Today at a press conference in Maryland, Hillary Clinton told a reporter she felt comfortable commenting on the Trans-Pacific Partnership while not commenting on Keystone because she never worked on TPP:
Clinton’s decision to re-write history on her work on trade, as well as her excuse to take no position on the Keystone pipeline, provide more evidence that she will say or do anything to get elected.
Today at a press conference following her meeting at the AFL-CIO, Hillary Clinton once again dodged on what she believes the national minimum wage should be.
Asked directly if she would give a dollar amount for what the minimum wage should be, Clinton refused to do so. She did mention a proposal put forth in Congress to raise the minimum wage to $12 per hour, but when pressed again by a reporter if she endorsed that dollar amount, Clinton would not give an answer.
As has been well documented, Clinton has taken all of the positions on the federal minimum wage.
Clinton has refused to endorse the $15 minimum wage, waffled by saying different cities and states should have different minimum wages, and endorsed a $15 minimum wage for fast food workers only in New York state—including rural areas and smaller cities in the state.
Senator Russ Feingold, member of the United States Senate for the 103rd, 104th, 105th, 106th, 107th, 108th, 109th, 110th, and 111th United States Congresses, would prefer voters not refer to him as “Senator” for fear that his association with the Senate and Washington, DC could give the impression he’s too much of a DC insider and derail his plans to return… to Washington, DC.
The Washington Free Beacon and Milwaukee Journal Sentinelreported on the video clip, which depicted Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairwoman Martha Laning instructing a group of individuals to call Senator Feingold “Russ.”
“Never call him ‘Senator Feingold.’ We are to call him ‘Russ,‘” she said. “They want us to say ‘Russ’ because the last campaign — it was all about ’16 years, 16 years, 16 years, he’s there too long.’ And so they want to say, ‘He’s just one of us.’ We want to go back to Russ being Russ.”
It’s a minor point, but Feingold served three full terms in the Senate, meaning he was in D.C. for 18 years, not 16.
Laning continued, “Second one is we never want to say ‘go back’ to the Senate. We just want to say ‘electing’ him to the Senate. They want to totally get away from all that.”
And according to the Journal Sentinel, Senator Feingold’s campaign isn’t happy about the leaked video:
An insider close to Feingold made it clear that the ex-senator’s team is none too pleased with the video or Laning, who was elected to the top Dem post in June.
“This is no time for on-the-job training,” said the source, who asked not to be named because he’s not authorized to speak for the campaign. “I’m pretty certain they don’t want Martha Laning to use the words ‘Russ Feingold’ ever again.”
Perhaps the Senator should submit a formal resolution to the Wisconsin Democrats to cease and desist this behavior, unbecoming of a United States Senate campaign?
As Democrats attempt to make a dent in the GOP’s historic House majority, they are finding themselves in quite the pickle.
On the heels of Ross Miller’s decision not to run in Nevada’s 3rd Congressional district, Democratic leaders are trying to cope with the lack of challengers to Republicans across the country, the weak bench of Democrats running in must-win districts, and crowded primaries spanning districts from east to west.
What’s stopping these Democratic recruits from running? Maybe it’s what Democratic leaders, reporters, and pundits are saying:
Israel, July 2015: “It’s going to be hard for us to win the majority.”
National Journal: “The party needs to pick up 30 seats in 2016 to wrest the majority from the Republicans. But just months into the cycle, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee appears to be writing off races that it would need to win to get there.”
Political commentator Stuart Rothenberg: “No, I’m not suggesting Democrats will win the House in 2016. Far from it. Right now, you’d need a magnifying glass, probably even a microscope, to find the party’s chances of taking control.”
With such pessimistic predictions about reclaiming a House majority, it’s no wonder Democrats nationwide are opting to do something better and more productive with their lives.
After dodging a press question in Iowa yesterday about whether she supported approval of the Keystone pipeline, today in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton again refused to answer a simple question of “yes or no” as to whether she would approve Keystone.
Hillary Clinton unveiled her energy “plan” today in Iowa, and the reviews are in: nobody likes it. Critics, particularly those on the left, were left wanting:
“Clinton’s climate plan is remarkable for what it doesn’t say, yet,” California-based environmental activist R.L. Miller, who founded the Climate Hawks Vote PAC, said in a statement. Specifically, she added, Clinton offered “no effort to keep fossil fuels in the ground, no price on carbon; no word on Keystone XL, Arctic oil or other carbon bombs; no word on fracking.”
Take a look at the headlines from Clinton’s energy speech, which both the left and center uniformly panned:
The New Republic: “Hillary Clinton’s Climate-Change Plan Is Anything But Comprehensive”
MSNBC: “Clinton’s ‘comprehensive’ climate change policy is anything but”
Today, Hillary Clinton once again dodged when she was asked for specifics on two important topics: the Keystone Pipeline and how she’s pay for her costly new climate change scheme.
Clinton, who has spent the last two yearsavoiding Keystone pipeline question, dodged when she was asked whether she supports or opposes construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. However, Clinton, who said the pipeline’s environmental impact would be important tout the process she put in place to review the pipeline, which found that Keystone would not have “significant impacts” on the environment. Does this mean we assume that Clinton supports Keystone? Supporting the pipeline would align Clinton with her donors and consultants.
Later in the press conference, Clinton failed to explain to reporters how she would pay for her energy plan:
Clinton says the “public deserves to know” what her plan will cost and that she is a fan of “arithmetic,” but she won’t provide a single cost number. Looks like Clinton will continue to dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge any question that may call for specificity on her policies.
On Sunday evening, Clinton rolled out her new energy policy. Her newly released proposal is, as we have come to expect, lacking:
1. Despite saying she would release details of her climate plan, this plan continues to leave Americans hanging, three times saying the details will be outlined in “over the coming months” or “in the coming weeks.” This might be why climate activists don’t trust Clinton to speak for them.
2. Clinton’s plan contains exactly zero mentions of cost, and Clinton once again fails to detail how she plans to pay for these proposals.
3. There is no mention of cap-and-trade, the first point in Clinton’s 2008 energy policy plan. Has she abandoned this proposal, or does she just have a secret plan to cap carbon emissions?
This morning, the New York Times reported that Hillary Clinton is endorsing the “Fight For $15” movement in New York state for fast food workers.
This marks the third position Clinton has taken on the $15 minimum wage in recent weeks. To recap:
In June, Clinton stopped short of endorsing the $15 minimum wage that the “Fight For $15” movement is pushing.
Last week, when asked about the topic, Clinton waffled, saying “because there are different economic environments” across the country, there is debate over whether the $15 minimum wage would work.
And now this morning, the Times is reporting Clinton will come out in support of New York state—including smaller cities like Buffalo, Syracuse, and Rochester—raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour for fast food workers only.
Not only is Clinton utterly unable to posit a clear-cut position on the $15 minimum wage, she’s late to her own Party. Bernie Sanders has announced his support for a national $15 minimum wage, as has Martin O’Malley.
Stay tuned, Clinton watchers. Who knows what position Clinton will take next week…
