Sunday, January 01, 2017

2016: The Year of WTF

The Year of WTF.

How else to describe it?

As expected, 2015's Year of the Ass did leave the country with the two most unpopular candidates major parties have ever run for president:

2015 will lead into 2016.  So is it any surprise that, as the year ends, it appears very likely that the two major party candidates who'll be competing next year will be Hillary and Donald Trump?
What else, honestly, what else could The Year of the Ass produce but a match off between each major party's biggest ass?

The year provided one WTF moment after another.

And if you listened closely, it was as though you could hear Elizabeth Edwards laughing.

Remember her?

The wife of John Edwards?

She was a mother of four children, an attorney, a professor and an administrator at The Wade Edwards Foundation (named after her first child who passed away in 1998).

She also advised her husband -- and was more progressive than he was (she was against the Iraq War and she was pro-marriage equality).

Asked by PEOPLE in May 2008 to name something about Hillary that bothered her, she replied"the lobbyist money." Interviewed by Ruth Conniff (THE PROGRESSIVE) in 2007, Elizabeth spoke freely.  Ruth noted:

Aside from questions about her health, the topic she was pressed to address most was Hillary Clinton. Edwards talks a lot about breaking barriers as part of a generation of female attorneys who had to prove that women could do as well as the guys in previously all-male law firms. So now the delicate job of explaining why women should vote against her fellow barrier-breaking female attorney falls to her. As an advocate for women's issues and women's equal rights, how can she justify seeking votes for her husband, instead of the first likely female nominee for President? “In my opinion, the candidate who's best for women in this race is my husband," she said, citing his universal health care plan, his pledge to end poverty (a predominantly female problem, she reminded reporters), and his determination to fight for equal pay.

From the transcript of the interview:

Q: I read that you urged your husband to vote against the Iraq War initially. Is that true?

Edwards: That's in [Bob] Shrum's book. There are some broad outlines that are true, but the conversations were not accurate. The only time I actually remember expressing an opinion, we were sitting at our breakfast table and we had five people at the table. John is sitting here, I'm sitting here, someone from our staff who had been on Clinton's staff in the National Security Council was here, someone high up in Clinton's staff was here. That was the conversation. These people were telling him that all these reports were right, this is the same stuff Clinton was hearing, it was getting closer, we were talking about something that likely could be really imminent, all that kind of stuff. And my part of the conversation was simply, "What is the provocation?" I was just saying, no provocation, over and over. Which I guess is an argument against preventive war.

Q: John Edwards has since apologized for that vote. Did it seem like there was just too much political pressure at that time?

Edwards: No. He made an honest decision. And he doesn't make this excuse for himself. He troubled over this. This was one of a series of conversations that he had, on information that he could gather. Mostly the anti-war cry was from people who weren't hearing what he was hearing. And the resolution wasn't really to go to war. The resolution, if you remember, was forcing Bush to go to the U.N. first. Of course, we expected him to actually listen to the U.N., which didn't happen. The resolution was actually a slowing technique, so he felt like maybe it wasn't ideal but I think he made a very difficult and good faith decision at the time.
But he doesn't use that. You don't hear him saying, "If I knew then what I know now" kind of stuff. He's saying, "I made a mistake. I should have done more. I should have been more suspicious. I should have asked more questions." Whatever was necessary to get to the right place. And having failed to do that, he takes responsibility for it.
And honestly, the other candidates? Obama gives a speech that's likely to be extraordinarily popular in his home district, and then comes to the Senate and votes for funding. John, the first time funding came up, he was already suspicious. What he said was we've got two issues, one is the information and the other is not trusting your President. And he gave plenty of speeches at the time saying, "I'm not voting for the $87 billion because he has no plan." You've got to do that for the men and women who are there: You've got to have a plan. And he didn't vote for the $87 billion, and never voted for any dedicated funding.
So you are going to get people behaving in a holier-than-thou way. But John stood up when he was in the Senate for exactly the thing he's asking these people to stand up for now.
Now Hillary, I don't know what Hillary's objection is. She, even in the New Hampshire debate, said, "I made a mistake." People are looking for a mea culpa from her. And when she buries a line like that -- I give her credit for saying that -- but when she buries that line. . . . We're electing the leader of the free world, and just like the votes on this last funding bill, we're looking for a leader. They are very important leaders in the Senate. And we got thirteen votes on this last bill? Could they have influenced a few more votes? Probably not enough, but they should have been out there trying. They should have been making speeches about why it was they were doing this, and standing up and trying to rally. And they didn't. They weren't leaders. The point isn't, "I got here first or I got here last." The point is, in this moment, are you a leader? 

Over and over, Elizabeth Edwards sounded problems about Hillary.

Eight years later, the only thing Hillary had 'improved' on was her "mistake" in voting for the Iraq War -- she was now insisting the "mistake" was to trust that Bully Boy Bush would send enough troops into Iraq.  That was now her "mistake."

Elizabeth Edwards had been immensely popular with the American people.  Even after her husband's disgrace -- he got his mistress pregnant and forced an underling to pose as the father, Elizabeth remained a force until her death.

And Elizabeth had outlined many problems with candidate Hillary Clinton publicly (we only noted a few above) in 2008.

Eight years later, Hillary was only worse.

She'd done nothing to address her image as someone with a quick trigger to go to war or as someone who whored for big money.

But party leaders wanted her to be the nominee.

As many rightly pointed out throughout the never-ending campaign season: Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were the insurgent candidates.

Both connected with people of their parties.

Both were seen as outsiders who would protect interests and who spoke of issues like jobs and the future of the country.

In the Republican Party, Donald Trump was able to defeat his opponents.

In the Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders was not.

Let's be clear, Bernie was the choice of the people.

But the media chose Hillary.

And this was further ensured by the party big wigs who backed Hillary.

Like DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz who did everything to manipulate the campaign in Hillary's favor -- including the debate schedule.

Who the hell schedules a Democratic Party debate on a Saturday night?

Only someone who grasps the greatest problem for Hillary: The more people see her, the less they like her.


When her actions were exposed, she didn't want to but she was forced to resign -- as Isaiah noted THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Debbie's Parting Words."

How corrupt was the DNC at this point?

Debbie got replaced by closet case Donna Brazile.

Donna should have been forced to retire when it was revealed that she was passing on debate questions to Hillary's campaign before the debates.

Even Norman Solomon noted:

The importance of election integrity had eluded Brazile when she was a regular on CNN, posing as neutral in the Clinton-Sanders battle. "Brazile is not apologizing for leaking CNN debate questions and topics to the Hillary Clinton campaign during the Democratic primary," the Washington Post reported last month. "Her only regret, it seems, is that she got caught."

That Donna refused to take accountability and that some treated her as trusted after this may be among the biggest WTF moments of 2016 -- until you grasp how crazed the whole year was.

Like all the ink and airtime spent by the media and Clinton surrogates (redundant?) attacking Donald Trump over when he was against the Iraq War -- ignoring the reality (voters didn't) that whenever Trump decided he was against the war, it was years before Hillary did.

Justin Raimondo (ANTIWAR.COM) captured the media nonsense with regards to Trump and Iraq:

During the GOP presidential primaries, when a smirking John Dickerson asked Trump if he still thought George W. Bush should’ve been impeached over his launching of the Iraq war, this exchange followed:

“George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East.

DICKERSON: “But so I’m going to – so you still think he should be impeached?

TRUMP: “You do whatever you want. You call it whatever you want. I want to tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.”

The audience – made up of Lindsey Graham supporters and GOP donors – booed, but out in the American heartland the people cheered. And Trump, whose political instincts are fine-tuned, seemed to hear those distant cheers as he stood there, defiant, and said “Go ahead and boo.” He knew this would pay big political dividends down the road, and the payoff came when he won the GOP nomination, beating a baker’s dozen of wannabes, and finally took the prize this November. 

Day after day, week after week, Hillary supporters and the media made an issue out of when Donald was against the Iraq War.

And thought no one would notice that the entire time Bernie was running against Hillary in the Democratic Party and pointing out she voted for the Iraq War and he didn't, they treated it as unimportant.

In England, the Labour Party doesn't get what the voters have repeatedly done: Voted against those who supported the Iraq War.

Despite Barack beating Hillary in the 2008 race due to the Iraq War, the DNC -- a group of out of touch prigs who supported the Iraq War -- missed that point -- as did the media (which, remember, also supported the Iraq War).

Hillary was a lousy candidate with a lousy campaign.

How lousy was she as a candidate?

Endorsing Hillary, Oprah Winfrey tried to persuade people by insisting, "You don't have to like her."

And so many didn't.

Possibly Barack Obama's biggest lie took place in a 2008 debate when he declared to Hillary, "You're likeable enough."

Clearly, in 2016, she was not.

And it was a lousy campaign.

Even the slogan.

As Ava and I observed the day after the election:

Contrast her "For anyone who's ever been counted out . . ." of 2008 with "I'm With Her" of this go round.

Were we trying to get into a club?

I'm with her?

In 2008, she was going to do something to help we the people, she was going to be a fighter for we the people.

Eight years later, I'm with her?

She ran her campaign as though the country owed her the presidency and all she had to do was show up for the coronation.

It wasn't just a bad slogan that was the problem, look at the 'winners' Hillary came up with: Jennifer Palmieri (whose previous 'incredible' campaign work was John Edwards 2004 bid for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination and his 2008 bid for the same position -- he failed both times) and John Podesta (an idiot who didn't even know how to avoid an e-mail phishing scam -- who knows how many times he also fell for the "If you'll give me your bank account information, I will transfer $100 million into your account . . ." scam?) and Huma Weiner (a woman whose own marriage reminded all of the problems with the Clinton's marriage since Anthony also couldn't keep it in his pants -- apparently, not even when around the Weiner's child) and the ever-present and always idiotic Robbie Mook.

Hillary also significantly underpaid these losers -- running a campaign on the cheap when it came to paying her staff -- but, remember, she supposedly would fight workers and decent wages.

She did spend on advertising.  Jacob Pramuchk (CNBC) reported:

His campaign committee spent about $238.9 million through mid-October, compared with $450.6 million by Clinton's. That equals about $859,538 spent per Trump electoral vote, versus about $1.97 million spent per Clinton electoral vote.
Those numbers do not include spending from Oct. 20 to Election Day.

While Trump's campaign increased its spending on television ads in its final election push, it still used the traditional outreach tool much less than Clinton's did. As of late October, Clinton spent's campaign spent about $141.7 million on ads, compared with $58.8 million for Trump's campaign, according to NBC News.

And what great ad buys she made.

Being on the road speaking about against eternal war afforded me many chances to shower and get dressed with the TV on.  Where did I see Hillary's commercials?





I saw them over and over during the pre-dawn episodes of CHARMED on TBS.

That's the only place I ever saw them.

Great job on reaching the pro-faux Wiccan community and the shut-ins still addicted to a show that ceased production over a decade ago.

Speaking of TV, while COMEDY CENTRAL's live programs repeatedly failed to grasp or parody the election (as did SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE), SOUTH PARK repeatedly grasped and sent up many of the elements Americans were grappling with such as in the clip below.

Even MODERN FAMILY did a better job with the election than did Samantha Bee, Trevor Noah, Seth Meyers or Stephen Colbert.

In the Christy Stratton and Danny Zuker written episode "Blindsided," the following exchange took place when Luke decided to run for class president against Manny.

Jay: I've heard enough and I've made my decision. Manny will be president this term. And we'll run Luke next year.

Luke: I'm graduating.

Gloria: That's the spirit.

Jay: I don't like to play this card but I am the patriarch and I have spoken.

Claire: Not much of a card, Dad, because I don't really care.

And Jay's comments remind one of 2008.

This year, Hillary ran like the nomination was owed to her.

This nonsense could be found in the likes of the Debra Messings.

Political idiots cheered on by the vastly uninformed hacktress Debra Messing.

She made a point to attack, during the primaries, all Republicans, all Green Party voters and all supporters of Bernie Sanders (half the Democratic Party and many independents).

Then she was surprised when NBC cancelled her series THE MYSTERIES OF LAURA (Debra's third flop since WILL & GRACE).

Later on, it would get worse for many -- including Atkins Diet spokesperson Alyssa Milano.

How do you expect anyone to watch your shows -- or be an effective (paid) spokesperson -- when you're insulting half the country?

Did no one learn anything from Ellen Barkin's destroying the hilarious sitcom THE NEW NORMAL with her idiotic and insulting Tweets?

We don't believe celebrities should be apolitical -- even really dumb ones like Debra Messing or anti-choice and pro-war ones like Mia Farrow (who opposes not just abortion but also opposes birth control due to her religion) have a right to speak.

But when you're insulting the American people, We The People, that we have a problem with.

I'm also not big on celebrities pimping politicians.

For years, for example, Sally Field has campaigned for Lloyd Doggett.  We like Lloyd but why the hell is Sally going to Austin, Texas and weighing in?  Especially when she can't vote in that election.

My general rule here is I don't endorse anyone in an election I can't vote in.

I also think a better use of celebrity power is to advocate for issues, not politicians.

But to each their own.

One point though?

Don't lash out at the American people.

Don't reTweet attacks like this nonsense that Debra Messing did:

if theyre not bigots, they voted for a bigoted agenda. they dont escape blame. vote for evil doesnt absolve you of evil.

They don't escape blame?

Your screaming at the American people goes to your own weakness and your own stupidity.

The American people don't deserve it and you clearly don't know anyone beyond your own personal circle jerk.

Maybe because of being on the road and speaking to them makes me a lot more in touch than the Minnie Drivers, Sally Fields, Martha Plimptons, Alyssa Milanos and, yes, Debra Messings, but the results of the election didn't surprise me.

Wasn't thrilled by them, but wasn't surprised by them either.

My own personal opinion, you can advocate for a candidate but you can't tell anyone who to vote for -- celebrity or not.

People don't like to be told what to do.

They're grown ups, they'll make their own decisions.

And if you don't like their decision on who to vote for?

Deal with it.

But the Debra Messings -- who want careers that depend upon the public wanting to see you -- can't deal with it and instead lash out.

Their stupidity is never an issue that stands in their way of 'sharing.'

Which is how you got Debra Messing announcing to the world that the FBI would investigate the elections if enough people called in because, in her dim witted brain, the FBI made their decisions like the TV show AMERICAN IDOL -- based on popularity.

The Debra Messings showed up in 2016 hissing sexism.

What the hell were they talking about.

Those of us with the wounds from 2008 saw real sexism (against Hillary Clinton, against Cynthia McKinney and against Sarah Palin).

Now sexism didn't vanish.

All you had to do to prove that was to wait until the end of the year when 'political commentator' Joshua Micah Marshall felt the need to Tweet a video -- a lengthy video -- of porn, of woman-on-woman porn.

Excuse me?


You're supposed to be a centrist-liberal blogger and you think it's appropriate to Tweet female nudity?

There's a whole debate over porn in feminism.

And there's sexist JMM ignoring it because he suffers from male privilege.

This wasn't a conversation with a buddy -- male or female -- this was put up on his political Twitter feed.

So, yes, sexism still exists.

But, no, it didn't do harm to Hillary in 2016.

But these Debra Messings who couldn't defend Hillary in 2008 showed up in 2016 to insist it was sexism not to vote for Hillary in the primary or in the general election.

Remember 2008? Gloria Steinem's "Women Are Never Front-Runners" (NEW YORK TIMES) insisted, "What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn't."

She didn't object as the Debra Messings and so many others attacked women for not voting for Hillary.

Of course, this go round, she supplied her own WTF moment when she went on the notoriously anti-woman Bill Maher program to slam young female voters who supported Bernie.

She's losing touch with reality.  As was apparent in November when John Leland (NEW YORK TIMES) mentioned in passing her CIA background.  Leland was accurate (and rather mild).  But Gloria wrote a letter to the editor in a snit-fit that she had been (accurately) referred to as a CIA operative.

The crazy never ended in 2016.

Which is why the election day results didn't result in calm.

Self-important idiots (Jennifer Lawrence, we're talking you) felt the need to speak to immigrants and the LGBTQ community about how they were there with them.

Hillary, for the record, has repeatedly also stated that immigrants who break the law should be returned to their home countries.  Hillary, for the record, had to wait until both Joe Biden and Barack Obama came on board -- and right before the Supreme Court did -- to support marriage equality.

On the latter, the Hillary Temple Prostitutes rushed to attack NPR's Terry Gross for the following exchange from 2014:

GROSS: So what's it like when you're in office and you have to do all these political calculations to not be able to support something like gay marriage that you actually believe in? And you obviously feel very committed to human rights and you obviously put gay rights as part of human rights, but in doing the calculus you decided you couldn't support it - correct me if I'm reading it wrong.

CLINTON: Well, I think you're reading it very wrong. I think that, as I said, just as the president has said, you know, just because you're a politician, doesn't mean you're not a thinking human being. And you gather information. You think through positions. You're not 100 percent set - thank goodness - you're constantly reevaluating where you stand. That was true for me. We talked earlier about Iraq, for goodness sakes. So, for me, marriage had always been a matter left to the states. And in many of the conversations that I and my colleagues and supporters had, I fully endorse the efforts by activists who work state-by-state and in fact that is what is working. And I think that, you know, being in the position that I was in the Senate - fighting employment discrimination, which we still have some ways to go - was appropriate at that time.
As secretary of state, I was out of domestic politics and I was certainly doing all I could on the international scene to raise the importance of the human rights of the LGBT community. And then leaving that position, I was able to, you know, very quickly announce that I was fully in support of gay marriage and that it is now continuing to proceed state-by-state.
And I am very, very hopeful that we will make progress and see even, you know, more change and acceptance. One of my big problems right now is that too many people believe they have a direct line to the divine and they never want to change their mind about anything. They're never open to new information and they like to operate in an evidence-free zone. And I think it's good if people continue to change.

GROSS: So you mentioned that you believe in state-by-state for gay marriage, but it's the Supreme Court, too. The Supreme Court struck down part of DOMA - the Defense of Marriage Act, which prevented the federal government from recognizing gay marriage. That part is now struck down. And DOMA was actually signed by your husband when he was president. In spite of the fact that he signed it, were you glad at this point that the Supreme Court struck some of it down?

CLINTON: Of course. And, you know, again, let's - we are living at a time when this extraordinary change is occurring and I'm proud of our country. I'm proud of the people who had been on the frontlines of advocacy, but in 1993, that was not the case and there was a very concerted effort in the Congress to, you know, make it even more difficult and greater discrimination. And what DOMA did is at least allow the states to act. It wasn't going yet to be recognized by the federal government, but at the state level there was the opportunity. And my husband, you know, was the first to say that, you know, the political circumstances, the threats that were trying to be alleviated by the passage of DOMA thankfully were no longer so preeminent and we could keep moving forward, and that's what we're doing.

GROSS: So just to clarify - just one more question on this - would you say your view evolved since the '90s or that the American public evolved allowing you to state your real view?

CLINTON: I think I'm an American. (Laughing) And I think we have all evolved and it's been one of the fastest most sweeping transformations.

GROSS: No, I understand, but a lot of people already believed in it back the '90s. A lot of people already supported gay marriage.

CLINTON: But not - to be fair, Terry, not that many. Yes, were there activists who were ahead of their time? Well, that was true in every human rights and civil rights movement, but the vast majority of Americans were just waking up to this issue and beginning to, you know, think about it and grasp it for the first time. And, you know, think about their neighbor down the street who deserved to have the same rights as they did or their son or their daughter. It has been an extraordinarily fast - by historic terms - social, political and legal transformation. And we ought to celebrate that instead of plowing old ground, where in fact a lot of people, the vast majority of people, have been moving forward - maybe slowly, maybe tentatively, maybe not as quickly and extensively as many would have hoped, but nevertheless we are at a point now where equality, including marriage equality, in our country, is solidly established. Although there will be places.

GROSS: I - I...

CLINTON: Texas, just to name one, where that is still going to be an ongoing struggle.

GROSS: I'm pretty sure you didn't answer my question about whether you evolved or it was the American public that changed (Laughing).

CLINTON: I said I'm an American, so of we all evolved. And I think that that's a fair, you know, that's a fair conclusion.

GROSS: So you're saying your opinion on gay marriage changed as opposed to you - you just felt it was comfortable...

CLINTON: You know, somebody is always first, Terry. Somebody's always out front and thank goodness they are. But that doesn't mean that those who joined later in being publicly supportive or even privately accepting that there needs to be change are any less committed. You could not be having the sweep of marriage equality across our country if nobody changed their mind. And thank goodness so many of us have.

GROSS: So that's one for you changed your mind? (Laughing).

CLINTON: You know, I really - I have to say, I think you are very persistent, but you are playing with my words and playing with what is such an important issue.

GROSS: I am just trying to clarify so I can understand.

CLINTON: No, I don't think you are trying to clarify. I think you're trying to say that, you know, I used to be opposed and now I'm in favor and I did it for political reasons. And that's just flat wrong. So let me just state what I feel like you are implying and repudiate it. I have a strong record. I have a great commitment to this issue and I am proud of what I've done and the progress we're making.

GROSS: You know, I'm just saying - I'm sorry - I just want to clarify what I was saying - no, I was saying that you maybe really believed this all along, but - you know, believed in gay marriage all along, but felt for political reasons America wasn't ready yet and you couldn't say it. That's what I was thinking.

CLINTON: No. No, that is not true.


CLINTON: I did not grow up even imagining gay marriage and I don't think you probably did either. This was an incredibly new and important idea that people on the front lines of the gay rights movement began to talk about and slowly but surely convinced others of the rightness of that position. And when I was ready to say what I said, I said it.

GROSS: OK, thank you for clarifying that. If you're just joining us, my guest is Hillary Clinton. Her new memoir "Hard Choices" is about her four years as secretary of state. 

I'm not a Terry Gross fan.

But as she titled her 2004 book, ALL I DID WAS ASK.

But how they attacked her.

To send out the message to others, "You will be attacked."

And that's what the liars like Bob Somerby, MEDIA MATTERS, Kurt Eichenwald, Paul Krugman and so many more made clear: You will be attacked.

They weren't interested in truth.

They were fighting to put Hillary in office.

And they lied -- especially kiddie porn enthusiast Kurt Eichenwald.

And the Debra Messings embraced them.

They even embraced sexist Keith Olbermann.

They have no standards and few brains.

They ran with trying to get the FBI to overturn the election results.

Then they ran with trying to get the electors in The Electoral College to overturn the election results.

They have blamed the FBI for Hillary's loss.

They have blamed the voters she called "deplorables for her loss.

They have blamed WIKILEAKS for her loss.

They have blamed everyone but the candidate for her loss.

They have especially blamed Russia.

If they really believe the unproven claim that Russia hacked the e-mails or the election or the tummy control on their pantyhose, it's strange that they have no problem with repeated interference by the US government in other countries' elections.

In 2010, thug Nouri al-Maliki used every dirty trick in the world to win re-election from Iraqi voters.  Despite this, Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya won.

And Nouri refused to step down -- as US Gen Ray Odierno had predicted ahead of the election but Barack's White House just knew so much better.

The Iraqi people turned out to vote despite violence and threats.

And their vote got overturned 9 months later when Barack ordered the US-brokered Erbil Agreement to give Nouri a second term as prime minister.

Iraq today?

Nouri fueled the rise of the Islamic State with his never-ending war on Sunnis.

By the summer of 2014, even Barack had to walk away from Nouri (and installed Hayder al-Abadi as the new prime minister).

So if the Debra Messings are so concerned with voter integrity, they might take a look at what happened in Iraq.  They can start by reading  Emma Sky's THE UNRAVELING: HIGH HOPES AND MISSED OPPORTUNITIES IN IRAQ.

They rushed to blame Russia.

The Cold War that both countries had to live through fueled the nuclear arm race.

It's a fact that the Debra Messings seem to forget as they rush to pimp lies and claims to defend their fallen War Hawk Hillary Clinton.

And that Hillary Clinton is the first candidate to be nominated for president by a major political party while s/he is under a federal criminal investigation.

Yes, her Temple Prostitutes lied for her there too.

All they ever did was lie.

It's disgusting.

As is Joy Reid.

MSNBC's littlest liar just can't seem to tell the truth.

. their acceptance as liberal "heroes" (due to Iraq revelations etc) is what made Wikileaks such an effective weapon vs. Clinton.

Due to Iraq?

Iraq's in 2010, you stupid, lying idiot.

If you want to say they became liberal "heroes" in the US, that would probably be 2008.

That's when they posted whose e-mails, you ugly liar Joy Reid?

Sarah Palin's.

September 17, 2008,  Elana Shor (GUARDIAN) reported:

The alleged hack was pulled off by "loosely affiliated" members of an anti-Scientology group, according to Wikileaks, which justified its move by citing Palin's reported use of to conduct official state business. (Aides to George Bush came under fire for similar e-mailing behaviour last year.)
The hack uncovered family photos and the addresses of Palin friends -- of questionable relevance to any public records violation, really -- as well as what looks like proof that Palin was indeed using personal e-mail for state business.

Among the emails in Palin's account were several from (GOV) addresses belonging to her aides, including a draft letter to California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a discussion of nominations to the state court of appeals, and several bearing "DPS", the acronym for the Alaska Department of Public Safety.

What a piece of trash Joy Reid is.

One of so many pieces of trash.  Eric Boehlert works for David Brock's lie factory MEDIA MATTERS so of course he smears and trashes people, facts be damned.

My official response to 's claims: My (almost) 92yr old grandparents escaped communism. Pick your battles & do your research.

We need smarter people in 2017.

If we had them prior, Barack Obama would have been called out.

For so many things, he would have been called out -- for the continuing Iraq War, for the continuing Afghanistan War, for his war on whistle-blowers, for his destruction of Libya and so much more.

But mainly for the remarks he made about the GOP candidate during the election.

It's not his job, as the outgoing president, to pour insults on the opposite major party's candidate.

He repeatedly overstepped bounds -- as he'd done throughout his two terms as president.

Donald Trump needs to end his Twitter feed, I believe.

But what he does on Twitter is as stupid as what Barack's done for the last 8 years -- repeatedly inserting himself into matters that he doesn't belong.

Hillary should have been called out for many things.

That also includes saying Donald Trump wasn't qualified to be president.

Voters decided he was.

That's what an election is.

An appointment?

Sure thing, say someone's not qualified.

But in a democracy, if you win the nomination you're qualified.

The election should have ended November 8th.

But sore losers can't let it go.

Donald Trump will be -- barring some strange death -- sworn in as President of the United States later this month.

He is our president.

And instead of whining "Not my president!" or labeling yourself the ridiculous "Resistance," you should be making clear that Donald Trump is the president and, most importantly, that position is a public servant.

Yes, in The Age of Barack, so many forgot that fact.

The president's power comes from the people.

The people are the president's boss.

Don't worry.

Don't panic.

Make demands.

We are his boss.

We can very easily repeat his catch phrase ("You're fired") in four years if he doesn't represent the policies we believe in.

Who knows what 2017 holds?

Defeatism before it even started, was never the way to go.  (Nor was attacking Oprah for daring to point out after the election that hope still exists.)

  1. Let's make 2017 the year that vapid, irony-obsessed, Too Cool 4 School posturing ceases to be the "norm" on Twitter!

That would be wonderful.

It would also be wonderful if the world's celebrity Tweeters could stop Tweeting in defense of politicians and bother to Tweet about things that actually matter -- like a journalist kidnapped for trying to expose corruption.

  1. kidnapped by gunmen in
  2. Outspoken , al-, was kidnapped by gunmen after storming her house in southwest of Mon night.

This is our world.

It's not Donald Trump's world, it wasn't Barack Obama's world.

It's our world.

We can make a difference.

But to make a positive difference, we're going to need to be informed and we're also going to need to learn to talk with one another -- something that will never be accomplished when you run around insulting half the country.

Previous Year-in-Reviews:

2015: The Year of the Ass
2014: The Year of Self-Exposure
2013: The Year of Exposure
2012: The Year of Avoidance
2011: The Year of the Slow Reveal

  • 2010: The Year of Enough
  • 2009: The Year of Living Sickly
  • 2008: The Year of Living Hormonally

  • 2007: The Year of Living Useless

  • ----------

    The year-in-review pieces up here: