[VIDEO] Did Donald Trump high jack the News Cycle during DNC??

Via: You Tube

Something very weird about Hillary’s face at the convention

Ann Althouse writes a perceptive commentary (hat tip: Instapundit) on an aspect of Hillary Clinton that bothers me a lot, too: that wide-open-mouth/insane-elation thing with her face.

Specifically, she analyzes a still photo of President Obama onstage with her at the Wednesday night session of the DNC:

She explains the really weird facial expression this way:

… my theory was that she's stuck making the best of doing appearances where she needs to look like the person who is intensely loved but she does not believe she is loved.

The specific reference here is standing next to Obama, who is well liked at a personal level by a majority of Americans.  But remember that ever since she graduated from law school, she has been standing next to her husband, who is even more than Obama a charming fellow – so charismatic that he was able to charm even Newt Gingrich right after the GOP won control of Congress in 1994.  From Hillary’s perspective, her adult life has been one long lesson in being the unlikable one in a very prominent couple.

There has to be a lot of resentment.  The stories of screaming matches, thrown lamps, and the rest are credible to me because Hillary has endured a level of private humiliation at her husband’s hands, in ways overt as in all the extracurricular sex, but also in ways completely unintended, the product of her negative charisma.

The result of all this is a burning desire to surpass Bill, to occupy the Oval Office, and get revenge for his casual ease at being liked.

And the facial expression?  I think it is a window into the intensity of Hillary’s desire, buried deep within her soul, and rarely allowed out.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading.....

Exclusive: Clinton campaign also hacked in attacks on Democrats - sources

By Mark Hosenball, Joseph Menn and John Walcott

WASHINGTON/SANFRANCISCO (Reuters) - The computer network used by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign was hacked as part of a broad cyber attack on Democratic political organizations, people familiar with the matter told Reuters.

The latest attack, which was disclosed to Reuters on Friday, follows reports of two other hacks on the Democratic National Committee and the party’s fundraising committee for candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives.

The U.S. Department of Justice national security division is investigating whether cyber hacking attacks on Democratic political organizations threatened U.S. security, sources familiar with the matter said on Friday.

The involvement of the Justice Department’s national security division is a sign that the Obama administration has concluded that the hacking was state sponsored, individuals with knowledge of the investigation said.

The Clinton campaign, based in Brooklyn, had no immediate comment and referred Reuters to a comment from earlier this week by campaign senior policy adviser Jake Sullivan criticizing Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and calling the hacking "a national security issue."

The Department of Justice had no comment.

It was not immediately clear what information on the Clinton campaign’s computer system hackers would have been able to access.

Hackers, whom U.S. intelligence officials have concluded were Russian, gained access to the entire network of the fundraising Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, of DCCC, said people familiar with the matter, detailing the extent of the breach to Reuters for the first time.

Access to the full DCCC network would have given the hackers access to everything from emails to strategy memos and opposition research prepared to support Democratic candidates in campaigns for the House.

The hack of the DCCC, which is based in Washington, was reported first by Reuters on Thursday, ahead of Clinton’s speech in Philadelphia accepting the Democratic party’s nomination.

Via: Yahoo

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] CNN: DNC Not Backing Iran Deal ‘Big Embarrassment’ for Obama

President Obama suffered an “embarrassment” with the Democratic National Committee not passing a resolution over the weekend in support of his Iran nuclear deal, CNN panelists said Sunday.

According to the Washington Post, party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.) blocked the resolution at the summer meeting in Minnesota.

“The Obama-controlled DNC could not pass a resolution this weekend expressing support for President Obama’s Iran deal,” New York Timesreporter Jonathan Martin said. “It’s a bit of an embarrassment for the administration seeing as it’s how his party, he appointed Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and it’s revived the sort-of latest round of eye-rolling among Democratic operatives about the state of the party.”

CNN host John King said Martin was being diplomatic, saying it was a “big embarrassment for the president.”

Via; WFB

Continue Reading......

Clinton Camp Says One-Fifth of Delegates Secured for Nomination

As Hillary Clinton's campaign seeks to project dominance in a field that could soon include Vice President Joe Biden, her top advisers are touting a decisive edge on a little-discussed metric: superdelegate commitments. 

At the Democratic National Committee meeting in Minneapolis, where Clinton spoke on Friday, senior Clinton campaign officials are claiming that she has already secured one-fifth of the pledges needed to win the Democratic presidential nomination. They come from current and former elected officials, committee officeholders, and other party dignitaries.

The campaign says that Clinton currently has about 130 superdelegates publicly backing her, but a person familiar with recent conversations in Minneapolis said that officials are telling supporters and the undecided in the last few days that private commitments increase that number to more than 440—about 20 percent of the number of delegates she would need to secure the nomination.

ALSO: Why Rank-and-File Democrats Are Hoping Biden Runs

EARLIER: Why Hillary Clinton Decided E-mail Issue Was No Joke

THE REPUBLICANS: Donald Trump Says He Wants to Raise Taxes on Himself

After her speech, Clinton told reporters that her campaign's attention to delegate totals is about ensuring that her support from voters translates into the nomination. “This is really about how you put the numbers together to secure the nomination. As some of you might recall, in 2008 I got a lot of votes but I didn’t get enough delegates. And so I think it’s understandable that my focus is going to be on delegates as well as votes this time,” she said.

Clinton campaign aides at the DNC meeting are privately briefing uncommitted superdelegates there on their mounting totals as a way to coax them to get them aboard the Clinton train now. Campaign manager Robby Mook, chief administrative officer Charlie Baker, political director Amanda Renteria, and state campaigns and political engagement director Marlon Marshall are among the top Clinton aides in attendance.

Final numbers are still in flux, but current estimates peg the total number of delegates to next summer’s presidential nominating convention at about 4,491, meaning that a candidate would need 2,246 to win. The Clinton camp’s claim to more than 440 delegates means she’s already wrapped up the support of more than 60 percent of the approximately 713 superdelegates who, under party rules, are among those who cast votes for the nomination, along with delegates selected by rank-and-file voters in primaries and caucuses beginning next February. Delegate totals won’t be finalized until the DNC determines the number of bonus delegates awarded to states, a party official said.

To be sure, Clinton had a superdelegate edge early against Barack Obama in 2008, and superdelegates are free to change their allegiance at any time between now and next summer's convention. But Clinton is ahead of the pace she had eight years ago in securing these commitments, and her support from the core of the establishment represented by these superdelegates is arguably the most tangible evidence of the difficulty Biden would have overtaking her with a late-starting campaign.

While Clinton said earlier this week that Biden “should have the space and the opportunity to decide what he wants to do,” her campaign is at the same time flexing its muscles to stress the strength of her candidacy. The campaign this week unveiled its first endorsement from a sitting member of the Obama Cabinet, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who just happens to be a former governor of Iowa and who spent Wednesday touring the state with Clinton.

The Clinton campaign also released memos on Thursday touting the strength of its field operations in the early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. The memos include specific tallies of thousands of volunteer commitments, dozens of paid organizers, and offices opened, including 11 in Iowa.

Barring some major scandal or controversy, and given Hillary and Bill Clinton's long-standing ties to Democratic Party elites, overcoming her superdelegate edge would be quite a challenge for Biden or the major candidates already competing against her for the nomination, including Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

The 300-or-so gap between Clinton's public and private superdelegate commitments derives mostly from state party officials who have yet to reveal their backing of the frontrunner, but have privately pledged to cast their convention votes for the former first lady, according to the person familiar with the campaign's tally.

In their Minneapolis discussions intended to persuade additional uncommitted superdelegates to commit to Clinton, her team is taking care not to mention Biden, but the message is clear: Much of the party establishment is supporting Clinton and the math is in her favor. In 2008, Clinton’s team made a version of this argument before being overtaken by Barack Obama. After Obama took the lead in overall delegates, his campaign began to make a comparable argument about the mathematical inevitability of his ultimate victory.

The attention to delegate counts, Clinton said Friday, was the “result of the lessons that I learned the last time –how important it is to be as well-organized and focused from the very beginning on delegates and those who are superdelegates."

Via: Bloomberg

Continue Reading.....

DNC To Vote On Resolution Supporting Black Lives Matter

The Democratic National Committee is expected on Friday to adopt a resolution expressing its support for the Black Lives Matter movement, a DNC official said.

The resolution, the language of which was made available to BuzzFeed News, will be voted on by the full body during the general session on Friday at the DNC’s summer meetings in Minneapolis.

The draft of the resolution mentions by name Patrisse Cullors, Opal Tometi, and Alicia Garza, the founders of the Black Lives Matter organization. They are from “a generation of young African-Americans who feel totally dismissed and unheard as they are crushed between unlawful street violence and unjust police violence,” the draft reads.

The DNC said it resolves “that the DNC joins with Americans across the country in affirming ‘Black lives matter’ and the ‘say her name’ efforts to make visible the pain of our fellow and sister Americans as they condemn extrajudicial killings of unarmed African-American men, women, and children.”

WHEREAS, the Democratic Party believes in the American Dream and the promise of liberty and justice for all, and we know that this dream is a nightmare for too many young people stripped of their dignity under the vestiges of slavery, Jim Crow and White Supremacy; and

WHEREAS, we, the Democratic National Committee, have repeatedly called for race and justice – demilitarization of police, ending racial profiling, criminal justice reform, and investments in young people, families, and communities — after Trayvon Martin, after Michael Brown, after Tamir Rice, after Freddie Gray, after Sandra Bland, after Christian Taylor, after too many others lost in the unacceptable epidemic of extrajudicial killings of unarmed black men, women, and children at the hands of police; and

WHEREAS, we hear the “Black lives matter” cry from the inspiration of creators Patrisse Cullors, Opal Tometi, and Alicia Garza, and from the heart of a generation of young African Americans who feel totally dismissed and unheard as they are crushed between unlawful street violence and unjust police violence; we salute the courageous young people who participate in the #March2Justice, and we repeat the chant “say her name” to acknowledge the Black women whose stories are often untold and whose cases are unresolved; and

WHEREAS, without systemic reform this state of unrest jeopardizes the well-being of our democracy and our nation;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the DNC joins with Americans across the country in affirming “Black lives matter” and the “say her name” efforts to make visible the pain of our fellow and sister Americans as they condemn extrajudicial killings of unarmed African American men, women and children; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the DNC renews our previous calls to action and urges Congress to adopt systemic reforms at state, local, and federal levels to prohibit law enforcement from profiling based on race, nationality, ethnicity, or religion, to minimize the transfer of excess equipment (like the military-grade vehicles and weapons that were used to police peaceful civilians in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri) to federal and state law enforcement; and to support prevention programs that give young people alternatives to incarceration.

Via: BuzzFeed

Continue Reading..... 

What If Martin O'Malley or Bernie Sanders Disobeys the DNC on Debates?

When the Democratic National Committee first announced in May it would sanction six primary debates in 2016 and punish candidates who went to unsanctioned events, the party said the schedule was “consistent with the precedent set by the DNC during the 2004 and 2008 cycles.”

In both of those cycles, the DNC also only sanctioned six debates. But those elections were filled with dozens of unsanctioned debates, too, that started at least six months earlier than the DNC plans to kick off its debate season this year, on Oct. 13.

That frenzy is what the committee is trying to prevent from happening this year, and it's what lower-ranking candidates, who would benefit from more chances to appear in nationally televised debates on the same stage as front-runner Hillary Clinton, are rebelling against. Senator Bernie Sanders said he’s “disappointed” with the schedule, while former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley called it “unprecedented” and “outrageous.”

“The DNC may threaten to keep somebody out of a future debate, but it isn’t their invitation.”

Alan Schroeder, a journalism professor at Northeastern University

Maybe the solution for lower-polling candidates isn’t to push the DNC to sanction more debates, says Kathleen Jamieson, a University of Pennsylvania professor of communications who has studied and written about presidential debates and political rhetoric. “O’Malley’s attacking the wrong villain,” Jamieson said. “If anyone wants to stand up and sponsor a debate and the candidates want to go to it, you’ll have a debate that the DNC hasn’t sanctioned.”

For example, if a Spanish-language television network said it was going to host two debates, one for Democrats and one for Republicans, Jamieson says it is likely the candidates would ignore the rules set by their committees. “They would accept and go, regardless of whether the RNC and DNC said yes or no, because they want to reach the Hispanic vote,” she said. 

O’Malley appears to be hinting he would do just that. In a memo released Tuesday, O’Malley legal counsel Joe Sandler challenged the DNC's exclusion rule, which says that if a candidate attends an unsanctioned debate, they will be barred from future DNC primary debates. The rule is “legally unenforceable,” Sandler said, and if candidates attended an unsanctioned debate, “it is highly unlikely that any of those sponsors of the sanctioned debates would ultimately be willing to enforce that ‘exclusivity’ requirement.” 

Alan Schroeder, a journalism professor at Northeastern University and the author of Presidential Debates: 50 Years of High-Risk TV, agrees, noting that on the Republican side, it has been the debate hosts, not the Republican National Committee, that set the rules for the debates. “The DNC may threaten to keep somebody out of a future debate, but it isn’t their invitation,” he said.

Via: Bloomberg Politics

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] O'Malley says Dems 'outrageous' for limiting debates

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley continued to rail against the Democratic National Committee Monday for limiting the number of primary debates to six during the 2016 campaign.

Appearing on "Andrea Mitchell Reports," O'Malley blasted the DNC for their "outrageous" decision to cut down on the number of debates from 20 in 2008 to six this cycle.

"My message to the party is this: We're making a big mistake as Democrats if we try to limit debate and have an undemocratic process," O'Malley told host Andrea Mitchell. "There were 24 million people who tuned in to the Republican debate, and there were very few ideas that would serve our nation moving forward that were offered in that debate.

Appearing on "Andrea Mitchell Reports," O'Malley blasted the DNC for their "outrageous" decision to cut down on the number of debates from 20 in 2008 to six this cycle. (AP Photo) 

"It was like the greatest hits of the 80s and the 90s. What our party has to offer are the actual ideas that will move our country forward that will get wages to go up again instead of down. That will move us to a 100 percent clean energy future, and create 500 million jobs along the way."

"Shame on us as a party if the DNC tries to limit debate and prevents us from being able to put forward a better path for our people that will make the economy work for all of us again," O'Malley said. "So I believe we need more debates — not fewer debates, and I think it's outrageous, actually, that the DNC would try to make this process decidedly undemocratic by telling Iowa and New Hampshire that they can only have one debate before they make a decision."

"This election's too important to cut off debate," O'Malley argued. "People want debate, Andrea. They don't want a coronation."

The former Maryland governor has struggled to gain traction in the 2016 primary thus far. According to the latest RealClearPolitics national polling average, O'Malley pulls only 1.6 percent support. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continues to lead with 55 percent support, while Sen. Bernie Sanders snags 19 percent. In addition, Vice President Joe Biden, who will likely announce his 2016 intentions in September, is at 12 percent.

Via: Washington Examiner

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Fiorina: 'I Will Not Replace a Single' Retiring Federal Worker

(CNSNews.com) - "We have never succeeded in shrinking the size of government," Republican Carly Fiorina told "Fox News Sunday." She said she would do it.

"We have a bunch of baby boomers who are going to retire out of the federal government over the next five to six years. I will not replace a single one," she promised. 

"And yes, we need to actually get about the business of reducing the size, the power, the cost, complexity and corruption of this federal government."

Host Chris Wallace played a video clip of Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) criticizing Fiorina for nearly driving Hewlett-Packard, a Fortune 500 company, "into the ground." Schultz noted that Fiorina "fired 30,000 people when she was CEO."

"You know, if you end up as Republican nominee, the Democrats are going to put that in every ad -- she fired 30,000 people," host Chris Wallace told Fiorina. "It's exactly the kind of thing, Ms. Fiorina, that sunk Mitt Romney."

Fiorina said she's "flattered" that the head of the DNC would come after me because it must mean she's "gaining traction."

"But here's the facts: I led Hewlett-Packard through a very difficult time, the dotcom bust post-9/11, the worst technology recession in 25 years. I would remind Debbie Wasserman Schultz that it has taken the NASDAQ 15 years to recover.

Sometimes in tough times, tough calls are necessary. However, we also took a company from $44 billion to almost $90 million. We quadrupled its growth rate, quadrupled its cash flow, tripled its innovation to 11 patents a day, and went from lagging behind to leading in every product category in every market segment.

And yes, I was fired at the end of that, in a boardroom, which I've been very open about. And I was fired because when you challenge the status quo, which is what leadership is about, you make enemies.

Steve Jobs was fired. Oprah Winfrey was fired. Walt Disney was fired. Mike Bloomberg was fired. I feel like I'm in good company. And we need somebody to challenge status quo of Washington, D.C. and get something done."

Wallace predicted that Democrats will find "that poor, unfortunate person" who was fired, and suffered, because of Fiorina's management.

She said there's nothing harder for a chief executive to do than to tell an employee, "we don't have a job for you."

"It's also true that the vast majority of Americans know that in tough times sometimes tough decisions have to be made. And what they're frustrated by is the federal government never makes a tough decision."

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

DNC accidentally declares a winner in yesterday's debates

I rarely agree with the Democratic National Committee, but yesterday they told us who they thought won the debates, albeit indirectly, and they were spot-on.  The only debater their Twitter feed attacked during the debates was Carly Fiorina, and this tells us whom they fear the most, and whom they saw gaining the most traction.

And true to the colors of the left, who project onto conservatives their own bigotries, they attacked Carly Fiorina in highly sexist terms, using an animated GIF file of a little girl dressed in pink.

 

The DemocratsVerified account‏@TheDemocrats

Fiorina says her business experience prepared her to be president. But under her “leadership," HP stock fell 53%.

• RETWEETS456
• FAVORITES417
• 

3:18 PM - 6 Aug 2015

Imagine if the RNC had attacked Hillary using a little girl looking clueless.  This would be taken as evidence of a war on women.

There is something else that is quite self-contradictory in the attack.  Carly Fiorina is criticized for not paying attention to short-term earnings, which caused HP stock to decline in the short run.  Instead, under her leadership, HP made hard choices that caused earnings to fall in the short run but which ensured its survival in a competitive and dynamic industry full of examples of once-prominent, now-vanished names like Digital Equipment Corporation.

Yet a principal plank in Hillary Clinton’s campaign is the need to de-emphasize the short run, profit- and stock price-maximizing behavior of management, something Carly Fiorina can rightly claim to have done at HP.

 I imagine that if DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz were questioned about this sexist ad, she would answer with her usual incoherence.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Wow! DNC Chair FREEZES-CAN'T ANSWER: 'What's The Difference Between Democrat Party And Socialist'?’

Things got very awkward today when Chris Matthews asked DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz what the difference was between the modern Democratic Party and Socialism.

Because we all know there is no difference between today’s Democrat Party and the radical Socialists in Venezuela or Argentina.

THIS MAY BE THE MOST REVEALING VIDEO YOU WATCH THIS YEAR—

Chris Matthews: Will Sanders speak at the Democrat convention, win or lose? Do you want to have him up there as a Socialist representing the Democratic Party?… You want him up there? You want him on the floor of the convention?

Debbie Wasserman Schulz: Bernie Sanders has been a good Democrat. He caucuses with the Democrats.

Matthews: Should he speak? Speak at prime-time?

Wasserman Schultz: Of course he should speak.

Matthews: In prime-time with everybody watching? (laughing)

Wasserman Schultz: Of course Bernie Sanders should speak…

Matthews: What’s the difference between the Democratic Party and Socialist?

Wasserman Schultz: (Speechless) (Laugh)

Matthews: I used to think there’s a big difference. What do you think it is?

Wasserman Schultz: Wuh… The difference between…

Matthews: Like Democrat Hillary Clinton and Socialist Bernie Sanders?… Well what’s the big difference between the Democrat Party and Socialist. You’re chairman of the Democratic Party. Tell me the difference between you and a Socialist?…

Wasserman Schultz: (She won’t answer) The relevant debate we will be having over the course of this campaign is what’s the difference between a Democrat and a Republican.

Wow!
Even the DNC Chair knows there is NO DIFFERENCE between the Democratic Party and Socialism.

Via The Gateway Pundit

Continue Reading.....