Mediaboss Marketing

Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, discusses government spending, former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and says she plans to stay in the 2020 race.

Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard defended her decision to file a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton in January, insisting that it was not a political maneuver.

"It's important to understand that this is not just another political thing where one person said this, another person said that," Gabbard told FOX Business' Maria Bartiromo on Wednesday. "The accusation that Hillary Clinton made really devalues the essence of who I am."

In the lawsuit, Gabbard claimed the2016 Democratic nominee defamed her when she called her a "Russian asset" during an October podcast interview.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

"Clinton lied about her perceived rival Tulsi Gabbard," the lawsuit, filed in U.S. district court in New York, read. "She did so publicly, unambiguously, and with obvious malicious intent. Tulsi has been harmed by Clintons lies and American democracy has suffered as well."

During an October interview, Clinton suggestedthat an unnamed Democratic presidential candidate was "the favorite of the Russians."

"I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate," Clinton said, speaking on a podcast withDavid Plouffe, a former adviser to President Obama.

TRUMP WEIGHS IN ON CLINTON-SANDERS FEUD: 'NOBODY LIKES HER. THAT'S WHY SHE LOST'

Although she never named Gabbard, a four-term congresswoman from Hawaii,there were just five women running for president at the time: Gabbard, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar and MarianneWilliamson.

"This is about my life, and the oath of loyalty and service, willingness to lay down one's life for this country," Gabbard said on Wednesday.

"I am not willing to standby to allow her or any of her powerful allies or partners to take such an action, which is why I filed this lawsuit," she added.

The Hawaii representative is the first female combat veteran to run for president. She served in the Army National Guard for 16 years and has made that service an integral part of her bid for president.

Gabbard's suit suggests that Clinton targeted her with a false accusation for "retribution" over her endorsement of Vermont Sen. BernieSanders, Clinton's rival in the Democratic primary, in 2016. (Sanderseventually endorsed Clinton for president in July 2016).

According to an aggregate of polls, Gabbard is currently in ninth nationally. She has not qualified for the Democratic debate in Las Vegas next week.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

See the article here:
Tulsi Gabbard defends decision to sue Hillary Clinton: 'This is not just another political thing' - Fox Business

Jane O'Meara Sanders said elite establishment figures from both political parties are afraid of her husband's policies promoting affordable health care and education, noting that the U.S. "already has socialism" -- but only for corporations.

Sanders, the wife of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, told Fox News Saturday the "powers-that-be" in America are placing a shallow focus on her husband's "Democratic socialist" label instead of what they're really attacking -- his campaign policies. Jane Sanders said "corporate socialism" has benefited billionaires like President Donald Trump and Michael Bloomberg, while hard-working U.S. taxpayers end up paying for their business subsidies and bailouts. She rejected Joe Biden's claims that Bernie Sanders can't win by citing her husband's back-to-back popular vote victories in Iowa and New Hampshire.

She called on the news media and the Democratic National Committee to talk honestly about the senator's campaign policies, and not focus on labels and Hillary Clinton "hypothetical" scenarios.

"There's clearly a pushed effort to find an alternative to your husband. What do you make of that?" asked Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto.

"I think it's pretty obvious, [Bernie Sanders is] running a campaign that is 'not me, us' that's about getting the working class a fair shake and being able to provide Medicare-for-all, affordable health care, affordable education and a Green New Deal. There are the powers-that-be and the status quo that don't want him to do those things," she said.

"They're using lots of other reasons why they don't support him, but the fact is it's the issues. And we are talking about transforming this country and not having the powers-that-be continue to be the-powers-that-be," Sanders told Cavuto. "Make it more government of the people and by the people."

Cavuto pressed the question and said a lot of DNC and media figures "respect your husband's consistency a great deal, but they think he's a sure loser" solely because of the "Democratic socialist" tag.

"Everyone is talking about the label - we have 'socialism' right now but it's not 'Democratic socialism,' it's called 'corporate socialism,'" Sanders replied.

Her husband has consistently accused the country's wealthiest individuals of running a rich-only form of socialism such as the 2008 taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street. New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, another self-described "Democratic socialist," had previously echoed similar sentiments to that of Jane Sanders' in asking "hypocritical" Republicans why they don't criticize Trump's massive farm bailout as "socialism."

"President Trump got $800 million for his real estate development company. That's corporate socialism paid for from the working class to the rich," said Sanders. "We see that all the time, subsidies to the fossil fuel industries. We think the priorities need to be shifted so that people get those subsidies and we have the ability to access higher education if you have the willingness and the ability to do so.

"We want people to be less stressed about having health care and being able to afford health care or at-home care for their elderly parents," she continued. "It's which side are you on and I think that's clear to everyone who knows him is that Bernie is honestly and consistently on the side of the working class."

She urged U.S. news media and DNC figures to help "get beyond the top-level 'Democratic socialism' fearmongering and instead focus on improving health care for average Americans.

Sanders brushed off an unsubstantiated Drudge Report claim Saturday that Bloomberg and Hillary Clinton may pair up as running mates, saying: "Mayor Bloomberg can choose whoever he wants for a running mate. But he's not going to get there." She similarly addressed Cavuto's question about Clinton's interview last month in which she claimed "nobody likes" Senator Sanders.

"I like him. And I think a lot of people like him. I'm not here to talk about Hillary Clinton," she replied succinctly.

"I tend to not worry and waste time on hypotheticals. I think what we need to do is win and win well in all the races. The problem is by starting with 25 people, and eleven in Iowa and New Hampshire, the problem with having so many people ... but the field is winnowing."

Sanders acknowledged it is a "concern" the DNC might try to give the nomination to an establishment figure. But she hopes the party will "give the nomination to the person who has the plurality and that it will be fair."

Read more from the original source:
Jane Sanders: Bernie Campaign Will Remove 'Powers-That-Be' From Government - Newsweek

One of the most surprising things about Bill and Hillary Clinton is that they were broke and in debt when they left the White House in 2001. But whats even more interesting is that the former First Couple managed to turn the financial situation around and became multimillionaires in just a decade.

The Monica Lewinsky scandal left them broke

I left the White House $16 million in debt, former president Bill Clinton told NBCs Craig Melvin during an interview which tackled the Monica Lewinsky scandal, CNBC reported. Clinton was millions of dollars in the red due to the legal fees.

Apparently, Bill Clintons salary cant keep up with his mounting legal fees. The presidential salary of $200,000 had been overwhelmed by defense attorneys fees for scandal investigations, the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton and action to suspend his Arkansas law license, NPR reported.

Clintons quick financial rise

But Bill and Hillary Clinton quickly bounced back financially. Three years after they became dead broke, they were able to pay off all of their debts by 2004. When Hillary ran for the presidency against Trump, Forbes estimated her net worth at that time to be $45 million.

The Clintons were able to quickly reverse their financial situation via multimillion-dollar book deals and paid speeches. The couple reportedly earned more than $153.7 million in paid speeches from 2001 to 2015.

Book deals were also a major source of earnings for the Clintons. For her book Living History, Hillary Clinton reportedly got an $8 million advance while Bill Clinton got a $10 million advance for his book My Life.

The Clintons net worth

Hillary Clintons net worth is estimated to be over $45 million, according to Express. Meanwhile, Bill Clintons estimated net worth is almost twice that of his spouse at $80 million. Combined, that means that the couple has around $125 million.

Their daughter, Chelsea Clinton, is likewise a millionaire with a net worth of about $15 million. Fresh out of graduate school at Oxford University, she is now employed with McKinsey & Co earning $120,000.

Visit link:
Bill and Hillary Clinton net worth: How the former First Couple got out of debt and became multimillionaires - EconoTimes

Hey Democrats dont shoot the messengers!

The party of Hillary Clinton is doing what it does best: pointing the finger. But this time the Dems arent blaming President Trump or Russian bots or even James Comey. Instead, the liberals are turning their rage toward voters. The folks from the New Hampshire primary and the Iowa Caucus (all those deplorable-credulous-boomer-rubes) are under fire from the woke warriors.

In fact, the far left dislikes these voters almost as much as they hate the electoral college. The night of the Iowa Caucus, the L.A. Times ran an opinion piece titled, Forget the Oscars, the real diversity problem is #IowaCaucusSoWhite.

It turns out the Democrats should have spent less time focusing on the voters skin colors and more time troubleshooting that pesky voting app.

But there is no time for self-reflection when youre trying to take down President Trump.

The app isnt the problem Iowa is!

DNC chairman Tom Perez expressed concern over Iowa and N.H. going first in the process: I think the time is ripe for that conversation. I want to make sure that we reflect the grand diversity of our party in everything we do.

It is a classic move from the Democrat playbook: If you cant win the game, just move the goalposts.

This lack of accountability is dazzling. The liberals do not see their lame candidates or radical agendas as the problem.

No it is the people who do not embrace all of their lunacy with open arms who are the real problem.

When all else fails, progressives turn to identity politics. Sure, New Hampshire and Iowa are home to plenty of Democrats. But that is no longer enough.

For the political party that includes Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Rep. Ilhan Omar, the real question has become are the New Hampshire/ Iowa Democrats progressive enough?

After all, who knows what kind of moderate Dems are lurking around in the dreadful Granite State. While Live Free or Die Dems might like Bernies pro-choice stance, could they be potentially scared off by his fondness for open borders and Medicare-for-all?

Sure, some of those Democrats voted for Hillary. But is there even a slight chance that these working folks would have the audacity to think of their 401(k)s and vote in their own financial interest? That is a risk the liberals are no longer willing to take.

So the answer is clear. The first caucus should be held in California.

The Golden State, according to Dems, is far more reflective of the country. Or at the very least, the country they envision.

Whether it is squatters relieving themselves on the streets, sanctuary cities or sky-high taxes Nancy Pelosis home state is a beacon of hopelessness that the Left can count on.

Do you think anyone who voted for Adam Schiff is going to be tempted by a good economy or a booming stock market?

Think again.

Rep. Maxine Waters, another perfect example of West Coast excellence, argued that California should replace Iowa as the first caucus in 2024. Her reasoning, while ridiculous, was at the very least honest.

I think my state is extremely important, and that is why we moved up our primary. As you know, we have candidates who fly out to Los Angeles from everywhere to raise money. As a matter of fact, it had gotten so you would have two, three, four at a time in Beverly Hills having dinners and some of our contributors, who were very rich, were holding, you know, fancy parties trying to accommodate the requests for donations and contributions.

Hard to argue with that logic!

If Gwyneth Paltrow can co-host a lavish fundraiser for Mayor Pete Buttigieg in L.A. then surely she deserves to have more of a say in our political process. I dont know why the Founding Fathers didnt add that to the Constitution.

The reason these liberals hate that Iowa and New Hampshire get the spotlight every four years is the same reason they hate the electoral college: Both processes give a voice to the parts of the country that people like Elizabeth Warren do not understand and more importantly dont care to. Rather than try to understand those voices, the tolerant left would much rather silence the noise.

See the article here:
Democrats have a problem: You - Boston Herald

Things are not going swimmingly for the Democrats right now.

President Trump was acquitted in his impeachment trial, and he gave a State of the Union address that made Democrats feel like the hapless Japanese military as they watched Godzilla stroll through downtown Tokyo. His polling is up to historic highs (though in fairness, Trump's approval rating is historically low for a president's historic highs), and the economy is roaring.

Meanwhile, the only thing that could have made the Iowa caucuses more disastrous would have been an outbreak of the coronavirus. The Democratic candidate the White House fears the most Joe Biden appears to be tanking, and the candidate the White House most wants to run against Bernie Sanders appears to be pulling out in front.

What's going on?

I have a theory. Or rather, I'm persuaded by a theory I picked up from Denver University professor of political science Seth Masket, author of the forthcoming book "Learning From Loss: The Democrats 2016-2020." The Democrats can't figure out what to do next because they still haven't figured out what really went wrong the last time.

Every four years, one of the parties loses the presidential race. As the party pooh-bahs and political pundits play the blame game, a rough consensus quickly emerges about why the party nominee lost. Sometimes the most self-serving explanation wins out: It was all the candidate's fault. The election was winnable, and our ideas are great, but our nominee just couldn't make the sale.

But sometimes the postmortem is coldly empirical and data-driven. We failed to connect with suburban voters. We didn't turn out our base in Michigan or Ohio. We never came up with a good response to those attacks. And sometimes a consensus emerges that the party itself is ideologically out of touch with a majority of the electorate.

Bill Clinton beat the incumbent president, George H.W. Bush, in 1992 for a number of reasons, but one of the main ones was that the party recognized that its previous two nominees Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis seemed too beholden to special interests and too committed to liberal orthodoxy. Clinton ran as a "different kind of Democrat" who went out of his way to shoot some liberal sacred cows.

Go inside New York politics.

By clicking Sign up, you agree to our privacy policy.

Twenty-four years later, his wife was the nominee. Hillary Clinton lost the election but not the popular vote. Were it not for some 78,000 votes in five counties four in Florida and one in Michigan Clinton would have won the Electoral College tally as well. Such a close election made it harder to understand what went wrong.

In statistical terms, this is white noise well within the margin of error. You can blame the Russians for Trump's victory, or you can blame the weather, or you can blame Clinton for snubbing the state of Wisconsin. In other words, you can pick whichever theory supports your idea of what the party should do next.

Clinton did not take her defeat well and spent much of 2017 offering self-serving theories about who or what was to blame, from sexist men and self-hating women to voter suppression and fake news to, of course, the Russians. This made a sober accounting of the Democrats' loss even harder.

And then there's the Bernie factor. Sanders lost the primaries in 2016, but it's like he never got the memo. He and his supporters took their surprisingly strong showing to claim a mandate for changes to the party (particularly in Iowa, which is one reason for the disaster there).

There's also the fact that Trump won despite most polls predicting a Clinton victory. This shock, Masket writes, "undermined many activists' longstanding beliefs about just what sorts of candidates are electable."

Add in the fact that the last winning Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, won not by running to the center the way Bill Clinton did but by turbocharging the turnout of the Democratic base, and you can see why many Democrats think that's a winning strategy this time around. That's certainly Sanders' bet. Indeed, for most of the last year, nearly all of the Democratic candidates were fighting in Sanders' lane and working under the same theory.

But Obama won in 2008 thanks in part to a severe economic crisis and an unpopular war. He was also a compelling candidate. None of that applies today. Actually, the situation is something closer to the reverse.

The Democrats desperately need a candidate who gives moderates and Trump-exhausted Republicans an excuse to oust an incumbent in a time of peace and prosperity. The Trump team understands this, which is why it's trying to bury Biden and boost Bernie. Unfortunately for the Democrats, they can't see it.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. He wrote this for Tribune News Service.

See more here:
Dems still haven't figured out what went wrong in 2016 - Newsday