Forum Thread

Hillary, Goldman, and 10,000 Women

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 14 Posts
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Hillary, Goldman, and 10,000 Women

    Hillary supporters are claiming former Secretary Clinton's September 2014 speech at the Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women Dinner at the Clinton Global Initiative https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lKlJ3Ed4fQ> was a "paid" speech by Goldman Sachs and "innocuous" http://www.dailynewsbin.com/…/when-hillary-clinton-g…/23763/>.

    Neither is the case. All 3 of her paid Goldman speeches were in 2013 http://www.zerohedge.com/…/every-hillary-and-bill-clinton-s…>. And the context of this speech is not innocuous, however noble the content and goal of the speech.

    In March of 2011, as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton announced the creation of a U.S. State Department-Goldman Sachs public-private partnership to further promote Goldman's 10,000 Women program overseas http://www.washingtonpost.com/…/…/03/07/AR2011030704800.html>. As bizarre as it sounds, not a year after Goldman paid a record $550 million fine to the SEC over Abacus in July of 2010 https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-123.htm>, and following the release of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission's reports in late January 2011, and preceding Carl Levin's scathing Senate Subcommittee report in April, the U.S. State Department, led by Secretary Clinton, went into partnership with Goldman Sachs. The State of Massachusetts would fine Goldman Sachs, again, $10 million in June of 2011. This time for "trading hurdles." http://dealbook.nytimes.com/…/goldman-fined-10-million-ove…/>.

    The lead Goldman consultant on their 10,000 Women program was Clinton friend Gene Sperling who was paid $887,727 in 2008 by Goldman for his advice https://nonprofitquarterly.org/…/goldman-sachs-rolls-out-a…/>. He would then go on to work in the Obama administration.

    The former Secretary of State does not seem to understand that it is not okay that she as Secretary of State entered the U.S. State Department into a partnership with Goldman Sachs while it was surrounded by legal scrutiny and less than a year after settling the Abacus case with the SEC. That's #1. After leaving the State Department, Hillary accepted 3 paid speaking invitations from Goldman, and joined the CGI which also partnered with Goldman to promote 10,000 Women, while receiving substantial charitable donations from Goldman. If a Republican candidate for President did this the entire Democratic Party would be up in arms.

    I'm all for promoting women entrepreneurs, but there are other ways to do it than provide PR to a financial firm with a serial and ongoing record of abusing the laws of this nation and consumers globally. Remember, when the Secretary announced the State Department's 10,000 Women partnership with Goldman Sachs, the firm was still entangled in ongoing investigations. Certainly, no other firm would enjoy this kind of treatment without such friends in high places. 10,000 Women doesn't begin to make a dent in the economic damage that Goldman Sachs has caused.

    In December of 2013, Politico reported that attendees had this to say about what Clinton said behind closed doors: "Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop. And indeed Goldman’s Tim O’Neill, who heads the bank’s asset management business, introduced Clinton by saying how courageous she was for speaking at the bank." http://www.politico.com/…/wall-street-white-house-republica…>

    There are likely not any transcripts of her closed door paid speeches with Goldman. So there are none to release. To recap, what we know is this: Hillary negotiated a deal with Goldman Sachs as Secretary of State to commit U.S. government resources to support Goldman Sachs' charity. She then left that office and accepted payment from Goldman for 3 speeches, and then joined the CGI which worked to promote that same charity and receive donations from Goldman. This is completely inappropriate. It would be even more inappropriate and unethical if she was actually paid for the speech that the Clinton supporters are erroneous citing as a paid speech, given that it was conducted at the Clinton Global Initiative by Goldman Sachs to promote the 10,000 Women program, which Secretary Clinton led the State Department into partnership with.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Carlitos -- Thanks for sharing the links. Sure both Hillary and Bill made lots of money accepting speaker fees from financial institutions. That might disqualify Hillary from being president if it can be shown that those fees influenced her decisions that are specifically tied to legislation favoring those firms, in particular Goldman Sachs. I have not been able to see in any of her legislative endeavors as senator that she was in the pockets of Wall Street. Remember she was a senator from New York, and Wall Street is the financial engine that drives not only New York City, but also much of the USA economy.

    According to the Select USA website, the financial services and insurance sectors employed 5.99 million people in 2014. In 2012, venture capital-backed companies employed more than 12 million people and generated nearly $3 trillion in revenue. Respectively, these figures accounted for 11 percent of private sector employment and annually VC-backed companies have generated revenue equal to 21 percent of U.S. GDP.

    Our financial sector is the envy of the world, and I would like to think that our elected officials are not there to destroy it, but rather to help steer it. In Hillary's speech of December 2007 addressing the problems of Wall Street, it was more of a lecture to Wall Street on what they are doing wrong and what they need to do differently...seeking solutions to problems rather than "assigning blame" outright. I would rather have a president that is not afraid to engage in discussions with Wall Street, than a President who casts them as the "enemy" who no one should talk to.

    Both the left and the right seem to apply some kind of purity tests to candidates. President Obama's choice for Timothy Geithner for Treasury Secretary was widely condemned by liberals because of his association with the banking industry. And the bank bail-out which he oversaw was highly criticized by both the left and the right. Yet Geithner was brought on to help stop the nose dive in the economy precisely because he was highly qualified. For many the purity test would have excluded anyone who had ever worked in the financial industry.

    From what I can tell about the 10,000 Women initiative of Goldman Sachs, this was something that was particularly close to Hillary Clinton's heart as she had been a life long progressive championing for the advancement of women in all segments of society. So why shouldn't she partner with them? I don't see anything sinister in that association. The program is benefiting women as it is intended.

    It is unfortunate in this political season that we are all having to choose tribes, and that anyone that has had any kind of association with another tribe, does not pass the purity test. Both the left and right wing ideologues are playing that game. Bernie Sanders is playing that game helping to divide America even further with his "political revolution" by casting Hillary Clinton as somehow unworthy of the presidency because she took speaking fees from Wall Street during her career in private life. If that is the purity test for electing candidates for government, then we may as well have a house cleaning throwing "all the bums out" of Congress. That would give immense satisfaction to many, but would it help their economic well being? I think not.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt,

    What I'm seeing is intense Cognitive Dissonance on behalf of Hillary supporters. Very smart Hillary supporters have argued in response to my post elsewhere, that it would be okay if Hillary accepted speaking frees from the Sinola Cartel and ISIS.

    It's not okay that she as Secretary of State entered the State Department into a firm under major investigation and who just admitted to one of the largest fraud cases in Wall Street history (Abacus). She then went on to receive speaking fees from that firm, while working at CGI, which received charitable donations from Goldman for promoting 10,000 Women.

    The issue is not just the speaking fees. The State Department should not be engaged in partnerships with Wall Street firms who had just paid a half billion fine to the SEC and was under investigation by a Senate Subcommittee. Come to Jesus! The fact that this has to be debated in Democratic circles makes me physically ill.

    If Hillary wants to promote women, she would do better to seek justice for all the women, particularly elderly and minority women targeted for their lack of financial sophistication, harmed by Wall Street fraud. Training 10,000 Women to be Entrepreneurs is a drop in the bucket compared to the damage done by Goldman. Her relationship with Goldman is scandalous.

    Moreover, the vast majority of financiers and bankers did not break the law and commit fraud. They were harmed by those that did, during and after the crisis. I have no problem with a President speaking to Wall Street per se. And it's not like the vast majority of people who work at Wall Street banks, even the fraudulent ones, are openly rooting for a bad economy. I have a problem with politicians paid by a firm punished for committing fraud, who had entered the government into a partnership with that firm, and then received charitable donations at their family non-profit from that same firm for work on behalf of that partnership.

    Never-mind that this is just one instance of Hillary's vast conflicts of interest.

    If Hillary wants to rehabilitate her image, she can start by signing the 60-Day Plan put forth by Gary Aguirre, Richard Bowmen, Bill Black, and Mark Winston as Bank Whistleblowers United to restore the rule of law. No legislation required. The main thing is restoring the criminal referral process.

    neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/01/exp...

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Geithner was only qualified because he was beholden to the industry.

    The guy who couldn't do his taxes on his World Bank incomes via turbo tax is not qualified to run anything.

    They fail to the top for a reason.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    A Whole New Spin on Government Sachs

    The problem with Hillary Clinton's support in and out of office of the Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women initiative, and her creation of the U.S. State Department Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women Entrepreneurial Program as Secretary of State in March of 20011, is not just a matter of personal ethics, and highly questionable given the civil and criminal investigations of Goldman that were ongoing at the time, it is also about the 10,000 Women program itself and the public policy served by U.S. State Department involvement. The only two evaluations completed were commissioned by Goldman Sachs with those entities receiving donations from Goldman Sachs, and they do not provide enough controls and statistical evidence to support their inferences. Instead of spending $100 million more wisely to improve general health, education, and living conditions of women, Goldman Sachs sought to promote its own ideology, call it charity to improve public relations, and get a tax deduction. Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Global Initiative supported them every step of the way. This is a problem for me.

    Link to Maria Hegenveld's criticism of Goldman and 10,000 Women:http://www.warscapes.com/…/imperial-philanthropy-10-goldman…
    Link to a Goldman study done by the International Center for Research on Women of 41 participants: http://www.goldmansachs.com/…/doc-icrw-10000-women-report.p…
    Link to a Goldman study done by Babson College:
    http://www.goldmansachs.com/…/10kw…/progress-report-full.pdf

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Carlitos, good pieces. Yes I agree this whole election is a total disaster. But in the meantime the "rug' is pulled out from under us in the stockmarket; have you got any idea how this, including the whole financial environment, may affect this country. I see only a huge disaster coming because of the deflation of commodities, of which none of the candidates have a clue, that a crisis worse than 1929 may be already be on our doorstep. So what do you think?
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Carlitos -- Thanks again for sharing the additional links. Yes there are differing views on the 10,000 Women initiative, and ditto for the Goldman Sachs 10,000 Small Business initiative. The real problem for many is that philanthropy dished out by "billionaires, millionaires and corporations" is always treated with suspicion. You see the other members on this website castigating the philanthropy of Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates. In the view of many, anyone who is rich does not have the perspective on the real needs of society. The rich philanthropists channel their money into causes that many see is a waste of time or ineffective. At least that's their view, and each of us is captives of our own experiences in life.

    My biggest concern with the Bernie Sanders campaign and promises is that despite his denial, much of his rise in the polls has been at the expense of tearing down Hillary Clinton...casting her as the "enemy"...part of the establishment. To his credit, many of Bernie's core supporters are indeed first time participants in the political process, and I give him high marks for that...being able to connect with the millennials in a way that Hillary has not been able to. But much of Bernie's messaging has also been indirectly targeted (innuendo) at Hillary Clinton, much the same as you are doing...the guilt by association. She is too cozy with Wall Street and Goldman Sachs. It has been a highly effective way of steering potential voters away from Hillary and into Bernie's camp. It's been so effective that it has given rise to a whole new demographic of his supporters called the "Bernie Bros" who do nothing but engage in sexist and hate attacks on Hillary. They remind me a lot of the Republicans, and maybe that's what they really are. Bernie to his credit has disowned them.

    Republicans would rather run against Bernie because they are sitting on a "goldmine of garbage" from Bernie's socialist past that they are ready to use to destroy him...his time living at a kibbutz in Israel, his visit to Nicaragua and his support for the Sandinistas, his honeymoon in Russia, his trip to Cuba to try meet with Castro, and more. Republicans will be ruthless and incessant in painting Bernie Sanders as not only a socialist, but also a communist. This is what Republicans do. Hillary has chosen (at least thus far) to not bring up any of those issues.

    In any case it may not matter who is elected. Either of them will have a difficult time getting their respective agendas passed in Congress because the Republican Party obstructionists will do what they did to Obama...obstruct any program that helps the plight of the poor and then blame it on the President.

    Read my prior blog post, The Strategy behind the “Party of No” to obstruct job growth. This is what a President Sanders or a President Clinton will have to contend with. It is a highly successful strategy because Americans as whole, and especially young people, do not pay attention to what is going on in Washington D.C. They expect the president to have far more power than he actually holds, and when the president cannot deliver, they blame him. Some liberals on this website labeled Obama in the 2012 election as, the "lesser of two evils". It shows how successful the Republican misinformation campaign has been. Bernie will not be prepared for it.

    Never mind, if Bernie is the Democrats choice, I will stand behind him. I'm an old fart, 69 years old, and will knock on doors again and again. I'll do it this year, but unlike many of Bernie's millennial supporters, I will also be there again in 2018 knocking on doors when Bernie's supporters, disillusioned and confused by the obstructionism in Washington, will again disengage from the political process and stay at home on election day. History repeats itself.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Dutch,

    The low oil prices are an unambiguous negative for the U.S. economy.

    The lower price shifts dollars from producers to consumers, but we lose some of those dollars because of the loss of investment spending. And investment spending was a big part of the borrowing to spend that supports the demand leakages (savings attempts), which you need to offset the paradox of thrift.

    Next president will need to dramatically cut taxes or ramp up government spending.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Carlitos -- Thanks again for sharing the additional links. Yes there are differing views on the 10,000 Women initiative, and ditto for the Goldman Sachs 10,000 Small Business initiative. The real problem for many is that philanthropy dished out by "billionaires, millionaires and corporations" is always treated with suspicion. You see the other members on this website castigating the philanthropy of Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates. In the view of many, anyone who is rich does not have the perspective on the real needs of society. The rich philanthropists channel their money into causes that many see is a waste of time or ineffective. At least that's their view, and each of us is captives of our own experiences in life.

    My biggest concern with the Bernie Sanders campaign and promises is that despite his denial, much of his rise in the polls has been at the expense of tearing down Hillary Clinton...casting her as the "enemy"...part of the establishment. To his credit, many of Bernie's core supporters are indeed first time participants in the political process, and I give him high marks for that...being able to connect with the millennials in a way that Hillary has not been able to. But much of Bernie's messaging has also been indirectly targeted (innuendo) at Hillary Clinton, much the same as you are doing...the guilt by association. She is too cozy with Wall Street and Goldman Sachs. It has been a highly effective way of steering potential voters away from Hillary and into Bernie's camp. It's been so effective that it has given rise to a whole new demographic of his supporters called the "Bernie Bros" who do nothing but engage in sexist and hate attacks on Hillary. They remind me a lot of the Republicans, and maybe that's what they really are. Bernie to his credit has disowned them.

    Republicans would rather run against Bernie because they are sitting on a "goldmine of garbage" from Bernie's socialist past that they are ready to use to destroy him...his time living at a kibbutz in Israel, his visit to Nicaragua and his support for the Sandinistas, his honeymoon in Russia, his trip to Cuba to try meet with Castro, and more. Republicans will be ruthless and incessant in painting Bernie Sanders as not only a socialist, but also a communist. This is what Republicans do. Hillary has chosen (at least thus far) to not bring up any of those issues.

    In any case it may not matter who is elected. Either of them will have a difficult time getting their respective agendas passed in Congress because the Republican Party obstructionists will do what they did to Obama...obstruct any program that helps the plight of the poor and then blame it on the President.

    Read my prior blog post, The Strategy behind the “Party of No” to obstruct job growth. This is what a President Sanders or a President Clinton will have to contend with. It is a highly successful strategy because Americans as whole, and especially young people, do not pay attention to what is going on in Washington D.C. They expect the president to have far more power than he actually holds, and when the president cannot deliver, they blame him. Some liberals on this website labeled Obama in the 2012 election as, the "lesser of two evils". It shows how successful the Republican misinformation campaign has been. Bernie will not be prepared for it.

    Never mind, if Bernie is the Democrats choice, I will stand behind him. I'm an old fart, 69 years old, and will knock on doors again and again. I'll do it this year, but unlike many of Bernie's millennial supporters, I will also be there again in 2018 knocking on doors when Bernie's supporters, disillusioned and confused by the obstructionism in Washington, will again disengage from the political process and stay at home on election day. History repeats itself.

    Yes Schmidt, that is the way it is, as an outsider, I've said many times this country is helping itself with its own destruction in a rapid tempo; look at the "market" the main reason is just having only two parties who are farther apart than ever. A Constitution written in the 1700's should not apply now, but should have been re-written to match the times. A total mixture in the population requires adaption to cultures and rules. This is the only country in the world with the most lawyers per person; no wonder it is a mess to get organized. But as I said we are getting into the danger zone now oil is below $30.-, this will have a much greater effect on us than our elections; we'll get a huge crash which of course may not affect the 1%; they'll run to their villa's outside the US. So who wants to be President over a poor bunch of people who have no money or food or anything to pay their taxes?

    I'm even an older "fart" and know what hunger was just after WWII, as well what happens once a country has to climb out of ruins and war. Lots of Americans never had that on their "island" so they have no clue. as long as the arrogance stays here by having their wars and greed as well fanatism, then a lesson will come sooner or later; it is ready to happen.

    We as oil consumer should know, that the income for the oil producing countries has plunged just about 70%; since they did use a lot of their oil income into investing in US stocks, they are selling these (en masse)now to compensate for their losses. To add to the problem they pump out more oil to get more income money which only makes things worse. On top of that because of fracking we have less imports, so again less income for oil producing countries. In the meantime Iran has come on line and wants to dump more oil on the market etc. There are a lot of other elements tied to that which will drive certain countries into the ground. Venezuela is ready to collapse etc. Due to this rollercoaster effect on the whole world financial structure, a huge crisis may follow world wide and felt especially in industrial countries like the US and China. I just wonder if our elections with our present incapable candidates can solve this situation. I fear for the worst.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt said : "Yet Geithner was brought on to help stop the nose dive in the economy precisely because he was highly qualified."

    Total fallacy. Geithner was not and is not qualified to fix a problem he helped make. His talent is not in restricting but increasing. But that selection process happens in any unusual situation. "Gather all the prominent talent". Do generals design positive productive plans to rehabilitate lands and countries they have conquered?

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    There is no name more associated with the 2008 crash than Clinton. There are no actions more blamed for the 2008 crash than the legislation repealed and passed under the Clinton presidency. Making a case for Hillary to solve the financial problems is pointless because she doesn't see a problem.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    David Merkel, Wall Street Pit, August 22, 2012: What Caused the Financial Crisis of 2008?

    I have read many articles about what caused the financial crisis of 2008. One cannot put a finger on any one thing and say "that's to blame". Merkel in his article above has listed several factors that together caused the crisis. Furthermore, Mereklel states that the repeal of Glass-Steagall, was a "small factor in the crisis".

    You can browse through the comprehensive list. The Clinton haters will always find a way to blame Clinton by cherry picking the Glass-Steagall repeal as the cause of the crisis. Others will cite other factors. I am not qualified or clairvoyant enough to know the relative weights of the factors or how the timeline of actions and events "could have, should have, would have" been different if different actions were taken. I do know that politicians and media will always be ready to cast blame, usually showing an abundance of ignorance in the process. But who cares because when they are pandering to one's emotions, then any thing is believable. People believe what they want to believe.

    This is a bit off topic, but whether you are talking about Goldman Sachs philanthropy or what caused the financial crisis, there are some people who cannot disassociate the two.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt,

    I've seen all kinds of horrible behavior on both sides of the Hillary-Bernie divide. Lot people not listening to each other and insulting one another.

    I say one factual thing about Hillary's Goldman record on Facebook and a legion of HillaryBots swarm in to call me a liar, idiot, Republican, etc.

    And when I've criticized Bernie's tax plan, I get it from the other side.

    I see both candidates with weaknesses running against the Republicans. Hillary is a Clinton. That closet is deep. They are going to attack her marriage and the former President's character. They are going to be relentless in attacking the Clinton Foundation and its subsidiaries. If Republicans control any chamber of Congress, they will open wild investigations. This nightmare is supposed to be our best option?

    The only real substantive knock at this point in the campaign against Sanders is the tax plan, that he calls himself a "Democratic-Socialist," and his past Leftist history. Republicans will go after that past history, but the answer is "my views have changed since then" or "that was not my position then, it is not my position now, and it never will be," whatever is applicable. Sanders can avoid a lot of grief on the tax plan by backing away from it with words like: "mainstream economics have failed"; "we need to look at other options for answers including new ideas and ones I have not proposed"; "I think the answer is right here in the USA" ; "I would like for you to consider for a moment that we may, including myself, have the U.S. currency, monetary and banking system, and the function of federal taxation all wrong"; "mainstream economics appears to based on a gold standard or fixed exchange regime, not the floating rates that exist today." But I think you know where I think Sanders should go with this. Probably a place he will not go because it is exceedingly difficult on the campaign trail to do.

    Frankly, we probably should be thankful that the Republican opposition was what it was, because in the end it was really the Tea Party lunatics who wanted to completely destroy the economy who saved President Obama from himself by rejecting his Grand Bargain that would, itself, have been a major economic drag and politically costly, torpedoing Obama's 2012 reelection.

    So while we might expect more of voters, let us not discount the policy mistakes made by our elected Democratic officials that contribute to voter fatigue. Nor forget how influence is really structured in the "People's Party" and how that affects Democratic Party decision making and voter outreach.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Carlitos Wrote:

    Schmidt,

    I've seen all kinds of horrible behavior on both sides of the Hillary-Bernie divide. Lot people not listening to each other and insulting one another.

    I say one factual thing about Hillary's Goldman record on Facebook and a legion of HillaryBots swarm in to call me a liar, idiot, Republican, etc.

    And when I've criticized Bernie's tax plan, I get it from the other side.

    I see both candidates with weaknesses running against the Republicans. Hillary is a Clinton. That closet is deep. They are going to attack her marriage and the former President's character. They are going to be relentless in attacking the Clinton Foundation and its subsidiaries. If Republicans control any chamber of Congress, they will open wild investigations. This nightmare is supposed to be our best option?

    The only real substantive knock at this point in the campaign against Sanders is the tax plan, that he calls himself a "Democratic-Socialist," and his past Leftist history. Republicans will go after that past history, but the answer is "my views have changed since then" or "that was not my position then, it is not my position now, and it never will be," whatever is applicable. Sanders can avoid a lot of grief on the tax plan by backing away from it with words like: "mainstream economics have failed"; "we need to look at other options for answers including new ideas and ones I have not proposed"; "I think the answer is right here in the USA" ; "I would like for you to consider for a moment that we may, including myself, have the U.S. currency, monetary and banking system, and the function of federal taxation all wrong"; "mainstream economics appears to based on a gold standard or fixed exchange regime, not the floating rates that exist today." But I think you know where I think Sanders should go with this. Probably a place he will not go because it is exceedingly difficult on the campaign trail to do.

    Frankly, we probably should be thankful that the Republican opposition was what it was, because in the end it was really the Tea Party lunatics who wanted to completely destroy the economy who saved President Obama from himself by rejecting his Grand Bargain that would, itself, have been a major economic drag and politically costly, torpedoing Obama's 2012 reelection.

    So while we might expect more of voters, let us not discount the policy mistakes made by our elected Democratic officials that contribute to voter fatigue. Nor forget how influence is really structured in the "People's Party" and how that affects Democratic Party decision making and voter outreach.

    I said many times that none of the candidates are suited for this important job. On the democratic side I fully agree with both Schmidt and Carlitos. The shameful fact is that not any of the candidates dares to discuss the total financial disaster on the horizon related to the worldmarket caused by a large portion of collapsing oil prices and its effect oil producing countries. Regardless if we think our economy is alright, it will affect us in a huge way. just check your 401K's and your returns on investments. ( Dow already more than 3000 points below last years level) Indeed Hillary nor Sanders are the right people to solve this looming disaster.