Hillary's braincramp about the Reagans and AIDS

I think 'brainfart' is about as kind a description as can be.

In an appearance on MSNBC Friday afternoon, Hillary Clinton found herself in a situation that called for her to say some nice things about the recently deceased former first lady Nancy Reagan, and she made the somewhat odd choice to highlight HIV/AIDS advocacy. According to Clinton, "Because of both President and Mrs. Reagan — in particular Mrs. Reagan — we started a national conversation. When before nobody would talk about it, nobody wanted to do anything about it." 

Clinton described Reagan's role as "very effective low-key advocacy" and "something that I really appreciated."

Oops.

This observation of one first lady by another must have occurred in some alternate universe, because here on Earth -- in the United States, "in the '80's", as Clinton noted -- what she said happened actually did not happen.  Quite the opposite.

It's not another one of Clinton's lies and it doesn't make sense as a pander (why would any Republican be drawn to her campaign by her sympathizing with the plight of gay men with a deathly illness?  When in all of the history of the HIV in the USA has that ever been the case?).  Could it have been some desire to say something nice about someone on the day of her burial?  If so, she could have simply stated, "She looked good in red," and left it at that.

I'm going to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt here and say that she confused "Just Say No" with the AIDS crisis.  As comedienne Lizz Winstead observed, she couldn't have gotten it mixed up with Alzheimer's, because the Reagans didn't acknowledge that either until long after they were out of the White House.

I misspoke. Turns out Nancy Reagan was the WORST on HIV/AIDS. Sorry for the confusion. Oh and Reagan Vetoed Stem cell research also. kbye

— Lizz Winstead (@lizzwinstead) March 11, 2016

I don't think people making lame excuses for her is what she needs.  Apologies are cool, but it's still difficult to comprehend the thought process behind the 'misspeaking'.  Lacking any better or more coherent explanation however, let's just mark it down as the most recent in a litany of bad judgements and move on.

Update: NO, German Lopez and Garance Franke-Rute, this is not 'the best explanation', or even a good one.  Only if your thought process just stopped working in the '80s would this be even slightly plausible.

4) What Clinton said perfectly encapsulated the viewpoint of mainstream Democrats in the 1980s, before the party became gay friendly

— Garance Franke-Ruta (@thegarance) March 11, 2016

And if Franke-Rute is correct that establishment Democrats beyond Hillary Clinton believed that the Reagans were AIDS advocates, low-key or otherwise ... what does that say about the Democratic establishment?

It's obvious with a cursory Google search that non-establishment liberal politicians -- not the same as mainstream Democrats, mind you -- were not thinking this.

Update II: Some people believe Clinton should do more than apologize.  And more from What Would Jack Do? with the harshest response of all, Dan Savage's, linked.

'Elegant' and 'civil', my ass

My POV was that Rubio had a very good showing in what they're calling the 'civil' debate.  Few other than red partisans agree with me, it seems.  Most of the chatter this morning is around harmony ... and discord.

Donald Trump was on cruise control for so much of the early going in the 12th Republican debate Thursday night that he teased his rivals about their timidity. 

“So far, I cannot believe how civil it’s been up here,” Trump said with a wry grin and a glance at Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. 

Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ohio Gov. John Kasich all steered clear of open confrontation with Trump for much of the night on the debate stage at the University of Miami. It was clear that all the candidates, even Trump, were aware that the nasty tone of the last two debates had turned off many voters. 

The tepid atmosphere seemed to suit Trump, who held himself back this time from insulting the other candidates, in a departure from his recent practice. There were no references to “little Marco,” no labeling of Cruz as “nasty” or a “liar.” 

Trump has shown signs of trying to soften his roughest edges in the last few months, as he has tightened his grip on the Republican nomination. And more than ever Thursday, he sought to portray himself as more presidential than he has often appeared. 

After the debate, Trump referred to the evening as “elegant.”

Yes, it was ... if you don't consider discussion -- or the lack of it -- of waterboarding, or bombing women and children, or choke-slamming journalists or sucker-punch assaults at your rallies 'inelegant'.  If 'elegant' is defined as no dick-length comparisons, then hey, it was artful.

In the first half hour of Thursday’s debate, Trump and his GOP rivals seemed to almost go out of their way to avoid attacking one another even as they debated heated topics like entitlement reform and immigration. 

[...] 

At one point, Cruz trashed Democrat Hillary Clinton, suggesting she believed that Social Security could be made solvent by cutting waste, fraud and abuse. When a moderator pointed out that Trump had only minutes earlier voiced the same position and asked if he was comparing Trump to Clinton, Cruz backed off. “I’ll let Donald speak for himself,” he replied. 

Just seconds later, Trump and Cruz tangled over immigration—with the real estate mogul accusing his rival of previously supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants. But instead of blasting Trump—as he has previously on the issue—Cruz just laughed it off. 

Trump repeated his charge—albeit in a softer tone—but then he notably shifted back to a more conciliatory tone. “We’re all in this together. We’re going to come up with solutions. We’re going to find the answers to things,” Trump said.

Peace, love, and understanding.  On the stage.  Off it, not so much.

Former GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush will meet with three of the four remaining Republican contenders on Wednesday and Thursday, perhaps to drum up a plan to deny Donald Trump the party's nomination. 

The news comes as Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and Ohio Gov. John Kasich have struggled to gain traction in a GOP race once thought to be dominated by the former Florida governor. 

Bush will meet with the candidates in Florida, where all three are campaigning ahead of Tuesday's primary in that state, an aide said. 

None of the three campaigns offered insight regarding what, exactly, the meetings with Bush will discuss, although it's speculated the Republicans are seeking a strategy to ensure the party's nomination goes to anyone but Trump, the party's current front-runner.

There's also a call for Condi.

A group of Republican donors and strategists has been working to persuade former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to make an independent bid for president, according to a memo outlining the plan obtained by POLITICO Florida.

The group has grown increasingly dissatisfied with New York billionaire Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner who has roiled the party’s establishment as he has surged ahead in the polls.

“The reality of the matter is that we will have President Trump or President Clinton — if we don’t have President Rice,” read the memo, which was written by Joel Searby, a consultant with Florida-based GOP firm Data Targeting.

POLITICO reported last month about a memo that a group of donors was working on with Data Targeting to look at the viability of a third-party run amid Trump’s ascent. The newest memo, sent Thursday, is an update on the firm’s work.

“We have been in touch with Dr. Rice through her chief of staff,” read the plan, which is stamped “confidential.” “She is reluctant at this stage. We are asking for anyone wanting to assist to encourage her to run.”

That should turn out as well as finding WMD in Iraq.  Perhaps this commentary from Josh Marshall is the prelude to the conversation that Bus, Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich are having later today in Florida.

As everyone has noted, Trump is now trying not only to pivot to the general election but reassure GOP party stakeholders with his restraint and smother his competitors with talk of unity. I thought Trump and Cruz did very well for themselves but in very different ways. Trump owned his frontrunner-dom, didn't deign to rise to the taunts of his competitors and didn't let the moderators -- especially Dana Bash -- orchestrate a confrontation. He didn't allow himself to get knocked off that game. A bit more tired by the end of the debate, he was a little less able to keep attack Donald under wraps. But overall, he kept it cool and restrained. He kept to his plan.

Cruz was attempting something very different.

He knocked Trump a few times here and there. But that wasn't his main goal. Most of what he was trying to do he could have done even if Trump wasn't on the stage. Cruz's main goal was to talk to the audience, to engage in a soliloquy of conservative purity and drive. There is a big basket of anti-Trump votes out there. And Cruz's goal was to scoop them up. So attacking Trump, except to set up his own perorations, was basically irrelevant. He was trying to swoop up the existing anti-Trump vote, not pull Trump's supporters away from him.

[...]

Rubio and Kasich both had some good moments. But they're both basically out of the game.

[...]

The upshot is that Trump has decided he has little need to attack his opponents any more and much to gain by smothering his opponents and defanging GOP stakeholders with expressions of unity and demonstrations of restraint. On the driving themes of his campaign though, economic nationalism, xenophobia and revanchist anger at losers, freeloaders and protestors, there was no shift at all.

Everything I saw tonight made me think that Trump is well on his way to becoming the GOP nominee. I see no big obstacle stands in his way. Just as important, if for whatever reason Donald Trump isn't the nominee, it is now extremely difficult to see how the nomination won't go to Ted Cruz. Maybe you can steal the nomination from one factional, plurality winner. You can't steal it from the guy who came in a close second too. That just won't fly.

Drumpf.  With a slight opening for Poop Cruz.  Those are the two end results from a raunchy ten weeks of conservative gang wars, and now comes the distillation down to one.

Not all that fun or interesting after all, was it?

Vox called it for the two at the front, declared civility both winner and loser, and the biggest losers were the #NeverTrump effort and international trade deals.  If it turns out that the GOP indeed chooses to deny Obama a win on the TransPacific Partnership, I can be happy about that.

Trump vs. Cruz (and not just tonight)

I think Bernie Sanders has a better chance (today, at least) of getting his party's nomination than Ted Cruz has of getting his, but your mileage may vary.  Matt Bai has posed the question to few cringing conservative insiders, and the results may not surprise you.

Imagine you have this incredibly valuable sports car, and when you drive it up to a valet stand there are two guys anxiously vying to take the keys. One of them looks wild-eyed and agitated, like he just drank seven Red Bulls. The other is a guy you remember from high school, except that you hated each other and he’s eyeing the hubcaps with contempt. 

Now you have a rough idea of how Republican insiders in Washington are feeling this week. With the season of choosing passing its midpoint, governing Republicans are slowly resigning themselves to what looks like a two-man race between the unpredictable Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, a man so universally disliked that if you Google “hated senator,” every single link that pops up is about him. (Try it yourself.) 

It’s an agonizing thing for them to contemplate, but in conversations with a half dozen of the leading Republican strategists and lobbyists this week, it became clear that a solid consensus is forming as to which guy they would rather see get the keys. When it comes to Trump versus Cruz at the top of the ticket, most in the so-called establishment would prefer the devil they know to the daredevil they don’t.

At least he didn't bury the lede.

The more likely scenario for denying Trump the nomination, at this point, is that Cruz can overtake him, or that he ends up mounting a serious convention challenge if Trump can’t lock up the delegates before then. And while the D.C. elites are none too jazzed about this possibility, they’re starting to almost embrace it. 

The reason Republicans in Washington don’t like Cruz is that even by the standards of Washington, where we think of blatant self-promotion the way most other Americans think about getting out of bed in the morning, he seems to stand out for his insincerity. 

Colleagues disdain the holier-than-the-rest-of-you image he has cultivated since arriving in the Senate just three years ago.But that same opportunism, they will tell you, is what ultimately makes Cruz a more palatable nominee. That’s because they assume that Cruz’s evangelical and anti-government purity is more a matter of political positioning than it is of actual zealotry. 

If nothing else, the insiders believe, Cruz is coachable and calculating in a way Trump is not, and he’s a more reliable conservative.

They will fall in line.  They always fall in line.  In this calculus, the White House is abandoned for the tenuous clench of the Senate.

With Cruz as the nominee, Republicans figure they have at least an outside shot at holding the Senate, mainly by giving their more vulnerable candidates some distance from him. Less so with Trump, whose insatiable need for controversy and incendiary appeals to emotion might overwhelm everything else. 

None of which is to say that Cruz has a better chance of winning than Trump. He doesn’t, and even most governing Republicans will admit that Trump could conceivably broaden the appeal of the party nationally, while Cruz almost certainly runs its aground. He’d have a better chance of landing his own show on MSNBC than he would of winning the popular vote — something Republicans have done only once in the last 20 years. 

But that might not be the worst thing in the world, either. If Cruz were to become the nominee and suffer a Goldwater-type thrashing in November (which probably can’t happen, given the polarized electoral math of the country today, but he could certainly do worse than John McCain or Mitt Romney), then governing Republicans might finally be able to go on the offensive against their own activists. 

The argument then would go something like this: “Hey, we tried it your way, and we nominated a purist, and we got dismantled, and now the Clintons are prying up floorboards in the Lincoln Bedroom and retrieving all the secret files they once squirreled away. So maybe it’s time to build a more tolerant party that actually governs.” 

It’s a bleak excuse for optimism, to be sure — half-hoping to lose in the expectation that you can make people understand how to win. But for Republicans in Washington, it’s all pretty bleak right about now.

There'll be a post in the future about whether the GOP can indeed hold the upper chamber -- highly doubtful despite the scads of money to be poured into competitive races -- but your takeaway ahead of tonight's showdown is that the Republican nominee loses very little of the vote, base or otherwise, to a third party nominee -- no matter who it is -- to Clinton, or to their crying rooms on Election Day.  (More on the potential Libertarian spoiler here.)

Oh yeah, fight night.

Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, John Kasich and Marco Rubio will face off at CNN's presidential debate on Thursday night in a state that could make one of the four men virtually unstoppable -- and spell doom for another. 

Thursday's debate here comes just five days ahead of the next week's "Super Tuesday 3," when there are more than 350 delegates up for grabs, including in winner-take-all contests in Florida and Ohio. 

Both Trump and Rubio are predicting that they will be victorious here in the Sunshine State, and fully aware of how much is riding on Florida. For Trump, a win here would fuel his growing momentum and further grow his delegate lead; for Rubio, losing his home state could be the death knell for his campaign. 

Cruz and Kasich will also take the debate stage at a crucial moment in their campaigns. Cruz is aggressively trying to convince the Republican Party to coalesce around him, arguing he is the only candidate other than Trump capable of reaching 1,237 delegates; Kasich, who still has not won a single state, is eying his home state of Ohio with fresh optimism after a new poll this week showed him ahead of Rubio nationally. A Fox News poll released Wednesday showed Kasich leading Trump in Ohio, but the front-runner topping Rubio in Florida.

More there on what's at stake for each of the four men left standing, and more in the Twitter feed, top right column, as the bell rings for the main event this evening.

Sanders and Clinton square off in Florida

Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders clashed vividly over immigration reform, health care and Cuba during a contentious debate Wednesday as the two Democrats appealed to Hispanic voters and tried to outdo each other in assailing Donald J. Trump.

Mrs. Clinton, bruised by her surprise loss in the Michigan primary a day earlier, was on the attack throughout the debate as she sought to undercut Mr. Sanders’s momentum before the next round of primaries.

Aiming her remarks at viewers watching on Univision, a Spanish-language sponsor of the debate, Mrs. Clinton threw his past support for Fidel Castro and President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua in Mr. Sanders’s face and repeatedly criticized him for opposing a 2007 bill that would have created a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants in the country illegally.

“We had Republican support,” Mrs. Clinton said. “We had a president willing to sign it. I voted for that bill. Senator Sanders voted against it.”

She refused to let up when Mr. Sanders explained that he thought the guest worker provisions in the bill were “akin to slavery.” Mrs. Clinton argued that she, Senator Edward M. Kennedy and Hispanic groups would never have supported such a bill. Her broadsides finally became too much for Mr. Sanders when she accused him of supporting “vigilantes known as Minutemen” on the border.

“No, I do not support vigilantes — that is a horrific statement, an unfair statement to make,” Mr. Sanders said. “Madam Secretary, I will match my record against yours any day of the week.”

This might be the only accusation that catches some traction against Sanders.  Otherwise his performance scored slightly better than Hillary's on the Bloomberg report card.

Initially positioned herself as the chief Democratic leader, focused on the GOP and party differences. Then shifted to dish out cherry-picked criticism of her rival’s congressional votes (sometimes in a misleading fashion) —but often bristled when he swiped back at her. Was given noticeably tougher questions than Sanders, and offered serviceable if pre-packaged answers on topics such as her email server, voters’ distrust of her, and Benghazi. Avoided any glaring oh-my moments that could have supercharged Sanders’ newfound momentum, but didn’t do anything to slow him down.

Almost exactly how I and others saw it, and how it's been unfolding for the past few scrapes.  Clinton's trust and honesty issues are cemented, and they are costing her dearly with the youngest voters.

Small wins aren't what Sanders needs at this point, as everybody who's been following closely knows, so the results next Tuesday in Florida -- and Ohio and Illinois and Missouri and North Carolina -- will tell us whether there was breakthrough in Michigan or not.

Gadfly took issue with Sanders' refusal to hit Clinton over Honduras, and The Onion had far and away the best snark ...

MIAMI—Surreptitiously grabbing the explosive device stashed inside her lectern and pulling its pin as soon as she heard moderator Jorge Ramos mention her support for the Iraq War and the Wall Street bailout, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton reportedly threw a flash grenade onto the stage during Wednesday night’s Democratic debate to divert attention away from a question about her Senate voting record. 

“That’s an important question, Jorge, and one I’m happy to answer,” said the former secretary of state just as the military-grade M84 stun grenade exploded, emitting a deafening blast and blinding flash of white light that prevented anything on stage from being seen or heard for the duration of Clinton’s answer. 

After cowering with their hands over their ringing ears for approximately 70 seconds, rattled audience members, the debate’s moderators, and fellow candidate Bernie Sanders were said to have regained their vision and hearing just in time to make out the final sentence of Clinton’s response: “And that’s why I’ve always stood on the side of the middle class and working families.” 

At press time, a misty white gas was seen pouring from the base of Clinton’s podium toward the moderators’ desk as Ramos cited Clinton’s changing positions on gay marriage, the Keystone XL pipeline, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Tonight's Florida debate details

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will meet for their fourth one-on-one debate Wednesday evening in Miami — one night after Sanders won an upset victory in Michigan, reshaping their party’s presidential race as Clinton seemed close to clinching it. 

The debate is sponsored by The Washington Post and the Spanish-language network Univision. It will begin at 9 p.m. Eastern. 

Viewers can watch the debate live on The Post’s website or via The Washington Post app for Apple TV. It will also be shown on CNN. Spanish-speaking viewers can watch it on Univision. 

This debate comes at an unexpected moment of drama in the Democratic race.
Clinton is still the clear leader, in terms of states won and delegates accumulated. She added to her delegate lead Tuesday by winning a lopsided victory in Mississippi and dividing Michigan’s delegates nearly evenly with Sanders. 

[...] 

In the debate, moderators will probably ask about immigration policy, a vital subject in Florida — and a subject on which Clinton and Sanders differ significantly from the GOP candidates. 

Both Democrats have said they support a legal pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are already in the United States. And both have said they would preserve President Obama’s executive actions, which are intended to stop the deportations of undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children and of undocumented parents whose children are U.S. citizens or legal residents. 

Sanders — whose father was an immigrant from Poland — would go even further than that. He says he would issue an expanded order that would protect from deportation all undocumented residents who have lived in the country for at least five years.

Besides contrasting their views on immigration with each other's -- and Donald Drumps's -- expect these things to also play out.

FLINT FACT CHECK: At the Flint debate on Sunday, Clinton appeared to catch Sanders off guard when she accused him of not supporting the auto bailout -- an attack that Sanders the following day said was "categorically untrue." Both candidates have since doubled down on their attacks and released ads on the issue. Tonight they could likely take it up again in person. 

TESTY EXCHANGES: Clinton and Sanders tend to remain cordial, but at the debate on Sunday, things got contentious. Sanders told Clinton, "excuse me, I'm talking," which Clinton's campaign aides described as "disrespectful" and "rude." Sanders responded by saying he thought Clinton was the one being "rude” since she was the one interrupting. Either way, as they share a stage tonight, keep an eye out for who tries to override who. 

PRAISE FOR SANDERS: Despite what could be some heated back-and-forths between the two candidates, Clinton has tried to pivot her rhetoric and attention to the general election -- part of which may include getting Sanders (and his supporters) on her side. In recent days, she's had some kinder words for her opponent: She’s called him an "ally" and said she "would hope to enlist" him to help should she be the nominee. Thus tonight, don't be surprised if Clinton finds moments to praise him as opposed to just knocking him down. That said, Sanders told ABC News' David Wright that that language was premature. After last night's stunning upset, will Clinton have to change her tune again? 

A BREAK-OUT MOMENT: [...] The pressure is still on Sanders. Yes, he scored a major upset in a large, diverse state, but Clinton won one too and actually expanded her delegate lead with her overwhelming victory in Mississippi on Tuesday night. Though the Vermont senator has said he is confident in his path forward, realistically he needs to find a way to translate his Michigan win into more solid victories in that region and beyond in order to tighten that delegate gap. His performance tonight could be his chance.

Follow the Twitter machine at the top right for my takes or at the hashtag #DemDebate.