Mediaboss Marketing

If the 2016 presidential election were held today between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, it would be a Clinton landslide, a poll shows. But that's not the troubling data for Mr. Bush.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has a wide lead over Jeb Bush in a head-to-head presidential match-up, according to new numbers from a Washington Post/ABC News poll. When survey respondents were asked who theyd vote for if the election were held today, 53 percent picked Mrs. Clinton, versus the 41 percent who said their choice would be Mr. Bush.

Washington Editor

Peter Grier is The Christian Science Monitor's Washington editor. In this capacity, he helps direct coverage for the paper on most news events in the nation's capital.

Subscribe Today to the Monitor

Click Here for your FREE 30 DAYS of The Christian Science Monitor Weekly Digital Edition

Thats a pretty hefty cushion for the former US secretary of State, isnt it? Its particularly impressive if you run through the poll's cross-tabs and look at the different demographic groups those numbers represent. Clinton gets 94 percent of Democrats, a plurality of 47 percent of independents, 59 percent of moderates, even 25 percent of self-described conservatives. She gets 59 percent of women, to Bushs 36 percent.

Should Bush, a former Florida governor, be worried about these figures, assuming hes interested in running for president? No, not really. (Theres other stuff about the current political landscape that should concern him, though. Well talk about that in a bit.)

First, its just one poll. As we wrote Tuesday about President Obamas approval numbers, individual polls represent a single snapshot, and you need a full photo album to get a picture about whats really going on.

Second, the numbers will change. The Post/ABC numbers include all registered voters, which is a wide net to cast. When the election approaches, pollsters will query likely voters, a narrower demographic that tends to increase the Republican lean by a few percentage points.

See the original post:
Election 2016 lookahead: Would Hillary Clinton really crush Jeb Bush?

Apr 30, 2014 2:40pm

Bill Clinton was the headliner, but it was his wife Hillary Clinton who got a standing ovation in Washington today.

Hillary Clinton attended her husbands speech at Georgetown University which was the second of a four part series Bill Clinton is giving focusing on the essential elements of effective service and detailing events that have shaped his career.

Hillary Clinton seemed to surprise the crowd when she entered the hall, receiving a rousing reception from the audience, that included a standing ovation. Bill Clinton got a laugh when he mentioned his wife and possible 2016 presidential candidate at the top of his remarks.

I want to thank Hillary for coming with me today. Its been a long time, Clinton said, stopping for a moment for loud cheers. She hasnt had to sit through one of these in ages.

It seems that everyone wanted to take a picture of Hillary too:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton laughs as she attends a speech by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, April 30, 2014, at Georgetown University in Washington.

Continued here:
Hillary Clinton Gets A Standing Ovation At Bill's Speech

Hillary Clinton Ad Barack Obama National Security
visit my site http://euro-movie.com/

By: wow

Read the original here:
Hillary Clinton Ad Barack Obama National Security - Video

BUSTED! Establishment Media Caught Faking News
Alex talks with Joseph Farah, founder, editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily. Mr. Farah talks about the recently released and heavily redacted Clinton Papers and what Hillary Clinton meant when she....

By: Alex Milendy

Go here to see the original:
BUSTED! Establishment Media Caught Faking News - Video

Her remarks on Edward Snowden give Democrats a preview of the misinformation they can expect if they make her their standard-bearer.

Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

Hillary Clinton's recent attack on Edward Snowden was cited by my colleague Peter Beinart as an example of her newfound ability to exude authenticity in public statements. "She said something some liberals will not likethat America needs to spy and that Snowdens motives are suspectbut which she undoubtedly believes," Beinart wrote. "It sounded authentic because her natural instincts are to see the world as a Hobbesian place and to defend Americas governing institutions against those on the right or left who would delegitimize them."

Beinart is right: There is every reason to believe Clinton authentically distrusts Snowden and his actions. So I concur with his analysis of those sentiments. But elsewhere in the same interview, Clinton spoke words that Democratic primary voters ought to take as evidence that she is a bullshitter. Mother Jones gives this account of Clinton's words:

Hillary Clinton didn't have to directly deal with Edward Snowden's leaks when she was secretary of state. Clinton had already stepped down from her post by the time the Guardian published its first revelations on the expansive scope of spying by the National Security Agency. But at an event at the University of Connecticut ... Clinton made it clear that she's no fan of the NSA leaker, insinuating that Snowden had cooperated with countries hostile to the United States and unintentionally aided terrorist organizations. "I don't understand why he couldn't have been part of the debate at home," she said.

Clinton questioned Snowden's intentions in fleeing the country before offerring his information to the public. "When he emerged and when he absconded with all that material, I was puzzled, because we have all these protections for whistleblowers," Clinton said, when the moderator asked if there had been any positive effects for security policy following the NSA leaks. "If he were concerned and wanted to be part of the American debate, he could have been."

This gets significant facts wrong. At best, Clinton is ignorant about federal whistleblower laws, and if we presume that she has the baseline knowledge needed to be competent in her former roles, she is willfully misleading her audience.

"I was puzzled," she said, "because we have all these protections for whistleblowers." The Freedom of the Press Foundation calls out her misinformation:

Contractors like Snowden lack the protections that federal employees are entitled to, and the government is free to retaliate against such people under the law. As Angela Canterbury, director of public policy at the Project on Government Oversight, has explained: There is a gaping loophole for intelligence community contractors. The riskiest whistle-blowing that you can possibly do on the government is as an intelligence contractor.

As for the idea that Snowden could've been "part of the debate" at home, rather than fleeing abroad:

Go here to read the rest:
Hillary Clinton's Unreliable Statements on Whistleblowing