observed by Marc Thiessen in a January 25, 2016 Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Clinton’s email excuses are falling apart":

"Lash out as she might, Clinton’s constantly changing email story is rapidly falling apart. First, Clinton claimed there was 'no classified material' on her private server — which turned out to be untrue. Then she claimed none of the intelligence on her server was 'classified at the time' — which also turned out to be untrue. Now, in a National Public Radio interview last week, Clinton said there was no information that was 'marked classified.'"

Moreover, 18 U.S. Code § 793(f) - Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information does not premise criminal liability for the removal of information through "gross negligence" from its proper place of custody upon a document being marked "classified."

Today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Call Me Mister Trump," Gail Collins lambastes Donald Trump ("Just remember that this will be an administration where all millionaires, whatever race, creed or color, will be given equal opportunity"), Chris Christie ("Now he’s just Donald Trump’s sidekick — his Robin, or maybe more appropriately, his Chewbacca"), Ted Cruz ("If there’s a derrick on the horizon, Cruz can’t lose"), and Marco Rubio ("I am wondering what the bidding will be for 'An American Also-Ran,' the inspiring story of the man who won the Minnesota caucus"). There is no mention of Mrs. Clinton in Collins's opinion piece, other than a passing reference to a speech in which Donald said that he "looked forward to taking on 'Hillary.'"

Okay, if it comes down to a race between Donald, who should not be allowed to have his finger anywhere near America's nuclear arsenal launch button, and Hillary, who has merely threatened the rule of law in America (Jerry Zeifman, a Democrat who oversaw Hillary's work on behalf of the House Judiciary Committee when it was investigating the Watergate scandal, said that Mrs. Clinton "conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality"), I prefer Hillary. At least Hillary doesn't appear to pose a threat to life on planet earth, unless, of course, she goes off her diet. But don't you think, Gail, that Hillary's burgeoning email scandal deserves even a passing mention?

Please, Joe, reconsider before it's too late.

Gail Collins, "Trump Meets the Mean Boys": Will Hillary Soon Meet the FBI?

Tweet

Two weeks ago,  I observed that The Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, Yahoo News, Bloomberg and UPI had all published articles concerning the State Department subpoena served on the Clinton Foundation, but The New York Times decided to ignore the matter entirely. I asked whether the Times is still a newspaper, or, if it has become a highly politicized, self-serving propaganda machine. Well, it now appears that the Times has belatedly woken up to the stench emanating from the Clinton campaign. First, there was Thursday's editorial asking that Hillary make the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs, et al., available to the public. And yesterday, in a Times article entitled "Unclassified Clinton Emails May Have Consequences for a Key Deputy" by Steven Lee Myers, we were told re the Hillary home email server imbroglio:

"Even admirers of Mrs. Clinton’s record as secretary of state acknowledge that the use of the server had consequences for her select circle of confidants. They include Mr. [Jake] Sullivan, who as director of policy planning and a deputy chief of staff, handled the most pressing policies and international crises during her tenure as secretary. Others were Cheryl D. Mills, her chief of staff, and Huma Abedin, who was then also a deputy chief of staff, and other senior diplomats who sent messages to her now under scrutiny.

. . . .

Several of the emails released so far make clear, even in redacted form, that officials understood the protocol for discussing classified information, including Mrs. Clinton herself."

Can the FBI cannot avoid recommending indictments? I don't think so. This could get very nasty for Sullivan, Mills and Abedin, and later, for their beloved boss.

On the subject of "nasty," Gail Collins has graced us today with a tepid New York Times op-ed entitled "Trump Meets the Mean Boys." Collins again fails to mention any of the "nastiness" involving the Clinton campaign, and instead directs her barbs at the feud that has erupted between Rubio and Trump. Collins, who once received from Trump a copy of her column with "The Face of a Dog!" written over her picture, writes:

"You can understand why Rubio felt that getting personal was the only way to go. Trump has been breezing through the campaign without making any discernible effort to come up with coherent policies, or even to keep his stories straight."

Collins's conclusion:

"The great moment of debate night, as far as I’m concerned, came after the actual debate was over, and Trump suggested in a CNN postgame interview, that the I.R.S. might audit him a lot 'because of the fact that I’m a strong Christian … and maybe there’s a bias.'

Then in a CNN post-postgame interview Trump took it all back. ('I don’t think it applies.') As only he can."

However, Collins misses the point: Trump is a bully sans substance, and finally someone, i.e. Rubio, has shown the courage to needle this flimflam artist, whose Trump University has been exposed as a fraud. Let's hope that it is not too late.

Christie's endorsement of the Republican poster boy for narcissistic personality disorders? Sic [New Jersey] transit gloria mundi, with the emphasis on "sick."

Gail Collins, "The Secret Side of Donald Trump": Trump Endangers the World (Hillary Only Threatens American Rule of Law)

Tweet

Devoting her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Secret Side of Donald Trump" to the "upside of Donald Trump" and scrutinizing his position on health care, Gail Collins concludes:

"The bottom line is that once you really pin him down, Donald Trump is a mail-order conservative Republican, except more trash-talking about Muslims and Mexicans. Surrender hope and be careful not to die in the streets."

Pin Trump down? Actually, it was Trump who pinned Vince McMahon down at the WrestleMania Battle of the Billionaires, thus demonstrating to the world that he has what it takes to be the next American commander in chief. (A pity McMahon didn't pin Trump for the count and shave the Donald's "hair," thereby exposing, once and for all, the secrets of his remarkable coiffure.)

More to the point, I think Gail's opinion piece is too kind. As we are told today in a Washington Post editorial entitled "GOP leaders, you must do everything in your power to stop Trump":

"Now [the Republican Party] is faced with a front-runner who, in the interval between the two Priebus comments cited above, said of a protester, 'I’d like to punch him in the face.' This is a front-runner with no credible agenda and no suitable experience. He wants the United States to commit war crimes, including torture and the murder of innocent relatives of suspected terrorists. He admires Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and sees no difference between Mr. Putin’s victims and people killed in the defense of the United States. He would round up and deport 11 million people, a forced movement on a scale not attempted since Stalin or perhaps Pol Pot. He has, during the course of his campaign, denigrated women, Jews, Muslims, Mexicans, people with disabilities and many more. He routinely trades in wild falsehoods and doubles down when his lies are exposed."

I suppose all of the above effectively counterbalances Trump's rassling techniques. Maybe, just maybe, he is not the person you want with his finger on the launch button of America's nuclear arsenal.

But what about Hillary? Collins tells us what Trump told Scott Pelley on CBS:

"I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody is going to be taken care of."

But regrettably, Collins does not inform us what Clinton told Pelley one week ago:

"PELLEY: You know, in ’76, Jimmy Carter famously said, 'I will not lie to you.'

CLINTON: Well, I have to tell you I have tried in every way I know how literally from my years as a young lawyer all the way through my time as secretary of state to level with the American people.

PELLEY: You talk about leveling with the American people. Have you always told the truth?

CLINTON: I’ve always tried to. Always. Always.

PELLEY: Some people are gonna call that wiggle room that you just gave yourself.

CLINTON: Well, no, I’ve always tried —

PELLEY: I mean, Jimmy Carter said, 'I will never lie to you.'

CLINTON: Well, but, you know, you’re asking me to say, 'Have I ever?' I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever will. I’m gonna do the best I can to level with the American people."

In response to the above interchange, Chris Cillizza wrote in his Washington Post weblog "The Fix":

"I mean, what? W-H-A-T? 'I've always tried to' tell the truth? On what planet is this a good answer for a politician?"

On the subject of lying, Ed Morrissey wrote one year ago in a Fox Nation article entitled "Hillary Fired for Lies, Unethical Behavior from Congressional Job: Former Boss":

"Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the [House Judiciary Committee which was investigating Watergate]. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

'Because she was a liar,' Zeifman said in an interview last week. 'She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.'"

"Conspired to violate the Constitution"? That sounds kind of serious. Hillary's claim that she came under sniper fire in Bosnia pales in comparison.

And so, whereas a capricious, narcissistic Trump poses a potential hazard to the entire world, Hillary only threatens rule of law in the US.

Go ahead, take your pick.

Gail Collins, "Trump Shows His Inner Rabbit": The Art of Mendacity

Tweet

"PELLEY: You know, in ’76, Jimmy Carter famously said, 'I will not lie to you.'

CLINTON: Well, I have to tell you I have tried in every way I know how literally from my years as a young lawyer all the way through my time as secretary of state to level with the American people.

PELLEY: You talk about leveling with the American people. Have you always told the truth?

CLINTON: I’ve always tried to. Always. Always.

PELLEY: Some people are gonna call that wiggle room that you just gave yourself.

CLINTON: Well, no, I’ve always tried —

PELLEY: I mean, Jimmy Carter said, 'I will never lie to you.'

CLINTON: Well, but, you know, you’re asking me to say, 'Have I ever?' I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever will. I’m gonna do the best I can to level with the American people."

- Interchange between Hillary Clinton and Scott Pelley, CBS News, February 18, 2016

In response to the above interchange, Chris Cillizza wrote in his Washington Post weblog "The Fix":

"I mean, what? W-H-A-T? 'I've always tried to' tell the truth? On what planet is this a good answer for a politician?"

As long as we're on the subject of lying, Ed Morrissey wrote one year ago in a Fox Nation article entitled "Hillary Fired for Lies, Unethical Behavior from Congressional Job: Former Boss":

"Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the [House Judiciary Committee which was investigating Watergate]. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

'Because she was a liar,' Zeifman said in an interview last week. 'She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.'"

"Conspired to violate the Constitution"? That sounds serious. Hillary's claim that she came under sniper fire in Bosnia pales in comparison.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Trump Shows His Inner Rabbit," does Gail Collins mention the kerfuffle involving Hillary's interview with Scott Pelley? Not a chance. Instead, she concludes her opinion piece by turning our attention to Donald Trump's denial of his allegation that George W. Bush lied to Americans concerning the rationale for the Second Gulf War:

"In a dramatic highlight of the last Republican debate, Trump accused the Bush administration of deliberately deceiving the American public about the invasion. ('They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none.') It was a potentially historic moment: a top Republican candidate for president attempts to lead his party into a frank reappraisal of the Bush-Cheney administration’s inherent honesty.

Here we are, one week later: 'I’m not talking about lying. ... Nobody really knows why we went into Iraq.'

Meanwhile, reporters continue to ask Trump supporters what the attraction is. And his fans say that he tells it like it is."

Trump tells it like it is? No way. Unless saying whatever pops into your head at any given moment is "telling it like it is."

But whereas Trump's recent declaration and retraction concerning George W. Bush amounted to just another instance of ad-lib chicanery, Hillary takes fibbery to a higher, more carefully spun, level. As observed by Marc Thiessen in a January 25, 2016 Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Clinton’s email excuses are falling apart":

"Lash out as she might, Clinton’s constantly changing email story is rapidly falling apart. First, Clinton claimed there was 'no classified material' on her private server — which turned out to be untrue. Then she claimed none of the intelligence on her server was 'classified at the time' — which also turned out to be untrue. Now, in a National Public Radio interview last week, Clinton said there was no information that was 'marked classified.'"

May Donald go back to hosting reality shows and Hillary return to giving speeches before financial institutions, if they are still willing to pay her when she is no longer a presidential aspirant.

Gail Collins, "Republicans, Widows and Porn": Sisters in Arms

Tweet

"There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!"

- Madeleine Albright, speaking on behalf of Hillary Clinton's candidacy

Yesterday I observed that The Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, Yahoo News, Bloomberg and UPI had all published articles concerning the State Department subpoena served on the Clinton Foundation, but The New York Times decided to ignore the matter entirely. I asked whether the Times is still a newspaper or if it has become a highly politicized, self-serving propaganda machine. Well, maybe I was too harsh on the Times. After all, during the PBS "NewsHour" Democratic debate on Thursday, Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff remarkably failed to ask Hillary a single question about the subpoena.

I supposed that it should come as no surprise that in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Republicans, Widows and Porn," Gail Collins also fails today to mention the subpoena. Instead she reserves most of her criticism for Ted Cruz ("The run-up to this weekend’s Republican debate was greatly enlivened by the news that Amy Lindsay, an alum of 'Animal Lust' and 'Whose Thong Is It Anyway?,' was starring in a Cruz campaign ad") and Donald Trump ("it might provide the opportunity for someone to recall that the widow in question once referred to the man who is now the leading Republican presidential candidate as 'a maggot, a cockroach and a crumb'").

So what is more important? The pulling of a Cruz advertisement or service of a subpoena upon the Clinton Foundation? We obviously know what's more important for Gail.

But don't worry, Gail! You've got good company! In a guest Times op-ed entitled "My Undiplomatic Moment," Madeleine Albright attempts to explain away her "special place in hell" comment supporting Hillary's candidacy. Albright writes:

"However, I do want to explain why I so firmly believe that, even today, women have an obligation to help one another. In a society where women often feel pressured to tear one another down, our saving grace lies in our willingness to lift one another up. And while young women may not want to hear anything more from this aging feminist, I feel it is important to speak to women coming of age at a time when a viable female presidential candidate, once inconceivable, is a reality."

Hillary is a "viable" candidate? Sorry, Madeleine, but the State Department subpoena (you remember the State Department, don't you, Maddy?) served on the Clinton Foundation did away with that viability. As Chris Cillizza wrote in a Washington Post article entitled "Hillary Clinton’s week just went from bad to worse":

"There is, without question, a desire on the part of many Republicans to cast Clinton in the worst possible light using almost any means necessary. But it strains credulity to believe that Republicans somehow concocted a way to get the State Department and the FBI to look into Clinton's tenure at State."

Hillary's candidacy will unravel when the FBI makes its recommendations. She would be doing the United States, the Democratic Party and women a favor by ending her presidential bid now and not later, unless it is her intention to demonstrate conclusively that female politicians are just as despicable as male politicians.

Gail Collins, "Hillary, Bernie and History": Women Can Be Just As Rotten as Men?

Tweet

Yesterday, in the aftermath of comments from Madeleine Albright ("There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!") and Gloria Steinem ("When you’re young, you’re thinking: 'Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie,'"), Ruth Marcus declared in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Hillary Clinton needs to figure out how to talk to women — and fast":

"Feminism doesn’t mean imposing a moral obligation on women to vote a certain way. It means trusting them, not demeaning them, when they choose the candidate they like best, male or female. Even if their mothers disagree."

Marcus's opinion piece followed on the heels of Frank Bruni's New York Times op-ed entitled "Feminism, Hell and Hillary Clinton":

"Clinton’s gender indeed matters. Just as you couldn’t properly evaluate Obama’s arc without factoring in race, you can’t see her accurately without recognizing that she’s a woman of her time, with all the attendant obstacles, hurts, compromises and tenacity.

That informs — and, ideally, illuminates — her perspective. And her presidency would carry a powerful, constructive symbolism that can’t and shouldn’t be ignored.

But those are considerations among many, many others in taking her measure and in casting a vote. To focus only or primarily on them is more reductive than respectful, and to tell women in particular what kind of politics they should practice is the antithesis of feminism, which advocates independence and choices."

Well said, Frank.

Gail Collins's "contribution" to the debate over Albright's and Steinem's remarks? In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hillary, Bernie and History," Collins concludes (my emphasis in red):

"It took almost 40 more years before a woman won a major presidential primary. That was, of course, Clinton in 2008 in New Hampshire. She didn’t win the election, but she was so credible, and finished so strong, that the nation came away believing a woman in the White House was a completely normal idea.

If the younger voters who are flocking to Bernie Sanders don’t share their elders’ intense feelings about needing to elect a woman president right now, it’s partly because Hillary Clinton helped create a different world. So no matter what comes next, everybody’s a winner."

Hillary "helped create a different world"? Yeah, right. No mention by Collins of the acceptance by the Clinton Foundation of millions of dollars in donations from Saudi Arabia, a country which whips and imprisons gang rape victims.

And no mention by Collins of Hillary's tweet on November 22, 2015:

"Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported."

Which was followed by Juanita Broaddrick's tweet on January 6, 2016:

"I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73....it never goes away."

In addition, there's the small matter of Hillary's honesty as perceived by the American electorate. As reported by Chris Cillizza in Washington Post article entitled "Hillary Clinton has a major honesty problem after New Hampshire":

"Hillary Clinton has an honesty problem.

That point is driven home hard in the exit poll following Clinton's 22-point drubbing at the hands of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. More than one in three (34 percent) of all New Hampshire Democratic primary voters said that honesty was the most important trait in their decision on which candidate to support. Of that bloc, Sanders won 92 percent of their votes as compared to just 6 percent for Clinton."

Bottom line, Hillary Clinton has proven that female politicians can be just as despicable as male politicians. Collins writes:

"Strong as the emotions are in the Clinton and Sanders camps, both sides have to feel sort of chipper when they look over at the Republicans, who are engaged in something between professional wrestling and Godzilla Versus Rodan."

In fact, the real battle between Godzilla and Rodan will arrive if Hillary is nominated by the Democrats and runs against Trump in November. And in this case, no matter what comes next, everybody’s a ... loser.

Gail Collins, "The Things We Love to Loathe": Hillary Took It ($675,000) From Goldman Sachs and Didn't Leave It

Tweet

Veiled criticism of Hillary Clinton from Gail Collins? Will miracles never cease?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Things We Love to Loathe," Collins says of Hillary:

"Clinton did very well at a Democratic forum and debate this week. Except when she was asked, during the forum, why she accepted $675,000 for giving three speeches for the investment banking firm Goldman Sachs. ('That’s what they offered.') She had a somewhat less awful response at the debate, but then was unable to say whether she’d ever release the speech transcripts. ('I will look into it.') The situation here is clear. Clinton is never going to say she’s sorry, release transcripts or announce that she’s decided to clear everything up by donating $675,000 to charity. It is what it is, and you’re going to have to take it or leave it."

Hillary obviously took it from Goldman Sachs and didn't leave it.

But Collins can't possibly scold Hillary without castigating Marco Rubio, who is on the rise in New Hampshire. Collins goes on to say of Rubio:

"We have heard a lot already about Rubio’s $800,000 advance for a very modest memoir about his formative years. And the billionaire auto dealer who donated $100,000 to Florida International University, where Rubio was hired as a visiting professor for $69,000. This week, NBC News reported that he worked less than 10 hours a week during his first semester at the teaching gig, missing three of his 10 classes."

Needless to say, Collins doesn't mention that Obama earned $60,000 per year teaching part-time at the University of Chicago.

Collins also doesn't mention that as reported by in a Tampa Bay Times article entitled "Marco Rubio drew strong student reviews, but skimped on job requirements as FIU professor" by Adam C. Smith:

"FIU agreed to pay Rubio $69,000 for 2009, but as his U.S. Senate campaign against Charlie Crist consumed more of his time, that was reduced to $40,000.

. . . .

Nicol Rae, Rubio's co-teacher in 2012, said he had no idea how much time Rubio spent readying for class but he was always well-prepared and attended about 80 or 85 percent of the classes.

Moreno, another co-teacher, said his presence in the classroom has been a coup for FIU.

'He showed up; he did his job. The students liked him, and he would spend time with students, not a lot but usually half an hour after class,' Moreno said, noting that many students have gone on to internships in Rubio's Senate office.

. . . .

The Senate Ethics Committee approved Rubio's job with FIU, which is unusual but not unprecedented. Before he became vice president, Sen. Joe Biden earned more than $20,000 for helping teach a class at Widener School of Law, which has campuses in Wilmington, Del., and Harrisburg, Pa."

But more to the point, how do you compare $675,000 for three speeches for Goldman Sachs with $40,000, or even $69,000, for teaching part-time over the course of a year at FIU? Sorry, Gail, you don't.