who wrote this book:
More on that here
Now has this post up :
Did 638 People Stop Sanders? The Incredible Stupidity of the Media, the Voters, and the System
-Seems caucuses generate, every four years, more press and comments on Americans disturbed by caucuses, super delegates, yet...
Sanders doesn't want to throw the kitchen sink?, Does holding back serve HRC? Does it help get her prepped for the general election? If she's the one...
They'll do more of that ten hour thing from a few months ago and
A hint of the retrospective we will no doubt be treated to....
From Bloomberg archive:
Blood Sport: The President and His Adversaries delves not only into Whitewater but also into the other alleged scandals that have dogged the President and the First Lady. There's the 1993 suicide of White House deputy counsel Vince W. Foster Jr., Hillary's lucrative commodity trades, the collapse of Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, the firing of the White House travel office staff, Bill's alleged sexual dalliances as governor, and the Clinton staff's behind-the-scenes attempts at damage control.
In an evenhanded investigation, Stewart confirms many of the suspicions I brought back from Arkansas: Despite all the embarrassing revelations investigators found as they picked through the Clintons' financial past, this is one detective story still looking for a smoking gun. Stewart finds no proof of the key charges: that funds were diverted to the Clintons or to the Whitewater land venture from Madison Guaranty, the failed S&L that McDougal controlled. Nor does the author find evidence that Clinton did McDougal political favors for covering the then-governor's Whitewater debts, or that Clinton tried to discourage state regulators from seizing Madison. Stewart also dismisses as "preposterous" claims that Foster was murdered.
Even so, Stewart reveals embarrassing new details about the Clintons' role. For instance, ...
BTW, Didn't Donald say he talked to M. Bloomberg recently? Is that his candidate save for a few adjustments, modifications? Is that why certain pol shows are giving a pass or winks, nods, smiles on the tough questions akin to kid gloves treatment? Or, nawhh? Will more Indies throw their hats into the ring?
Instead of SC...HRC came to CA for cash, no 'urban adventures' nor trips to CA higher ed, just a fly in and fly out for Silicone Valley private $$$$$...
From CNN there is this:
- this transcript leaves out the suggestion that Jones made that Sanders should strategically use Harry Belafonte the same way HRC uses Morgan Freeman, but see other important comments here:
VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, a couple things. He's got - has three opportunities here. Otherwise, it's going to be - go get - it's going to go down in history as like a major act of malpractice with regard to the black vote. You can't be a Democrat that can't compete for the black vote.
First of all he's got to stop giving that same canned speech. Everybody's heard it. African-Americans consume more news than any other ethnic group. They've heard it. He should be down there telling civil rights war stories. He's got incredible civil rights war stories that would captivate an audience. He can't just keep giving that same speech.
The other thing is that he has kind of given Hillary Clinton a pass on the ways that she has separated herself from the president. Hillary Clinton is not with the president on trade. She is opposing his TPP. The president's for it. She's against the president on foreign policy. She wants a Syria fly over zone. The president does not. She's against the president on health care. Hillary Clinton wants to get rid of the Cadillac tax. The president wants to keep it. He has given her a complete pass on all of that, which makes no sense.
And then the third this is, that he has not defined his relationship with the president. It would be very easy for him to say Hillary Clinton loves the president, she wants to defend his gains. I love the president, I want to extend his gains. Because he - but he never has aggressively defined his relationship. He's now had that relationship defined. You give the same speech everybody's heard. You give the - your opponent a pass on the Obama issue. And you let yourself be defined on Obama. You are not going to get black votes.
And this --another shared discomfort :
--trying to evoke the memories and use the family members of these young people in their campaign.
Do you think it's too crass?
It makes me uncomfortable. But I do have to say that Hillary Clinton understands fundamentally that her candidacy is in the hands of...
There's this tweeted question
@cnewf:A 40% cut to SFSU is batshit crazy. Who is running SF State?
That would be: this person,
but current CSU Chancellor is former UCR Tim White, is he the one who can explain this?
But ,while we're at it, if memory serves correctly at all during the current influx of major news, maybe in some forthcoming post or book, cnewf explains why in: Unmaking the U. -he focuses on the Clinton nomination of Guinier but not Bork and Nannygate...current events conjuring up those items...
- Richard Blum (AGAIN!)
- Gareth Elliott
- George Kieffer
- Sherry Lansing (AGAIN!)
- Hadi Makarechian
- Eloy Ortiz Oakley
- John A. Pérez
- Richard Sherman
- Charlene Zettel
- VACANT (M Anguiano?)
- VACANT (L Park?)
- UC Regents Committees
- Staff Advisors, Faculty Reps, Designates
- Ex Officio UC Regents
- UC Alumni Regents
- VACANT (E Tauscher?)
- VACANT (H Guber?)
- Paul Monge
- VACANT (by Lozano)
- VACANT ( by Pattiz)
- VACANT (by Reiss)
"If the University were a business, it would likely be the largest corporation in California."
"If The University Were A Business, It Would Likely Be The Largest Corporation In California"-Regents Minutes (2010)