The US Senate Torture Report revealed horrifying details of America’s interrogation program. Helen Mirren will fill you in.
NEW HAMPSHIRE–PRESIDENT–DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY–Morning Consult: Clinton 44, Sanders 32.
I tend to disbelieve this poll, but then again there could be some neighboring state effect happening in New Hampshire.
Ready the guillotines. Rich Californians don’t think they should have to ration their water. From Gawker:
California’s wealthiest do not think that they should be subject to the same restrictions on water consumption as everyone else, the Washington Post reports. Rich people pay higher property taxes and are therefore entitled to more water and poor people are just going to have to suck it up.
“We pay significant property taxes based on where we live,” Steve Yuhas, a resident of the affluent Rancho Santa Fe, said. “And, no, we’re not all equal when it comes to water.” […]
“It’s no longer a ‘You can only water on these days’” situation, Santa Fe Irrigation District spokeswoman Jessica Parks said. “It’s now more of a ‘This is the amount of water you get within this billing period. And if you go over that, there will be high penalties.’”
And man, oh man are people upset about that! “I’m a conservative, so this is strange, but I defend Barbra Streisand’s right to have a green lawn,” said Yuhas, who hosts a radio talks show and also has a home in Los Angeles. “When we bought, we didn’t plan on getting a place that looks like we’re living in an African savanna.”
Poor babies.
Philip Klein: “When Republicans lost two elections to Obama, it was easy to explain away as a special phenomenon. In 2008, Obama was a rock star running against a boring old senator who represented an incumbent party that had presided over an unpopular war and financial crash. In 2012, he ran for re-election against a weak candidate who had trouble winning over his own party. But in 2016, Republicans have the ability to nominate a formidable candidate to put up against a Democrat with lots of baggage. If they blow it, then it may be time to throw in the towel.”
Steve Benen says Hillary Clinton’s announcement speech on Roosevelt Island in New York on Saturday was one of the most substantive announcement speeches he has ever heard.
Clinton has never been a great orator, and her campaign aides intend to play to her strengths and avoid her weaknesses. This was clear on Saturday – the former senator and Secretary of State skipped the soaring rhetoric and instead presented a fairly detailed and ambitious policy agenda, filled not only with progressive priorities and economic populism, but also popular policy ideas with broad national support.
There was one word, however, that Clinton used more than any other, which told voters quite a bit – about her personality, her style, and her approach to political leadership.
That word was “fight” – she used it, by my count, at least a dozen times. In fact, the main body of the speech was built on a foundation of “four fights” Clinton wants to “wage and win” on Americans’ behalf.
“The first is to make the economy work for everyday Americans, not just those at the top…. [T]he second fight is to strengthen America’s families, because when our families are strong, America is strong…. So we have a third fight: to harness all of America’s power, smarts, and values to maintain our leadership for peace, security, and prosperity…. That’s why we have to win the fourth fight – reforming our government and revitalizing our democracy so that it works for everyday Americans.”
The entire announcement was built around the belief that Clinton is a tireless fighter, a hallmark of her lengthy career in public service.
“I certainly haven’t won every battle I’ve fought, but leadership means perseverance and hard choices. You have to push through the setbacks and disappointments and keep at it. I think you know by now that I’ve been called many things by many people – ‘quitter’ is not one of them.”
Eight years ago, Barack Obama’s announcement speech was built around the audacity of hope. He believed then, much as he believes now, that Americans’ differences are superficial compared to the values that bind us together. He sees a search for common ground is a key to effective leadership.
Eight years later, Hillary Clinton’s pitch is altogether different. She’s less hopeful and more confrontational. She sees our divisions as real, deep, and worth fighting over. Clinton recognizes her foes who aren’t committed to helping American families, and she’s ready to brawl.
And that is why I support Hillary Clinton for President.
Greg Sargent writes about how Hillary will respond with a fighting attack on all Republicans everywhere should the Supreme Court decide to throw their law degrees out the window and rule against Obamacare subsidies.
In an interview with the Des Moines Register, Clinton signaled that if the Supreme Court guts subsidies for millions in three dozen states, she will respond with a plan to avert all the chaos that would result. And she sharply dismissed the legal arguments being made by the challengers:
Asked about the Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare, Clinton said that no matter which way the U.S. Supreme Court rules on federal subsidies, “I will be prepared to set forth what I would do.”
Clinton said that if the court does what she thinks it should do based on the law and the facts, “that would mean it would not rule in favor of the very contorted argument that is being made by the opponents to blow up the Affordable Care Act’s guarantee of coverage.”
That suggests Clinton may be preparing to go on offense against Republicans if the Court rules for the challengers. She is dismissing the lawsuit as a cynical effort to undermine the ACA’s basic coverage guarantee — telegraphing a very critical response to such a ruling — and signaling aggressive engagement if and when the debate turns to what should happen next.
Republicans appear divided over how to respond if the Court guts subsidies. Some Congressional Republicans are floating plans that would temporarily extend subsidies. But they are now saying they won’t produce any consensus plan until after the Court rules. Meanwhile, it’s not clear that Republicans can pass any such consensus plan, because conservatives may revolt at doing anything to keep Obamacare going. It’s also unclear whether GOP leaders would want to buck conservatives and pass a temporary fix with the help of a lot of Democrats. Beyond all this, the GOP fix plans appear likely to do more harm to Obamacare than good.
Clinton says she will offer a fix of her own — probably some kind of simple rewrite of the disputed legislative language — while calling for the universal coverage guarantee to be restored. In other words, she would actually fix the problem created by the Court ruling. This could contrast sharply with the GOP post-King approach, which, judging by recent GOP rhetoric, will likely be saddled with a tortured, incoherent storyline: Republicans will blame the loss of coverage for millions on Obamacare itself, while pledging to fix the problem even as their “solution” undermines the law further.
But, if Obamacare survives this latest Court challenge, it is here to stay forever.