Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton’ Category

Inside the Secret List of Demands Warren Gave Hillary – POLITICO

After the meeting, Warren sent Clinton a list of people she wanted the campaign team to consult on economic policy in order to broaden their horizons beyond people like Robert Rubin and Michael Froman, high-ranking officials in the Bill Clinton and Obama administrations who had also worked at Citigroup.

The list, recompiled by POLITICO based on the accounts of those involved, included a hodgepodge of sometimes obscure liberal academics and economists including MITs Simon Johnson, UConns James Kwak, Columbias Joseph Stiglitz, Vanderbilts Ganesh Sitaraman (policy director for Warrens 2012 campaign), University of Chicagos Amir Sufi, U.C. Irvines Katie Porter and Vermont Law Schools Jennifer Taub. The progressive think-tank types included Demos Heather McGhee; public servants who had clashed with the Obama administration included former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chair Sheila Bair and longtime Senate aide Elise Bean. AFL-CIO policy director Damon Silvers represented unions.

The common thread among most of the names: They had been critical of the Obama administrations response to the financial crisis, as Warren had.

That list, the contents of which have not been previously reported, was just the beginning of an intensive two-year campaign by Warren, her staff and outside allies to push, prod and shape the would-be Clinton administration an effort that also included an informal blacklist of Clinton allies that Warren and outside partners would resist if nominated for jobs in the Clinton administration, which included BlackRock Chairman Larry Fink and Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg.

The constant interference sometimes frustrated and annoyed the former secretary of State and her team.

It was kind of a pain in the ass to be thinking about her all the time, recalled one Clinton transition official.

But Clintons team listened aware of both Warrens credibility among progressives and her willingness to use her bully pulpit to condemn members of her own party. Even more acutely, they felt the ever-present threat that shed throw her own hat into the ring.

I think if the outreach hadnt been done then she might have felt obligated to run, a Clinton official explained of their approach.

Warrens initial list in 2014 and the ensuing influence campaign over administration personnel, according to interviews with more than 20 people involved in the process, offers the clearest possible window into how Warren would staff her own administration and just how sharply a Warren administrations economic team would depart from recent Democratic administrations and those of her rivals such as former Vice President Joe Biden.

The two-year campaign to mold the would-be Hillary Clinton administration is also a case study in Warrens theory of power, an approach her aides and allies sometimes refer to as the inside-outside game combining tough, often hyperbolic rhetoric to create leverage with quieter, hands-on, person-to-person outreach.

Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, right, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, left, greet supporters during a campaign rally in New Hampshire on October 24, 2016.

As the Clinton transition team fielded ideas from senators in the final months of the campaign, Warren was treated as a first among equals, according to a Clinton transition official. Warrens chief of staff Dan Geldon and Clinton senior staffer Jake Sullivan were in close contact and met repeatedly in the final months of the campaign. Warren was deep in the weeds on personnel and pushed the Clinton transition team to hire her allies like Rohit Chopra, a veteran of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

With her mantra of personnel is policy, she lobbied on the obscure but important transition landing teams for economic policy helping install people on her list like Johnson and Porter to top positions. Clinton transition aides remember Bharat Ramamurti, a top Warren policy aide now on her presidential campaign, occasionally dropped into the office.

Warren also personally and persistently lobbied campaign chairman John Podesta, members of the transition team and Clinton herself. When Warren visited the campaigns Brooklyn headquarters shortly after endorsing Clinton in 2016, she insisted on a separate meeting with the campaigns policy team.

There were the dos and the donts do [hire] this person and dont with this person, recalled Podesta of their conversations in the fall of 2016. She was more fired up about the donts than the dos. Podesta wouldnt name names but said: If you worked at the Obama Treasury Department or the SEC then you were probably in trouble.

Or as one transition official half-jokingly described the dont personnel: Anyone whos ever talked to Larry Summers. Before becoming Facebook COO, Sandberg had been Summers chief of staff when he was Treasury secretary during the Clinton administration. He had been her thesis adviser at Harvard as well.

She wasnt making recs on who the secretary of Defense should be, Podesta added. It was all concentrated on Treasury, financial regulators and that cluster of agencies.

She was the pushiest and most engaged outside person that I can think of in terms of telling us to hire people, pushing us to hire people, one Clinton transition official said. We didnt necessarily have the same priorities. After all, she wasnt going to be president. Hillary Clinton was going to be president.

Clintons team was right to think that Warren was reconsidering a 2016 run. As Draft Warren efforts became louder and more organized in late 2014 and early 2015, Warren publicly brushed them off but privately asked her husband, Bruce Mann, what he thought.

Mann gave a careful spousal reply: I want you to do whatever you want to do, Warren recalled in her 2017 book This Fight Is Our Fight. When she pressed him, he was unenthusiastic. But a race like this one looks pretty terrible, he told her. The Senate thing was bad enough, and running for president would be worse a lot worse.

She asked whether he would be OK if she decided to run. He said yes but she wrote that she didnt believe him. Her decision not to run prompted sighs of relief on Clintons team, some of whom believe Warren could have beaten them by marshaling a broader coalition than that eventually put together by Sen. Bernie Sanders.

We were worried, a Clinton campaign official said. In retrospect, she could have been a pretty potent candidate in the primary. Her decision also led Sanders to make a run of his own from Clintons left which would become more formidable than Warren, Clinton, or even Sanders himself expected.

Warren didnt want to be out of the game entirely, however. If she wasnt going to run, Warren set her mind on a different sort of campaign to push Clinton toward her sphere of progressive policy wonks.

In early 2015, Clintons team still was not taking any chances. After Warren sent her lengthy list to the former secretary of State, Clinton dispatched senior aide and speechwriter Dan Schwerin to go over the names with Geldon, then Warrens chief of staff and now a senior adviser on her presidential run.

They met in early January for nearly an hour and a half. Afterward, Schwerin reported back that Warrens team seem wary -- and pretty convinced that the Rubin folks have the inside track with us whether we realize it yet or not -- but open to engagement and to be proven wrong, according to emails later published by WikiLeaks, a cyberattack that American intelligence later concluded was part of a Russian campaign to hurt Clintons chances in 2016.

Schwerin added that Geldon laid out a detailed case against the Bob Rubin school of Democratic policymakers, was very critical of the Obama administration's choices.

The same week Schwerin met Geldon, Warren coupled the private push with a public speech at the AFL-CIO that urged Democrats not to take victory laps because the gross domestic product and unemployment numbers looked good. Despite these cheery numbers, America's middle class is in deep trouble, she declared. All of the new money earned in this economy over the past generationall that growth in the GDPwent to the top.

The speech raised eyebrows among Clinton allies such as Lynn Forester de Rothschild, who emailed top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that we need to craft the economic message for Hillary so that Warrens common inaccurate conclusions are addressed.

It was the first of many instances of Warren putting public pressure on the Clinton team while working her relationships on the inside, at times to the Clinton teams frustration.

Warren clearly was getting info about what was happening inside, recalled one transition official. Wed have some internal conversation and then Warren would say something to reporters -- firing little warning shots.

To the surprise of some in Warrens orbit, Clintons team began proactively engaging with the people on Warrens list -- and not just in a check-the-box fashion, according to some who were contacted.

In various ways, the list was a collection of progressives who shared Warrens conviction that the Obama administration had bungled the recovery by being too close to banks and thinking about shorter-term fixes rather than using the opportunity to enact a structural overhaul of the governments role in the economy. They tended to be sharply critical of Obamas Treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, who was perceived as close to Wall Street.

She didnt want to see an administration that was fully staffed by deputy secretaries-in-waiting from Brookings, said Georgetown Law professor Adam Levitin, a former student of Warrens who remains close to her, referring to the center-left think tank with ties to businesses.

Simon Johnson wrote in 2011 that Geithners vision for the economy was deeply disturbing and amounts to a huge, uninformed gamble with the future of the American economy. Mian co-authored the book House of Debt in 2014 that argued banks and creditors had too much power over policymaking. Taub similarly argued that the housing crisis was metastisizing in her book Other People's Houses: How Decades of Bailouts, Captive Regulators, and Toxic Bankers Made Home Mortgages a Thrilling Business. Sheila Bair had had several showdowns with Geithner while she ran the FDIC during the crisis.

In pushing for her allies to be incorporated into Clintons campaign, Warren began hitting the phones -- reaching out to people like Gary Gensler, Mandy Grunwald and the few other links she had to Clinton.

Gensler, who had worked for Clinton in 2008 and had been a Warren ally during the financial crisis, was tapped to be Clintons chief financial officer for the 2016 campaign and would become a central point person to manage the Warren-Clinton relationship -- dubbed by Sullivan as the Elizabeth whisperer.

Their contact was nearly constant, to the point that some Clinton aides wondered whose side he was on.

It seemed like every meeting hed say, I just talked to Elizabeth and ... recalled one campaign official with an eye roll.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, right, pats Sen. Bernie Sanders, left, on the back after a speech on February 16, 2017 in Washington, DC. | Win McNamee/Getty Images

As Sanders campaign took off in early 2016, Warren felt pressure building from both Sanders and Clinton to endorse.

Ideologically, she was much closer to the Vermont senator. But there was skepticism within Warrens orbit that he could actually pull it off and that endorsing him would diminish her ability to influence Clinton.

Sanders, who is usually reluctant to ask for endorsements or get immersed in transactional politics, did make a personal hard sell in early 2016 as the primary raged on. At a private hangar at Dulles International Airport, Sanders took a cellphone and paced around privately while talking to Warren, remembers one aide. Some Sanders senior staffers were thrilled she had stayed neutral while others felt victory would be in sight if Warren would throw her weight behind the senator. At the end of the long conversation, Warren still declined to endorse Sanders.

From the other side, Podesta repeatedly called and urged Warren to endorse Clinton to help bring the primary fight to an earlier end. I think her view was that if she was respectful and waited that shed be more useful in bringing Bernie supporters to Hillary, Podesta remembered. I always thought that was overthinking it.

One former Clinton adviser characterized Warrens moves as part of a larger strategy to avoid alienating the left while also maintaining her relationships with the Clinton team that she thought was likely to win: She stayed neutral, but she made sure she had influence with the nominee so she and her advisers had a seat at the table in a real way.

Warren was preparing a warning shot for President-elect Clinton.

It was Tuesday, November 8, 2016. Warrens team had already arranged for her to give a high-profile speech that Thursday morning at the AFL-CIO in Washington, D.C. The address would lay out what Warren believed the priorities should be for the new White House, according to a Warren ally familiar with the speech, in an attempt to pressure the transition team from the beginning.

She wasnt going to mince words. The two-year campaign to influence the Clinton administration was finally about to bear fruit. At least three people on Warrens 2014 list -- Simon Johnson, Katie Porter and Elise Bean -- had been slated for top positions on little-known but consequential transition landing teams that would help staff the administration, according to one transition official.

The Warren-allied Roosevelt Institute -- a leftist rival to the Center for American Progress -- had identified over 150 economic policy jobs and interviewed over 1,000 potential candidates for them ahead of the Clinton transition. Other progressive allies of Warren were preparing blacklists of people to avoid.

But as many politicians did in November 2016, Warren had to scrap her planned remarks. That speech was now in the trash, she later wrote.

The speech she actually delivered echoed what she had told Clinton at that December 2014 meeting. If we have learned nothing else from the past two years of electioneering, we should hear the message loud and clear that the American people want Washington to change, she said. It was clear in the Democratic primaries. It was clear in the Republican primaries. It was clear in the campaign and it was clear on Election Day.

It was not long after that she and her team began making preparations for a 2020 run. The final decision wasnt made but the team began taking the necessary steps, essentially turning her 2018 Senate reelection into a dry run, stockpiling over $10 million in cash for good measure.

When she did make the leap into the presidential fray on New Years Eve, the last day of 2018, she began tapping into the same list of people she gave Clinton four years before. Many of them have been cited in her many plans. Ganesh Sitaraman has been one of the key architects of Warrens innumerable plans. She used Johnson as a validator for her math on Medicare for All. Porter ran for Congress herself, won, and is now one of the three-co-chairs for Warrens campaign. Heather McGhee and Demos have provided much of the blueprint for how Warren combines economic and racial justice in an effort to expand her base. Bair, a George W. Bush appointee, has been an outside validator for her agenda.

Rohit Chopra is now a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission. While he is not involved in the campaign, his tough critiques of powerful technology companies like Facebook echo Warrens. And Damon Silvers of the AFL-CIO remains in the background as an important booster for Warren among union officials. And the Roosevelt Institute continues to build its own list of progressive personnel. Its unclear how many of them would stock a would-be Warren administration but their influence would be undeniable.

Even if she doesnt become the nominee, people close to her say she will be just as tough and exasperating a presence on any other transition team.

In some ways, her speech at the AFL-CIO was the first of her presidential campaign. She argued that the 2016 results proved the points shed been making the past two decades. The final results may have divided us -- but the entire electorate embraced deep, fundamental reform of our economic system and our political system, she said.

The truth is that people are right to be angry.

The rest is here:
Inside the Secret List of Demands Warren Gave Hillary - POLITICO

Howard Stern, Hillary Clinton And Martin Scorsese Highlight The Great Luxury Of Time – Forbes

Actor Al Pacino, from left, director Martin Scorsese and actor Robert De Niro pose for photographers ... [+] upon arrival at the premiere of the film 'The Irishman' as part of the London Film Festival, in central London, Sunday, Oct. 13, 2019. (Photo by Joel C Ryan/Invision/AP)

Weve been hearing about the sad shrinking of our collective attention spans for decades. In the 1980s MTV remember when the M meant music? shaped a generation of media habits with rapid-fire music video cuts, which in turn formed the foundation of movie musicals such as Flashdance and Footloose. By the early 1990s we had a Comedy Central show called Short Attention Span Theater. Jeffrey Katzenberg raised over a billion dollars for Quibi (quick bites) with a pitch focused on short mobile video segments. Our entire social media infrastructure is based on the quick dopamine hit from the latest community acknowledgement of our shared GIFs and bon mots. And oh yeah, YouTube.

And yet. As we head into the end of the year holidays, with so many media options in front of us, it was a pleasure to luxuriate in a few recent offerings that highlight the powerful impact of work that takes it time. And maybe theres even a business case for it.

Do you know the most insightful, thoughtful, human interview that I have heard from an American political figure in the last year? Hillary Clintons sit down with Howard Stern. Yes, shes out shilling a book The Book of Gutsy Women that she wrote with Chelsea. But this was no superficial happy to be here Howard drive-by appearance. It unfolded not in a 7- minute segment surrounded by reports on Trumps latest tweet or a holiday cooking segment, but over the course of two hours and on the radio (OK, it was satellite radio, but still).

Stern may self-deprecatingly call himself a guy who tells penis jokes for a living but it is no surprise to faithful listeners to his show that he is an extraordinarily engaging, empathetic interviewer. The Clinton interview was the opposite of rushed either from the questioner or the interviewee. There was time for Stern to use pointed follow-up questions that arose from good old-fashioned listening to the prior answer. And in the process, a woman who all-too-often has come across in public life as pre-programmed and cautious to a fault displayed a gift for humor, warmth, intelligence and historical perspective that has rarely if ever been displayed through more conventional short-burst media outlets. Sometimes less isnt more its just less.

Although he probably wouldnt expect to be mentioned in the same breath as Howard Stern, Martin Scorseses latest film, The Irishman, is another shining example of the luxury of time in media, in this case in service of telling a big story.

There arent too many entertainment products that will even attempt never mind deserve 3 hours and 29 minutes of your time, but The Irishman does. Its scope encompasses American political history in the middle of the 20th century, the labor movement, the criminal justice system, the battle for acceptance by immigrants and the good, bad and ugly of a host of powerful human emotions. It provides space for extraordinary performances from some of our greatest actors from Robert DeNiro to Al Pacino to Joe Pesci. When DeNiros working stiff character asks Pescis wise guy character his name, and gets no response, the silence feels longer than anything I can recall outside of a play by Samuel Becket. It has a respect for its audience that is unmistakable.

Stern and Scorsese theres that magical combination again are of course joined by other recent superb examples of not only a longer time-frame for the work but a more luxurious pace. If youve watched the Golden Globe and Emmy winning series The Crown again thanks to Netflix - you see a series with extraordinary patience in telling its story and looking inside the psyches of its famous royal family and the historical figures that surround them. The public has also embraced Knives Out, which sprinkles its classic whodunit with joys such as the languorous speechifying of Daniel Craig, the detective whose job is to solve the mystery.

Are these examples of the exceptions that prove the short attention span rule? Is there actually a business in such lengthy work?

The digital media world is driven by what is sometimes called the attention economy for the value placed on keeping the consumer engaged on your platform. After the completion of the AT&T-Time Warner merger, the new Warner Media CEO John Stankey, noted that that in a Netflix-dominated streaming marketplace, the future for HBO depended upon measuring their growth in not hours a week, and its not hours a month. We need hours a day.

More hours per day when youre in traditional broadcast and cable media means more eyeballs watching and more advertising revenues. Of course neither Netflix or HBO Max are dependent (at least for now) on advertising. Nonetheless, the fight for quality time as well as quantity time with the consumer is if anything more important when youre depending upon the consumer ponying up their own money.

The streaming world whether you are talking audio or video, podcasting or live streaming is fighting an opportunity cost game, and its the cost of the consumers time and money. If the consumer isnt spending their time with me, theyre likely spending it with a competitor and over time my value may diminish for a consumer that is paying growing subscription fees out of their own pocket. So maybe content that demands greater rather than lesser attention, and more rather than less time, is worthy of the greatest investment in production, acquisition and marketing. Sounds pretty good to me. I bet the strange bedfellows Howard and Marty - not to mention Hillary - might even agree on that.

Go here to read the rest:
Howard Stern, Hillary Clinton And Martin Scorsese Highlight The Great Luxury Of Time - Forbes

Hillary Clinton: ‘Impeachment is the only remedy’ for Trump’s attempt to ‘cheat in the next election’ – Washington Examiner

Failed 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton argued that impeaching President Trump is the only way to defend the country's democracy.

Clinton, who was secretary of state under the Obama administration, argued on Wednesday that the president "abused his powers" and did so in order "to cheat in the next election." She also accused the president of obstructing Congress in an effort to "to cover it up," before then declaring, "Impeachment is the only remedy."

Her tweet came as members of the House of Representatives are speaking on the floor ahead of the impeachment vote. The chamber is weighing two articles of impeachment against Trump: one for abuse of power and the other for obstruction of Congress. The House is expected to impeach the president on a near party-line vote, but it's just as likely that the Republican-controlled Senate will vote to acquit him during a trial next year.

Should it come to fruition, Trump will become just the third president in U.S. history to be impeached, following former Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Neither were convicted in the Senate, however, and both served the remainder of their terms in office.

Clinton's comments are reiterations of previous statements she has made on the matter. Earlier this month, she urged people to "make sure your family and friends see the evidence for themselves," and added that "Americans deserve free and fair elections," while noting, "He must be held accountable."

See more here:
Hillary Clinton: 'Impeachment is the only remedy' for Trump's attempt to 'cheat in the next election' - Washington Examiner

Did Pelosi Approve $4.8 Million in ‘Impeachment Consulting Fees’ to the Clinton Foundation? – Snopes.com

On Nov. 23, 2019, the Daily World Update website published an article positing that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had approved $4.8 million to be paid to the Clinton Foundation, a charity run by former President Bill and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for impeachment consulting fees:

Nancy Pelosi Approves $4.8 Million In Impeachment Consulting Fees To Clinton Foundation

As if the impeachment of President Trump werent already silly enough, reports from our DC insiders indicate that theres one organization raking in a ton of cash from the operation: The Clinton Foundation. In department memos not released to the public, Nancy Pelosi is said to have more or less agreed to the consulting fees to the fake charity in the amount of nearly $5 million, because they have specific knowledge of this area.

This item was not a factual recounting of real-life events. The article originated with a website that describes its output as being humorous or satirical in nature, as follows:

Everything on this website is fiction. It is not a lie and it is not fake news because it is not real. If you believe that it is real, you should have your head examined. Any similarities between this sites pure fantasy and actual people, places, and events are purely coincidental and all images should be considered altered and satirical. See above if youre still having an issue with that satire thing.

The article was a play on impeachment proceedings then underway against President Donald Trump, as well as the fact that former President Clinton had been impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives in 1998. Trump was similarly impeached by the House on Dec. 18, 2019.

For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor.

Excerpt from:
Did Pelosi Approve $4.8 Million in 'Impeachment Consulting Fees' to the Clinton Foundation? - Snopes.com

The One That Got Away – Will Hillary Run? – City Watch

More specifically, do those Democratswho voted for Donald Trump, or the Green Partys Jill Stein, in 2016 wish now they had voted for Clinton?

The answer to this question is no doubt at the heart of persistent rumors that former Secretary of State and 2008/2016 also-ran Hillary Clinton is considering jumping into the race for the Democratic nomination once again.

Clinton has beendropping hints for weeks, albeit possibly in an effort to sell more of her recently published book Gutsy Women. But a new poll published this week shows thatHillary Clinton would be leading the Democratic field, if she were in it.

Clinton herself has more than a few reasons to consider a rematch against Donald Trump, not least of which is the way her stunning defeat still so obviously rankles.

Clinton has blamed her loss on everything from Russian interference- evengoing so far as to call Jill Stein a Russian asset -- to the Electoral College -- pointing out that she actually won by popular vote.

Her detractors, of which there have been no shortage in the Democratic Party since Clintons crushing defeat at the hands of a political non-entity like Donald Trump, arent as reticent on the subject of Clintons deficiencies.

They are quick to point out several campaign mistakes that helped doom her hopes at achieving the White House.

One such mistake that bears repeating was Clintons disastrous decision to classify potential Trump voters as a basket of deplorables. This statement would go on to haunt Clinton throughout the campaign and beyond.

Clinton critics are also eager to point out, in answer to her grousing about the Electoral College, that she should have run a smarter race.

It is certainly possible that had the Clinton campaign spent less time convincing voters who were already convinced in Blue states and more time convincing working-class voters on the fence in the Rust Belt, Hillary Clinton might be President today.

Then again, she might not be.

Because in addition to voting Democrats who broke ranks in 2016 to express their dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party and/or the status quo by rage-voting for Donald Trump, many Democratic voters stayed home in 2016.

Some did so out of disappointment over Bernie Sanders failing to cinch the nomination. Many Berners felt the DNC unfairly rigged its selection process to favor of its chosen nominee -- Hillary Clinton.

Other Democrats sat out the last election and failed to support the partys chosen nominee of Hillary Clinton for other reasons, many having to do with Clinton herself.Long before #MeToo dragged serial predators like Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby and Jeffery Epstein kicking and screaming out into the open, there was Bill Clinton.

The former President was problematic long before problematic became a buzzword. As agent provocateur, Pulitzer Prize winner, and son of a famous predator himself, Ronan Farrow has pointed out recently;there are credible accusations of rape against Bill Clinton.

Farrow also pointed out that Bill Clintons reputation was long overdue for reexamination.

And indeed, perhaps former President Clintons most infamous sexual exploitation and conquest played out in the public sphere. There is no question that Clintons inappropriate sexual relationship with a young White House intern crossed the line of mere impropriety into exploitation and abuse.

It is certainly possible that Bill Clinton has become too radioactive in the post-#MeToo era to be of any help at all to Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail. He would likely prove a hinderance as questions about his infidelities and misconduct with other women have long plagued Hillary Clinton.

In fact, it is the role Hilary Clinton herself played in helping keep Bill Clintons numerous accusers silent that would likely haunt her the most in a knock-down, drag out campaign fight against Donald Trump.

It is possible that, in the balance, the shortcomings of Hillary Clinton will prove inadequate to dissuade her from running. Among the many temptations to run for president again, thecurrent state of the Democratic field of Presidential contenders must be the greatest.

People have real questions about Joe Biden, and his son Hunters business dealings in the Ukraine and elsewhere are only the tip of the iceberg. Underneath questions of Isnt there anyone else? are the real concerns of voting Democrats.

Like former President Barack Obama, theyworry that Joe Biden simply isnt up to this challenge; theyworry that Biden will embarrass himself.

Mayor Pete Buttigieg has his eye on the middle ground soon to be vacated by Joe Biden, but Buttigiegs campaign has more than a few problems of its own.Pete Buttigieg is no Barack Obama. His support in the African American community is virtually non-existent and a series of sloppy mistakes havent made inroads look any more likely.

Worse still,Buttigieg plans to tax the Middle Class. Which, especially considering therecent economic upsurge most American Middle Class families are experiencing, is likely to be a deal-breaker.

The cool kids of the Democratic Partyhave completely turned on Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who apparently is still too much a Republican at heart for their tastes. The Democratic Socialists of America may be in full-throated support of Sen. Bernie Sanders, but in addition to suffering some recent serious health problems, the Sanders campaign is now a presidential campaign in name only.

Democratic mandarin and former President Barack Obama, massive Democratic coalition builder that he is, hasnt endorsed any presidential candidate currently in the race. Not his former Vice President Joe Biden, not even his protege Deval Patrick.

But Obama has come out swingingagainstsomeone. One person, in particular:Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Obama haspromised to actively campaign against Sanders, and considering the strength and level of support enjoyed by Barack Obama in the African American community, this is a death knell to any Democratic campaign.

All this must look very appealing to Hilary Clinton, who must see the upheaval as proof positive that she could enter the race on top and unite the warring factions.

Because meanwhile, impeachment is helping Donald Trump, and helping him where it hurts Democrats most.

Things are looking up for President Trump.

In thecrucial battleground states Democrats desperately need to carry in 2020, impeachment pollingshows it is support for the President,not support for Democratic efforts to remove him, that is gaining ground with voters.

Impeachment is also hitting Democrats where it counts: At the bank.

The Trump campaign is raising campaign cash hand over fist and has been since the moment House Democrats announced their latest impeachment gambit. Worse still, the Trump campaign isusingthat money to strategically run ads against Democrats in swing districts specifically condemning Democratic impeachment efforts.

This one-two punch may be all it takes to not only put Donald Trump back in the White House in 2020, but also cost House Speaker Nancy Pelosi her majority in the House.

That is a scenario Democrats must prevent at any cost.

Even if that means giving Hillary Clinton another shot at defeating Donald Trump in 2020.

(contributing writer, Brooke Bell)

(Munr Kazmir is a contributing writer on Medium. Contributing writer is Brooke Bell.) Photo:Gage Skidmore. Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

Continue reading here:
The One That Got Away - Will Hillary Run? - City Watch