Maureen Dowd, "Michelle Schools Donald Trump": Sorry, but There's No Connectivity on Trump's Lonely Little Planet

Tweet

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Michelle Schools Donald Trump," Maureen Dowd concludes:

"Hillary is in an awkward spot on the subject of licentious behavior by men. But Michelle Obama stepped in as the avenging angel Anita Hill never had. On Thursday at a rally for Hillary Clinton, her voice trembling with disgust, the first lady explained why the 'cruel' and 'frightening' actions of Trump — whom she did not deign to name — could not be written off as 'locker-room talk' or 'a bad dream.'

. . . .

Of course, Michelle’s inspiring message is somewhat undercut by the fact that her husband is ushering the lecherous Bill Clinton back to the White House."

Michelle's message is "somewhat" undercut? Bill Clinton is merely "lecherous"? Please ...

But more to the point vis-à-vis the title of Dowd's opinion piece, no one can school Trump. He inhabits a lonely little planet on which there is no connectivity, and this is what's most frightening about this pitiful excuse for a man. Yes, folks, he's dangerous.

Choose Hillary or Donald? A pity there isn't a third option: None of the above.

Will Hillary shake Donald's hand before and after the next debate? She shouldn't. However, she still kisses Bill in public (she should have divorced Bill decades ago instead of persisting with her sham marriage), and she would probably exchange a hearty embrace with the devil to ensure entry into the White House.

Maureen Dowd, "Bill Clinton Pours on the Estrogen": Can Hillary Shapeshift From a Snake Into a Human Being?

Tweet

Covering the Democratic convention in Philadelphia where Soviet and Palestinian flags have been on proud display, Maureen Dowd writes in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Bill Clinton Pours on the Estrogen":

"After the email shaming and a bloodless campaign, tonight it was Bill’s turn to rescue Hillary from being the most unknown known person in history. One of the most liked presidents was charged with humanizing one of the least liked presidential candidates."

The most unknown known person in history? One of the least liked presidential candidates? Maybe it would help if she were to hold a press conference after more than 200 days, but why should her royal highness want to face the music? Instead, let's trot out the Big Mutt, who took at least 26 trips aboard the 'Lolita Express.'" Indeed, I can't wait for Hillary to tell us which White House bedroom will be occupied by Bill if she wins in November - something which is no longer a certainty.

Dowd quotes Bill as saying that she "calls you when you’re sick, when your kid’s in trouble or when there’s a death in the family." A death in the family? Tell it to Patricia Smith, mother of Sean Smith, who died in the Benghazi attack.

Or better still, regarding Hillary's willingness to appear on the scene when there's a problem, note how she cancelled all campaign events immediately following the Dallas massacre, instead of flying into the troubled city (remember how she claimed to have flown into Bosnia under sniper fire).

Dowd observes:

"Starting tonight and through the fall as he tries to woo back white voters and older voters in the Rust Belt and the South, he is trying to conjure the halcyon days of Clinton peace and prosperity. He does not want to remind people of the shady days of Clinton avarice and deceit, or the parts of his presidency or post-presidency that haven’t aged well, like Nafta, the crime bill, deregulation of Wall Street and the Defense of Marriage Act, the Marc Rich pardon or the unseemly braiding of the Clinton Foundation with Hillary’s State Department."

Not to mention her persistent lies involving the email scandal and her willingness to place personal comfort and privacy over the interests of national security.

Yes, I know, Trump's even worse.

Maureen Dowd, "In Paris With Boris, Donald and Lemon Tarts": Is Washington Burning?

Tweet

Maureen Dowd is eating "avocado and yuzu mousse, braised turbot with aniseed fragrance and maritime aster leaf," and "Italian lemon meringue," while writing tripe in Paris.

Bill Clinton is meeting with Loretta Lynch to discuss ... golf on a Phoenix tarmac. Did you happen to read the Times editorial concerning this tryst? Oh, that's right, there wasn't one.

And Hillary is conducting a "voluntary interview" with the FBI in Washington concerning her home server.

Yup, all is right in the world. It couldn't be finer.

David Brooks, "The Coming Political Realignment": Lynch Prepared to Meet With the Spouses of All Persons Under FBI Investigation?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Coming Political Realignment," David Brooks discusses Donald Trump's chances of winning the presidential election. Brooks writes:

"Trump’s only hope is to change the debate from size of government to open/closed. His only hope is to cast his opponents as the right-left establishment that supports open borders, free trade, cosmopolitan culture and global intervention. He would stand as a right-left populist who supports closed borders, trade barriers, local and nationalistic culture and an America First foreign policy."

"Open/closed"? I'm no fan of Trump, but a more important issue arose when US Attorney General Loretta Lynch met privately with Bill Clinton on Monday. No discussion by the two of the email server in Hillary and Bill's Chappaqua home? Talk only of grandchildren, travel and golf? Why do I have my doubts?

Care to undergo a polygraph test, Loretta?

But even if they only spoke about grandchildren, this would be inappropriate given the investigation of the email server that Lynch is supervising and the decision faced by her concerning a possible indictment of Hillary.

I would contend that Lynch is now obligated to meet with the spouses of all persons whom the FBI is investigating to talk about grandchildren, travel and golf. Fair is fair.

That, or she should resign.

But she won't resign. Indeed, the rule of law has collapsed in the United States. There is one set of rules for the Clintons and another for the hoi polloi.

The coming political realignment? It's bigger than you think, David. In fact, it's all about how the United States became a banana republic on a Phoenix tarmac.

Paul Krugman, "Robber Baron Recessions": Ronald Reagan Is to Blame?

Tweet

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Robber Baron Recessions," Paul Krugman addresses the recent strike of Verizon workers and informs us  that "growing monopoly power is a big problem for the U.S. economy." Krugman proceeds to conclude that "we aren’t just living in a second Gilded Age, we’re also living in a second robber baron era." And who, according to Krugman, is to blame for the lack of competition? Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, of course. Krugman's explanation:

"For Reagan didn’t just cut taxes and deregulate banks; his administration also turned sharply away from the longstanding U.S. tradition of reining in companies that become too dominant in their industries. A new doctrine, emphasizing the supposed efficiency gains from corporate consolidation, led to what those who have studied the issue often describe as the virtual end of antitrust enforcement.

True, there was a limited revival of anti-monopoly efforts during the Clinton years, but these went away again under George W. Bush. The result was an economy with far too much concentration of economic power. And the Obama administration — preoccupied with the aftermath of financial crisis and the struggle with bitterly hostile Republicans — has only recently been in a position to grapple with competition policy."

Wrong. With regard to consolidation within the financial industry, for example, it was none other than Bill Clinton who was responsible for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which in turn gave rise to giant financial institutions, whose rapacity ultimately threatened the collapse of the global economy.

And to whom did Hillary provide a speech in May 2013 for the sum of $225,000? None other than  Verizon. This seemingly relevant information is absent from Krugman's opinion piece.

And does Krugman mention the donation of Verizon to the Clinton Foundation in an amount between $100,001 and $250,000? Not a chance.

Let there be no mistake: I am a strong advocate of corporate competition, but pin all of the blame on Ronald Reagan and the Republicans? Get real!

Maureen Dowd, "Leo, Hillary and Their Bears": Time for Hillary to Foot the Bill

Tweet

Maureen Dowd has yet to appreciate Hillary Clinton's finer points, whatever they may be.

After more than a month's absence from the op-ed page, Maureen Dowd is back today with a New York Times opinion piece entitled "Leo, Hillary and Their Bears." Referring to recent references by Trump to "the Clintons’ tangled conjugal life," Dowd goes on to say of the Donald:

"[H]e’s wielding his knife on her most sensitive pressure point: her hypocrisy in running as a feminist icon when she was part of political operations that smeared women who told the truth about Bill’s transgressions.

. . . .

[H]e knows that a retrospective of the Clintons’ cynical campaigns against 'bimbo eruptions' will not play well in a politically correct society sensitized by epidemics of rape in colleges and the military and by the Cosby effect.

Bill hid behind the skirts of feminists — including his wife and esteemed women in his cabinet — when he got caught playing around. And feminists, eager to protect his progressive agenda on women, allowed the women swirling around Bill to become collateral damage, torched as trailer trash or erotomaniacs."

Indeed, Hillary has a problem. Pretending that women's rights are at the center of her agenda, notwithstanding the receipt of millions of dollars of donations to the Clinton Foundation from Saudi Arabia which is none too friendly to females who have been gang raped, she tweeted on November 22, 2015:

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

And in a blast from the past, Juanita Broaddrick tweeted 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."

Apparently, it's also never going to go away for Hillary, despite the connivance of many progressive media outlets, which cannot bring themselves to examine the unorthodox rules underlying the Clintons' union. The end, i.e. Hillary as Commander-in-Chief as a happy sequel to the administration of the Philanderer-in-Chief, justifies the means, doesn't it boys and girls?

Gail Collins, "Wanted: Straight Shooters": Is Bill Clinton a Sexual Predator?

Tweet

Observing in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Wanted: Straight Shooters" that "The current presidential campaign, as you may have noticed, is all about fear and terror," Gail Collins would have us know:

"If every gun owner had to demonstrate the ability to handle a weapon, it wouldn’t necessarily stop anyone from eventually acquiring a gun. But it would take some time and trouble, which would cut down on casual sales. Paranoid maniacs aren’t likely to have the patience."

Fascinating. From January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 there were 2,986 shooting victims in Chicago. Does Gail honestly believe that those responsible for the vast majority of these shootings were licensed to carry a firearm? Does she honestly believe that those responsible for the vast majority of these shootings would honor legislation requiring firearms training?

Don't get me wrong: Firearms training is a good thing, and Lord knows I have spent hundreds of hours honing my skills. But is it going to stop the bad guys from obtaining (illegally) and using guns? Not a chance. How about some straight shooting, Ms. Collins?

But as long as we're on the topic of straight shooting, what if I ask you, Gail, a couple of questions? The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus recently had the courage to acknowledge that "Bill Clinton’s conduct toward women is far worse than any of the offensive things that Trump has said." Do you agree with this statement, Gail? And if so, why is Hillary still "married" to that man? Why is she allowing that man to campaign for her? And if elected, will that man accompany her to the White House?

In a January 6, 2016 Tweet, Juanita Broaddrick wrote:

"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."

Broaddrick's Tweet followed Hillary Clinton's November 22, 2015 Tweet:

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

As long as we're on the issue of violence against women, Gail, perhaps you would like to comment on the assault on numerous women in Cologne on New Year's Eve by 1,000 men, who, according to Cologne's police chief, appeared to be of "Arab or North African origin." The response of Cologne Mayor Henriette Reker:

"The women and young girls have to be more protected in the future so these things don’t happen again. This means, they should go out and have fun, but they need to be better prepared, especially with the Cologne carnival coming up. For this, we will publish online guidelines that these young women can read through to prepare themselves."

Ah yes, Cologne's women should read the guidelines to prepare themselves. Everything they need to know will be found in the manual.

Or, perhaps, when facing imminent gang rape, they would be better off having undergone intensive training at a shooting range . . .

Frank Bruni, "The Clintons’ Secret Language": Electioneering for Hillary From The Times

Tweet

I am looking at the home page of The New York Times, and under "The Opinion Pages" on the upper right hand of the screen, I read: "Frank Bruni, The Clintons’ Secret Language, Bill and Hillary have a marriage like any other — it’s unknowable from the outside."

Whoa! Bruni actually said that the Clintons "have a marriage like any other"? I don't think so. Go to his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Clintons’ Secret Language," where Bruni declares:

"We know nothing of other people’s marriages. Nothing at all."

Hey, if we don't know anything about other people's marriages, how can anyone say that the Clintons' have a marriage like any other? In fact, Bruni does not say this. Instead, Bruni concludes:

"We’re certain that social climbing or religious devotion is a couple’s glue, when what matters more is the secret language of goofy endearments that they speak. Or the unremarkable daily rituals that they’ve grown to relish. Or the tempo of his speech. Or the timbre of her laugh.

And when we come to our sweeping conclusions, we’re not perceiving but projecting, and we’re using couples to cling to our idealism or validate our cynicism. It’s a foolish game under any circumstances. It’s a dangerous one en route to the election of a president."

The Clintons' "unremarkable daily rituals"? Go ahead, Frank, tell me a few of them? Make my day!

More to the point, unlike other couples, the Clintons need to put an end to the speculation concerning the nature of their relationship. If Hillary is elected in November 2016, will Bill accompany her to the White House, even if the couple is no longer intimate? And if Bill is or has recently been involved with other women, does this not possess the potential for future security problems involving, for example, blackmail? Could it not otherwise detrimentally affect Hillary's future ability to function as president?

Similarly, if Hillary is having, or has had in recent years, an intimate relationship with someone other than Bill, and this is not revealed prior to the election, could this also pose future security problems for the United States? Shouldn't the public know whether or not she is having or has had any such relationship?

No one is forcing Hillary to run for the highest office in the land, but if she wants the job, she had best be ready to accept a higher level of scrutiny of her personal life, notwithstanding efforts by America's media to avoid asking about her marriage.

Frank Bruni, "The Juicy Subplots of 2016": Has Hillary Been Faithful to Bill?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Juicy Subplots of 2016," Frank Bruni informs us that the identity of America's next president "eclipses" all other political questions. In that regard, Bruni writes of expectations that Bill Clinton will soon begin to campaign for Hillary:

"All of that was a fresh reminder that his proper role in, and impact on, his wife’s candidacy is unsettled and unclear. He remains both wildly charismatic and maddeningly undisciplined. He connotes both prosperous times and cynical scheming.

There’s no legitimate worry that his presence might eclipse and diminish hers, but the two of them together root her candidacy as much in the past as in the future. So how to deploy and integrate him? Is it controllable?"

How to "deploy and integrate" Bill? Indeed.

Forgive me for repeating myself, but yesterday I agreed with The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus that Hillary is trying to have it both ways when she allows her husband, who abused women yet otherwise is perceived as a successful American president, to campaign on her behalf. This is not far afield from claiming that women's rights are at the center of her agenda, after having accepted millions of dollars of donations to the Clinton Foundation from Saudi Arabia, which by any standard oppresses women.

However, I did not agree with Marcus that "What happens inside a marriage is the couple’s business, and no one else’s, even when both halves crave the presidency." If Hillary were to be elected in November 2016, would Bill accompany her to the White House, even if the couple is no longer intimate? And if Bill is or has recently been involved with other women, does this not possess the potential for future security problems involving, for example, blackmail? Could it not otherwise detrimentally affect Hillary's future ability to function as president?

Similarly, if Hillary is having, or has had in recent years, an intimate relationship with someone other than Bill, and this is not revealed prior to the election, could this also pose future security problems for the United States? Shouldn't the public know whether or not she is having or has had any such relationship?

No one is forcing Hillary to run for the highest office in the land, but if she wants the job, she had best be ready to accept a higher level of scrutiny of her personal life, notwithstanding efforts by America's media to avoid asking about her marriage.

Unless, of course, this should also be treated as a matter of "Don't ask, don't tell."

Ruth Marcus, "Trump is right: Bill Clinton’s sordid sexual history is fair game": And Is Hillary's Sexual History, or Lack Thereof, Also Fair Game?

Tweet

In a Washington Post op-ed entitled "Trump is right: Bill Clinton’s sordid sexual history is fair game," uber-liberal Ruth Marcus remarkably observes that "Bill Clinton’s conduct toward women is far worse than any of the offensive things that Trump has said." Marcus concludes:

"What is the relevance of Bill Clinton’s conduct for Hillary Clinton’s campaign? Ordinarily, I would argue that the sins of the husband should not be visited on the wife. What Bill Clinton did counts against him, not her, and I would include in that her decision to stick with him. What happens inside a marriage is the couple’s business, and no one else’s, even when both halves crave the presidency.

But Hillary Clinton has made two moves that lead me, gulp, to agree with Trump on the 'fair game' front. She is (smartly) using her husband as a campaign surrogate, and simultaneously (correctly) calling Trump sexist.

These moves open a dangerous door. It should surprise no one that Trump has barged right through it."

I agree with Marcus that Hillary is trying to have it both ways when she allows her husband, who abused women yet otherwise is perceived as a successful American president, to campaign on her behalf. This is not far afield from claiming that women's rights are at the center of her agenda, after having accepted millions of dollars of donations to the Clinton Foundation from Saudi Arabia, which by any standard oppresses women.

However, I do not agree with Marcus that "What happens inside a marriage is the couple’s business, and no one else’s, even when both halves crave the presidency." If Hillary were to be elected in November 2016, would Bill accompany her to the White House, even if the couple is no longer intimate? And if Bill is or has recently been involved with other women, does this not possess the potential for future security problems involving, for example, blackmail? Could it not otherwise detrimentally affect Hillary's future ability to function as president?

Similarly, if Hillary is having, or has had in recent years, an intimate relationship with someone other than Bill, and this is not revealed prior to the election, could this also pose future security problems for the United States? Shouldn't the public know whether or not she is having or has had any such relationship?

Sorry, Ruth, but no one is forcing Hillary to run for the highest office in the land, and if she wants the job, she had best be ready to accept a higher level of scrutiny of her personal life.

Gail Collins, "Gov. Walker and the Cool Thing": Walker's Anti-Abortion Agenda, Collins's Tunnel Vision

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Gov. Walker and the Cool Thing," Gail Collins derides Gov. Scott Walker's anti-abortion agenda. Collins writes:

"We’ve been wondering when a presidential candidate would say something incredibly insensitive about women and reproduction.

. . . .

Last week, Walker was on a radio talk show, praising a law he signed requiring women who want an abortion to undergo an ultrasound. Which they’re supposed to watch, while the physician points out the features of the fetus.
An ultrasound, he said, was 'just a cool thing.'"

Collins's conclusion:

"[W]e have here a potential president who justifies a law on how doctors treat their abortion patients by citing what we know from watching TV and movies.

Seventeen months to go. Lord knows what’s next."

Let me make myself clear: I believe abortion is a woman's right, and there can be no forcing women to view an ultrasound monitor before undergoing the procedure.

On the other hand, at least Walker is responding to questions from the press, even if we don't like the answers, unlike someone else we all know.

"Lord knows what's next"? Let me tell you, Gail, what's next.

Yesterday, in a New York Times article entitled "An Award for Bill Clinton Came With $500,000 for His Foundation" by Deborah Sontag, we learned that the Clinton Foundation received $500,000 from the Happy Hearts Fund, which rebuilds schools after natural disasters, in exchange for Bill's appearance at a fund-raiser marking the 10th anniversary of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami:

"The former president of the United States agreed to accept a lifetime achievement award at the June 2014 event after Ms. Nemcova offered a $500,000 contribution to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The donation, made late last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds — enough to build 10 preschools in Indonesia.

. . . .

'The Clinton Foundation had rejected the Happy Hearts Fund invitation more than once, until there was a thinly veiled solicitation and then the offer of an honorarium,' said the former executive director, Sue Veres Royal, who held that position at the time of the gala and was dismissed a few weeks later amid conflicts over the gala and other issues."

Excuse me as I lose my breakfast.

Nicholas Kristof, "Polluted Political Games": Was Kristof Paid by the Clinton Foundation?

Acknowledging his involvement with the Clinton Foundation in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Polluted Political Games," Nicholas Kristof writes:

"I’ve admired the Clintons’ foundation for years for its fine work on AIDS and global poverty, and I’ve moderated many panels at the annual Clinton Global Initiative. Yet with each revelation of failed disclosures or the appearance of a conflict of interest from speaking fees of $500,000 for the former president, I have wondered: What were they thinking?"

Okay, Nick, you've admired the "fine work" of the Clinton Foundation, but now tell us if you were paid to "moderate" these many panels, and if so, how much were you paid? I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with moderating panels, but if you, a Times columnist, were paid by the Clinton Foundation, can we please know how much?

Kristof is quick to inform us that Republican presidential candidates have also benefited from "our entire disgraceful money-based political system." Specifically with regard to Marco Rubio, Kristof writes that "Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has received financial assistance from a billionaire, Norman Braman, and has channeled public money to Braman’s causes." Kristof provides a link to a New York Times article entitled "Billionaire Lifts Marco Rubio, Politically and Personally" by Michael Barbaro and Steve Eder, which informs us:

"A detailed review of their relationship shows that Mr. Braman, 82, has left few corners of Mr. Rubio’s world untouched. He hired Mr. Rubio, then a Senate candidate, as a lawyer; employed his wife to advise the Braman family’s philanthropic foundation; helped cover the cost of Mr. Rubio’s salary as an instructor at a Miami college; and gave Mr. Rubio access to his private plane.

The money has flowed both ways. Mr. Rubio has steered taxpayer funds to Mr. Braman’s favored causes, successfully pushing for an $80 million state grant to finance a genomics center at a private university and securing $5 million for cancer research at a Miami institute for which Mr. Braman is a major donor.

. . . .

The reliance on Mr. Braman is likely to put a spotlight on the finances of Mr. Rubio, who ranks among the least-wealthy candidates in the emerging Republican field. Mr. Rubio left the Florida House of Representatives in 2008 with a net worth of $8,351, multiple mortgages and $115,000 in student debt. In his latest financial disclosure form, for 2013, he reported at least $450,000 in liabilities, including two mortgages and a line of credit."

Oh my goodness, Mr. Braman once dared employ both Rubio and his wife! Worse still, Rubio helped secure funds for the cancer research of a Miami institute favored by Mr. Braman. Of course, we all know that government funding must never be used for cancer research . . . not.

Rubio  is considered one of the poorest Republican presidential candidates? Maybe Mr. Braman has not been helping him enough.

But now consider the millions of dollars received by the Clinton Foundation from Saudi Arabia, which whips gang rape victims and beheads persons accused of engaging in witchcraft. Also consider the millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation from banks which were recently convicted of rigging the value of world currencies.

And although Hillary claimed that she and Bill left the White House "dead broke" and whined that "we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education, you know, it was not easy,” Hillary's net worth in 2012 was estimated at between $5 million and $25 million, and Bill's net worth is estimated at some $55 million. Poor, Hillary! Poor, poor Hillary!

Compare  Rubio with the Hillary? I don't think so. Meanwhile, let's see if Kristof or the Times is willing to answer my question above.

Ruth Marcus, "The Clintons’ worst defender in chief": You Get What You Deserve

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The Clintons’ worst defender in chief," uber-liberal Ruth Marcus refers us to an interview of Bill Clinton by NBC News's Cynthia McFadden:

"Will you continue to give speeches, McFadden asked? “Oh yeah,” Clinton responded, as if the notion of calling a halt during his wife’s presidential campaign were absurd. “I gotta pay our bills.”

Oh. My. God.

As if the first $500,000 speech, or the 11th, were not enough. As if the former president had not raked in more than $100 million on the speaking circuit since leaving office. As if stopping would leave the Clintons huddled around the kitchen table, worrying over which bills to pay.

. . . .

“There has been a very deliberate attempt to take the foundation down,” Bill Clinton said. “And there’s almost no new fact that’s known now that wasn’t known when she ran for president the first time.”

Not true. There have been lots of new facts occasioned by the simultaneity of Hillary Clinton’s service as secretary of state and the operations of Clinton Inc., both its charitable arm and its speech-making unit.

'We have never done anything knowingly inappropriate in terms of taking money to influence any kind of American government policy,' Bill Clinton asserted. 'Knowingly inappropriate' — the 2016 version of Al Gore’s 'no controlling legal authority.'"

But now consider a New York Times/CBS News poll which has just determined:

"Americans now view Mrs. Clinton more favorably and more see her as a strong leader than they did earlier in the year, despite weeks of scrutiny about her ethics.

. . . .

Mrs. Clinton remains a polarizing figure — nearly the same percentage of Americans view her positively as negatively — but her favorability rating has improved by nine percentage points since the disclosure in late March that she did not use a government email account as secretary of state.

. . . .

While roughly 48 percent of Americans say Mrs. Clinton is honest and trustworthy, about four of five Democrats think she has those traits — and about the same numbers of Democrats say she shares the values most Americans try to live by.

Fifty-two percent of Democrats said they knew nothing or very little about the Clinton Foundation."

Ultimately, if Hillary is elected president in 2016 and a White House bachelor suite is built for Bill, America will get what it deserves.

Uranium One: Do Hillary and Bill Have a Joint Bank Account?

In a Politico article entitled "Bill and Hillary’s Excellent Adventure," Michael Hirsh writes:

"It’s clear that Bill Clinton played a very concrete role in his wife’s State Department and was so well briefed that, as one Obama administration official put it to me in 2010, “When they say on the seventh floor, ‘We need to run this by the president,’ the phrase doesn’t necessarily refer to Obama.”

Nonetheless, it is highly unlikely that very much of what [Peter] Schweizer alleges [in "Clinton Cash"] will stick, if only because that classic Washington omelette made of equal parts policy and political reasons can never be unmade once it’s cooked: Especially among the uber-cautious Clintons, you’ll never find the smoking ingredient; no one will ever be caught saying, “Let’s make a policy decision for Bill’s donors.”

Beyond that, because it is impossible to peer into the sanctum of any marriage—especially this one—we will almost certainly never get at the rock-bottom truth of whether Hillary Clinton ever even hinted at altering a policy in office because Bill Clinton told her he wanted it done for his Foundation. State Department and Clinton Foundation officials say they never pried into those conversations.

You wouldn’t find it even in those deleted emails."

Or stated otherwise, if knowledge of Bill's conduct cannot be attributed to Hillary, Hillary cannot be held accountable.

To which I would answer: Hillary must prove that she did not benefit from Bill's lucrative speaking engagements, e.g., the $500,000 which, according to the Becker and McIntire article in The New York Times, was received "for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."

Or stated otherwise, Hillary must provide documentation showing that the payments to Bill were not deposited in a joint bank account. It's that simple . . . or perhaps not that simple.

Haaretz, "Bill Clinton strays from Hillary’s Israel script and knocks Netanyahu": DON'T VOTE FOR HILLARY!

In a Haaretz article entitled "Bill Clinton strays from Hillary’s Israel script and knocks Netanyahu," Chemi Shalev informs us that Bill Clinton, joining his wife at the Harkin Steak Fry in Iowa on Sunday, agreed with a pro-Palestinian activist that "If we don’t force him [Netanyahu] to have peace, we won’t have peace."

You don't believe it? See the video: http://freebeacon.com/politics/bill-clinton-netanyahu-not-the-guy-for-peace/

It wasn't enough that Obama attempted to compel Netanyahu to accept Qatari and Turkish mediation during the latest round of fighting with Hamas. Now, it is obvious what Hillary intends to force upon Israel if she should succeed Obama as president.

Some time in the not too distant future, Israel will be fighting another war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. The last thing Israel needs is another president prepared to cut off arms shipments when hostilities begin in order to obtain the concessions she desires.

Please, anyone other than Hillary . . .

Maureen Dowd, "A Popular President": Start Building the White House Bachelor Suite?

Over the course of a lifetime, I have only been in the physical proximity of two presidents: Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. One exuded inquietude and malaise, while the other radiated charm and charisma. True, Nixon at the time was seeking reelection, and the seeds of Watergate had begun to germinate. My chance encounter with Clinton, on the other hand, was several years after his second term, yet I still believe that Clinton by nature is and always was very comfortable in his own skin.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "A Popular President" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-a-popular-president.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), Maureen Dowd questions why Bill Clinton's popularity continues to wax, while that of Hillary and Obama has begun to wane. Dowd writes:

"As Hillary stumbles and President Obama slumps, Bill Clinton keeps getting more popular.

The women, the cheesy behavior, the fund-raising excesses, the self-pity, the adolescent narcissism, the impeachment, the charges of racially tinged insults against Obama in 2008, the foundation dishabille — all that percussive drama has faded to a mellow saxophone riff for many Americans."

Dowd goes on to observe:

"Speaking at the 92nd Street Y last month, Bill O’Reilly was asked by Geraldo Rivera whether the country would have been better off electing Hillary instead of Barack Obama.

'With Hillary you get Bill,' O’Reilly replied. 'And Bill knows what’s going on. You may not like him but he knows what’s going on. Hillary doesn’t understand how the world works.'"

But did Bill Clinton really know what he was doing? Maybe. He added a mere $1.4 trillion to US national debt, peanuts compared with the "contributions" of George W. Bush and Obama, and although his foreign policy was never deemed stellar, he certainly never promised "flexibility" to the likes of Vladimir Putin.

Or stated otherwise, when Bill Clinton left office, there were still possibilities, whereas today it's all but over.

US debt under the incredible shrinking president has reached an unsustainable $17.6 trillion. Obama has also presided over a string of stinging foreign policy debacles - Russia, the Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Iran, Israel-Palestine and China, and America's standing overseas has never been lower. Yup, "Abandon hope all ye who enter here."

Can Hillary make it better? Probably not. Although she logged countless frequent flyer miles as secretary of state, even her most ardent admirers have trouble pointing to a single foreign policy success.

Does absence make the heart grow fonder? Perhaps. But if so, Hillary's failed book tour was poorly timed, and there is now talk of an emerging Elizabeth Warren challenge.

Start building a White House bachelor suite for Bill? Not yet. Place him front and center, and a fickle American electorate could soon have misgivings.

Ruth Marcus, "Monica Lewinsky does Hillary Clinton a big favor": Benghazi Recedes From the Spotlight?

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Monica Lewinsky does Hillary Clinton a big favor" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-monica-lewinsky-does-hillary-clinton-a-big-favor/2014/05/06/36657da4-d55f-11e3-8a78-8fe50322a72c_story.html), Ruth Marcus writes:

"Monica Lewinsky may not have intended it this way, but she just did Hillary Clinton a big favor.

. . . .

Hillary Clinton, humiliated in her own way, emerged seemingly stronger. Her marriage endured; she became senator and secretary of state. Having put cracks in the glass ceiling, she is poised to break it, should she choose, in 2016."

Perhaps Ruth would care to enlighten us as to how Hillary's marriage has "endured." Is the marriage "real," or is it a marriage of convenience serving the blind narcissistic ambition of both Hillary and Bill?


If Monica has done Hillary a favor, maybe it is because the Benghazi debacle has faded from the spotlight even for one day.


Note Maureen Dowd's op-ed on the same topic: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/05/maureen-dowd-burning-beret-first-bury.html

Maureen Dowd, "Burning the Beret": First Bury the Blue Dress

Guess I got what I deserve
Kept you waiting there, too long my love
All that time, without a word
Didn't know you'd think, that I'd forget, or I'd regret

The special love I have for you
My baby blue

- "Baby Blue," Badfinger

After a long absence, Monica Lewinsky of presidentially "autographed" blue dress fame is back in the headlines with an article in Vanity Fair. Who gives a rat's ass, other than . . . Maureen Dowd and Hillary ("What difference, at this point, does it make?") Clinton.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Burning the Beret" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/opinion/dowd-burning-the-beret.html?ref=opinion), Dowd tells us:

"But she must feel that her reticence over the last 10 years of 'self-searching and therapy' has led the public to hunger for her thoughts on the eve of Hillary’s book rollout in June and at a moment when President Obama is struggling to pull focus back from the Clintons, whose past and future are more dominant than Obama’s present. Monica is in danger of exploiting her own exploitation as she dishes about a couple whose erotic lives are of waning interest to the country."

Monica's reticence "has led the public to hunger for her thoughts on the eve of Hillary’s book rollout"? Well, you wasted an op-ed on the topic, Maureen.

Hillary and Bill's "erotic lives are of waning interest to the country"? Not so fast, Mo. Even I am curious to know how many decades ago Hillary and Bill last bedded down together.

But more to the point, with over two and a half years of a lame duck (paralytic?) Obama presidency in the offing, this is what American politics is all about?

Even worse, Hillary might not have a single accomplishment to her name in all her many years as First Lady, senator and secretary of the state, but Democrats are already falling over themselves to endorse her unannounced candidacy.

Worse still, there is not a credible Republican alternative in sight.

I suppose that you truly do get what you deserve.

Note Ruth Marcus's opinion piece on the same topic: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/05/ruth-marcus-monica-lewinsky-does.html

Paul Krugman, "Wealth Over Work": How Much Are Bill and Hillary Worth?

Politics is a rich person's game, and there can be no gainsaying the link between extreme wealth and political prominence throughout American history. As reported in a USA Today article entitled "Report: The 10 richest U.S. presidents" (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/15/10-richest-presidents/5514567/) by Ashley C. Allen, America's wealthiest presidents have included George Washington, Thomas Jefferson (before he sank into debt), Andrew Jackson, James Madison, LBJ, FDR, JFK and . . . Bill Clinton. Of course, Bill and Hillary Clinton could be headed back to the White House in 2017. What is the combined worth of these two "lovebirds"? According to Allen:

"Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the front-runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential ticket, according to most political pundits. The presidential hopeful's husband, former President Bill Clinton, has made millions on lucrative book deals and more than $100 million on the speaking circuit. Secretary Clinton has recently begun to earn that kind of money as well.

Secretary Clinton received an estimated $14 million advance on her new book last year, and she has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars for each speaking engagement, figures that rival her husband's. In all, the couple's net worth is estimated by 24/7 Wall St. to be $55 million, making it one of the wealthiest presidential estates in history."

No the Clintons are not suffering financially.

But more to the point, there are more Democrats than Republicans on Allen's list.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Wealth Over Work" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/opinion/krugman-wealth-over-work.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), Paul Krugman blames a "nascent oligarchy" in the US on the Republican Party. Krugman writes:

"America’s nascent oligarchy may not yet be fully formed — but one of our two main political parties already seems committed to defending the oligarchy’s interests.

Despite the frantic efforts of some Republicans to pretend otherwise, most people realize that today’s G.O.P. favors the interests of the rich over those of ordinary families. I suspect, however, that fewer people realize the extent to which the party favors returns on wealth over wages and salaries. And the dominance of income from capital, which can be inherited, over wages — the dominance of wealth over work — is what patrimonial capitalism is all about."

But is it only the Republicans who favor the rich over ordinary families? As was reported by The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444752504578024661927487192), "no major U.S. corporation did more to finance [Obama's] campaign than Goldman Sachs Group Inc." Obama certainly had no aversion to accepting this money from wealthy investment bankers, whose contributions, of course, were not intended to curry favor with the Democratic presidential candidate and influence future policy determinations.

Krugman's conclusion:

"Why is this happening? Well, bear in mind that both Koch brothers are numbered among the 10 wealthiest Americans, and so are four Walmart heirs. Great wealth buys great political influence — and not just through campaign contributions. Many conservatives live inside an intellectual bubble of think tanks and captive media that is ultimately financed by a handful of megadonors. Not surprisingly, those inside the bubble tend to assume, instinctively, that what is good for oligarchs is good for America.

As I’ve already suggested, the results can sometimes seem comical. The important point to remember, however, is that the people inside the bubble have a lot of power, which they wield on behalf of their patrons. And the drift toward oligarchy continues."

Needless to say, no mention by Krugman of George Soros, "The Man Who Broke the Bank of England," who, with a net worth $23 billion (http://www.forbes.com/profile/george-soros/), has made massive contributions to "progressive-liberal" political causes. In fact, Soros once declared that removing President George W. Bush from office was the "central focus of my life" and "a matter of life and death" (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/nov/12/uselections2004.usa).

In a nutshell, Krugman, who once wrote "It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details," has again discarded objectivity in yet another effort to further his radical objectives. What a surprise . . .

Me, a Republican booster? No way. I was once a registered Democrat; however, today, clinging to the tenets of equality, I am equally contemptuous of both parties.

Maureen Dowd, "Palmy Days for Jerry": Longing for Things Past

“The Greek word for 'return' is nostos. Algos means 'suffering.' So nostalgia is the suffering caused by an unappeased yearning to return.”

― Milan Kundera, Ignorance

Yes, I'm suffering these days watching America crash and burn. The national debt is in excess of $17.5 trillion, Obamacare is a bust, and Putin has reignited the Cold War with no one in the Oval Office to call his bluff.

Occasionally, I still glance at John McCain's profile and wonder whether a man who turns 80 in 2016 is too old to be president.

Hillary? Other than the fact that she is a woman, where are the accomplishments?

Which brings us to Maureen Dowd's New York Times op-ed entitled "Palmy Days for Jerry" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/opinion/sunday/dowd-palmy-days-for-jerry.html?ref=maureendowd&_r=0), in which she asks a "mellow" Jerry Brown "how he would feel about a Hillary coronation." Dowd informs us of Brown's answer:

"'The polls say that she’s in an extremely strong position,' he says. 'So prominent in her husband’s administration, then a senator, then secretary of state. Those are powerful milestones. I don’t see anyone challenging her at this point.'

So how does he reconcile what he said in 1992 and now? Have the Clintons changed, or has Brown changed?

He crosses his arms and gives me a flinty look, finally observing: 'In retrospect, after we see all the other presidents that came afterwards, certainly, Clinton handled his job with a level of skill that hasn’t been met since.'

Take that, President Obama."

Bill handled his job skillfully in the past? What does this have anything to do with Hillary's capabilities, unless Bill will again be managing the executive branch of government from a semi-detached White House bachelor suite?

"Take that, President Obama"? Is "that" intended to soothe my suffering and my longing for the past? Brown, now 75, doesn't so much as hint at mounting opposition to Hillary's nomination.

It's over. It's done. Maybe it was never any better, but it surely can't get any worse.

[The Ukraine is still in chaos after Putin's annexation of Crimea, Turkey is being ripped asunder by a corruption scandal swirling around Obama's friend Erdogan, and Syrian madman Bashar al-Assad, encouraged by Russian contempt for Obama, is making headway in his bloody civil war with insurgents. Meanwhile, New York Times foreign affairs "expert" Thomas L. Friedman, who is read by Obama, "is off today." ]

You will recall that Friedman would have us believe that Putin's invasion of Crimea was a "blessing in disguise" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/03/thomas-friedman-from-putin-blessing-in.html). As much as I miss you, Tom Terrific, take your time returning. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, and maybe I can even grow nostalgic.]