What Exactly Is A President For If Not Reassurance?

First it was just one old guy recalling his boxing days, Now 

he's actually the president with an influence on steroids. As he

calls for civility, will he change his stump speech attacks?

A time consuming writing project forced me away from my typical opining on current events, which has worked out fine because my Super Bowl 50 champion Broncos suck almost as much as our president, and there are only so many ways you can ridicule John Elway or Donald Trump before YOU start to look like the idiot and not them.

My two Trump loving followers who read that previous paragraph are thinking to themselves, Trump doesn't suck, CNN sucks. Even they, however, are smart enough to keep those words inside at a time like this. Our president is not. He is too small a man to simply call the targets of terror and offer his words of sympathy.

As it stands, Trump has postponed his own verbal attacks on CNN and the rest, but he smiled and listened to the ritual chant- "CNN Sucks"- of his campaign crowd,  just one day after FBI agents arrested the pipe bomb terrorist who targeted CNN and others declared enemies by Trump himself.

If news is nothing more than what WE find interest in, these recent acts of terror and violence are mostly news worthy out of decency for the victims not because they are unique, irregular or terribly interesting. I've forced myself to opinionate on this "way too regular" fringe violence crap because I find myself- once again- a normal, Regular American longing and waiting for my president to comfort me into rationalizing away America's violent nature, like presidents usually do. 

I'm still waiting.

If the president of our country were simply capable of saying the right thing at the right time, WE could all feign sadness and quickly return to whatever television show we binge watch over the weekends so we can mentally recharge for our understaffed, underpaid work weeks.

Despite the 11 people murdered at a Jewish synagogue in Pittsburgh, following 5-days of pipe bomb terror all over America, President Trump continues to do and say everything except the reassuring words regular Americans need right now.

In reality, there will always be extremists behaving extremely. Regular Americans understand this even as WE wait the 2 hours of post-tragedy grief that is customary before we argue over gun rights, the NRA or just return to our television binging for mental health escape.

WE, the regular People of America, don't blame George W. Bush for wars or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan even if we believe Saudi Arabia deserved the brunt of our anger, and maybe still does. Some of US might blame Bush, but the lion-share of America understands the industry of war, the necessity of war and the hair-triggers that cause violence of all kinds.

WE also understand that, sometimes, we war with ourselves whenever weapons of war become tools of terror in our streets, because Regular Americans understand the parable about living by the sword and recognize the inevitability of all this. When things grow beyond our ability to explain, Regular Americans know enough to follow the trail of money to clarify confusion. War an violence bring tons of money even as they bankrupt those who overuse them.

When it comes to war of any sort, presidents are often nothing more than the guys who listen to the advice of the generals and sign or decline their documents to proceed- especially now that Congress has abdicated that role among a few others. A president can choose to fight another day or in another way, but the industry and the machinery chugs along with our without their 4-8 years of consent. Violence in our streets is a byproduct of war in our world. It is a sad reflection of our inner-most nature to confront difficult challenges with rage.

Russian president, Vladimir Putin, predicted

 the end of American greatness. Is he right?

And if so, what will be our demise?

As it relates to violence in general, WE, the People, are a peculiar lot. We continue to market our land with milk and honey even though guns like the AR-15 have long since become the item most reflective of modern America and its nightmarish Dream.

The eerie connection between the Dream of America, our gun lust and that caravan from Latin America is a lengthy conversation all by itself.
(The Latin American gun leak. -- LA Times. Jan. 6th 2015)



Any notion that people willing to walk over 2,000 miles for a dream could be lazy is even more silly than the idea that ISIS would fly to the Guatemala just to join their death defying journey. The Trump administrations attempt to stoke fear of migrants by claiming Middle Easterner infiltration of the caravan. Making descendants from the Middle East analogous to terrorists is possibly more shameful than his refusal to be a president for Real Americans when Real Americans need it.

In some ways, WE are a land of type-A personalities who breed, attract and inspire those same personalities from near and far to come, live in our land and argue alongside US about what it means to be American, or how America can ignore the dangers of our violent compulsions, yet, still remain the best country in the world and not just a nation conforming to one man's distorted view of greatness.


WE will never lose our partisan divide even if the lines get blurred by another flawed, reactive socialized program or two that Regular Americans discover they need too much to let go of, flawed or not. Regular Americans want our degrading social programs to be replaced with sensible, dignified hand up legislation because Regular Americans realize that the sacrifices of the American Dream are also the exact formula for achieving it. Regular Americans still believe in the dream and see their dreams as clearly as they see the obstacles because regular Americans understand what it takes to keep ALL of our dreams alive.

On the fringes of American society, we will always have pessimists who think all this a nightmare. Because fear and misery demand company, those on the fringes have no choice but to bring the rest of US into their nightmares just to legitimize their own miserable fear induced realities. The reasons for those on the fringe are numerous and real, but no more real than the fact that the extreme fringes are not the majority. The majority of US love this land for what it is and can be, and are enjoying our chase of the dream the best WE can.

WE the People, know quite clearly what happens if we remain silent when they come for the Jews, so we depend on the civility of our president whenever those on the fringes terrorize our neighbors until we no longer understand how to feel about our country, or ourselves. 

While Democrats focus on the rhetoric of the pipe bomb terrorist, 

Republicans deflect by pointing to his Native American race.

Maybe this pipe bomb terrorist is not a Nationalist like our president recently  announced himself to be. And hopefully this Pittsburgh killer doesn't avow himself to Trump either. Regular people don't really care about the political leaning of killers who terrorize US even if our debate over weapons of war makes it look like WE do.

At moments like this, WE need to be reassured that WE are much more similar than different.

According to Trump, some 

of these are fine people.

Trumpians might have found a feeling of reassurance in the words Trump robotically read before he stepped all over them with some weird attack on the media and a few false equivalencies about congressman Steve Scalise, but Regular Americans are still empty.

Whatever Trump called his moment of reassurance only stoked terror and the debate further. With every shallow call from our president for "all sides" to improve, I am hard-pressed to understand what Trump wants to see from the media, or what he intends to change himself? I am beyond baffled as to who will change first when our president hasn't even declared what change should look like...."on all sides".

If there's anything the media should change if they could, what exactly should it be Mr. President? Lead US! Reassure US, if you can.

I will give Trump this concession on behalf of the media. If Congress was at all worthwhile, guns wouldn't be so rampant and presidents wouldn't be allowed or expected to send troops to war because war would only happen as the Constitution prescribes- via congressional order.

If this current Congress was at all fulfilling it's coequal duty, they might consider this president guilty of yelling fire in a theatre from campaign speeches that have stoked his fringes to act against a hit-list of opponents and other undesirables. It is perfectly legitimate to question the impetus of recent radicals. It is unthinkable that any president would call for civility while running so hard away from it at the same time.

Let me say this once more, for effect! The day after catching the pipe bomb terrorist, our current president was not wise or courageous enough to discontinue the "CNN Sucks" rant while campaigning. Is that a high crime or a misdemeanor? Did those two black people at Kroger die from just being black in Trump's America and or did they die from Trump's inability to promote the very civility he calls for? 

Will  there continue to be more unexplained terror stoked and promoted by our Nationalist president until a seemingly clear connection is no longer avoidable? 

If the next pipe bomber goes a step further after a Democrat mid-term takeover of congress, Trump could easily be considered a cause of this and could be impeached from the deadly toxicity of his presidency alone.

In reality, high crimes and misdemeanors can mean whatever Congress wants it to mean when they are convinced that a president is no longer fulfilling the call of the office. And what is more vital to the call of the office than what WE need from a president at moments like these?

Americans don't like the impeachment of a president, so smart Democrats like Nancy Pelosi won't let her party forget that truth. Unless, of course, the next wave of pipe bomb terror comes at her. How Pelosi managed to avoid pipe bomb terror is as mysterious as why none of them exploded.

Trump: "You should have had an armed guard in your 

church....and capital punishment. God bless all."

From military to economic, Trump has waged war with his own advisers and appointees, yet, none of them seem to care or seem compelled to follow his radical lead in areas of such vital significance. Republicans in Congress have tried to cater to his whims, but even they could only pull off a tax cut for themselves and a controversial Supreme Court pick that might work against them come November 6th.

The quandry for the GOP is that they will either l retain their majority and have to explain why they still can't agree on anything useful enough to turn into law, or they will lose their majority and have to fend off the kind of congressional oversight of the president that used to be part of co-equal governance. Anything left to be accomplished in America can not pay for itself, something Republicans promised their tax cut would do.

The bully pulpit of the president has always mattered because it is essentially their only weapon. Presidents function on influence alone, although nothing is more powerful than being able to influence the media cycle and popular opinion. Congress used to be powerful, but those days are a distant memory.

Presidents don't write the bills they eventually sign, and they obviously can't even force their own party to buy a wall they promised Mexico would pay for. Obama used his influence to complete universal healthcare, but he did it using the Republican plan based on pressure from his own party even though he didn't get a single Republican vote for his conciliatory effort.

Unless the president of the U.S. is attempting to comfort US with their yearly State of the Union- or a monthly address from another act of terror- presidents don't really have a whole lot they can do but comfort US when our world appears frenzied.

Until WE all screwed up and allowed Russia to suppress and influence enough voters into our orange accident, WE had always elected a president with the capacity to speak words of reassurance to the bulk of US and not just those fringe folks who terrorize or tacitly approve.

Now WE have a president incapable of rising above tough coverage, Saturday night live spoofs or the  insults about his spray tan to still do the only thing WE need presidents to do.

And it's sad.

Super Pack Or Super PAC. WE ALL Have Needs

Yes, Bernie has the right to fight all the way to the convention just like Ted Cruz, John Kasich or like Hillary, who refused to stop fighting her last time out until it was abundantly clear that nothing good would come from pressing on. What Bernie doesn't have the right to do is pretend that ALL money doesn't have needs, big or small.

Does Hillary have financial backers who hopes she wins so that they can gain certain favors? Well of course she does. Yet, the larger purpose for pressing on to the convention 8 years ago was to inspire hope for change in a nation with a glass ceiling that Hillary fractured during her last run at it.

Before it was all over, she had to press on just to show respect to her main super pack, the world's first minority- women- for taking them excruciatingly close to breaking that glass into bits. In hindsight, breaking the glass does little for cleaning the mess that comes from glass ceiling removal. In hindsight, the white woman president would have encountered a similar challenge to the one that the black man president encountered when shattering a different ceiling.  For both, the challenge is in trying to make people accept and respect you in an environment that you admittedly just broke in to on purpose.

If Clinton were to survive until the end this time, she will be a pioneer just like her predecessor Obama, but so will the Jewish socialist, Bernie Sanders, or the straight off the street rebellion candidate, Donald Trump for that matter. All represent a path of inevitable change for a nation refusing to accept more of the same.

Once again, we are steering fairly clear of the only demographic that has represented the position prior to Obama's shake up of the White House family tree. White males are still thoroughly in the mix of things, but not one in a position of strength except the two guys that should have been third party entrants because few really expect either to win the general while fully dependant upon the two party system they are rejecting.

Pioneers are notorious for carving out a path laden with gold but difficult to break through. Sometimes they make it after a few tries, other times they pave the way for someone else to finally break through. Either way, they are always offering something new, something unavailable before their pioneering efforts began.

New things like immigration walls that you make Mexico pay for.  Or $15 per hour wages and free college tuition, maybe even some help with current college debt. While many complain now about the Citizens United decision, somebody in congress voted to expand campaign finance limits for those who needed more access to influence, because the reality is, we all have needs. Big money and small money too.

That super pack of people showing up at rallies for certain candidates?

They believe in the men on stage for what each promised they could do for them, not because they promised that there was very little any president can do while congress remains unwilling to write and pass laws.  What will make Donald's fence more likely to get approved  in congress than all the other infrastructure work (including old water pipes like those in Flint) that congress refuses to deal with?

Bernie might think he is free and clear of the negative influence of a Political Action Committee, but those packs of people who support him don't want to hear that they felt the Bern way too late for it to matter now.  They may not even want to know that the best he can do is alter the agenda of the party by staying around.  They really don't want to hear they that he is staying because the party needs them all to stay in the game till the end instead of quitting the moment he does.

This is all pioneering stuff when you talk about the areas of our society he could impact before long. In reality, Bernie also has a duty to his people to feel their burn from this rigged system we've uncovered, and to stay around so that it might be exposed and disposed of someday, giving candidates like him, and efforts like theirs, hope.

Donald might be in this thing for the exact same reason if you're watching closely and wondering exactly who he is courting as a candidate.  His constant willingness to accuse Hillary- the glass ceiling speer head- of playing the woman card; or comparing his long arduous walk around the back side of a convention center just to avoid ANOTHER group of Trump protestors, to walking across the border, means he doesn't understand the impact hispanics and women will have on EVERY election for the foreseeable future.

Or he does. (my theory)

Trump does finally gets this delegate thing, and realizes that it will be used against him no matter how many states he wins prior to the convention. He, and WE, are learning that it might have been created to stop people exactly like him. Whether Trump anticipated thousands upon thousands of people coming to campaign events (I doubt that he did), he is now the face for those people and the political pioneer for exposing our undemocratic politics. For Trump, he must press on to achieve this righteous cause and justify his followers, all while hopefully offending just enough people to not have to actually preside over this miserably disfunctional nation.

Bottom line, the support dictates the agenda or there is none. And whether you are beholden to a traditional campaign Super PAC or just a super pack of supporters, WE all need and expect our political candidates to make our selection of them worthwhile by making something better for us and ours.

Sorry Bernie, but that means even you have a super pack too.

The2 Party Delegate System: Antiquated Or Rigged?

My contempt for the electoral college system dates back to that hanging chad matter in Florida that clarified to me the futility of the popular vote, and the rigging's of the two party hustle, even to the degree of their coordinated acquiescence rituals that help keep the rigging's intact.

Without the process of raising the white flag and shifting to support the very person you denigrated days before, the people (US) start to see the unethical aspects of our democracy, the parts that typically get quarantined with acquiescence so that each party's strength is not compromised from exposing ugly truth's every two years in this desperate struggle for power. If the parties have a quarantine, there was first a disease that made it necessary. Very close elections were the first disease to our version of representative democracy.  Rogue candidates like Donald Trump are the newest.

In regards to simple politics, acquiescence is actually smart. Acquiescence wards off close vote recounts and brokered conventions, things that force more truth's to be exposed. The2  (my new name for the two-party hustlers) never wanted any of us exposed to the real truth that half of all of our votes (provisional ballots), due to things like late arriving mail or people who vote in the incorrect precint, never get counted anyway.  Without quick concessions during close presidential elections, each state with a close outcome would have to be FULLY recounted, including all excluded ballots.

In the end, Al Gore probably acquiesced to Bush with very little fight because The2 really needed him to do it or risk exposing too many of our electoral flaws to concerned voters.  For inquisitive people like me, it was already too late.

So What Are Electors and Delegates Good For?

While many aspects of the delegate and elector system were written in a day gone by and are antiquated for a modern world, delegates are actually still very important to manage votes that get cast towards candidates that don't survive until the convention. Without a delegate system, those votes are cast towards absolete candidates and essentially wasted at the convention.

Electors, on the other hand, are useful for balancing the power between California and Wyoming (for example), state's that would have a wider power disparity under a strict popular voting system. A system where EVERY state's electors are bound and proportionately distributed towards WHOEVER receives votes, regardless of party could be a useful, more democratic change. As it stands, electors can ignore the voters, and on 157 occasions, that is exactly what happened. (votesmart.org)

As WE remain hopeful for an economic evolution sparked by a political revolution, The2 should be viewed as one, and must be challenged accordingly. For lack of better example, challenged like Donald has done after laws upholding campaign finance increases (Citizens United v. FEC)  were upheld, threatening to enslave US all to rich donors. Trumps free, full throttled control over the airwaves has rendered SuperPAC's as super dubious now, maybe even something we don't really need in politics if small donors keep feeling the Bern, and media outlets keeps getting ratings revenue by sticking a microphone in the face of The Donald.

Before Donald and Bernie, political press often waited outside of exquisite homes and fund raising venues to interview Romney, Hillary or any traditional candidate as they hob nobbed with rich and powerful donors just to fund the process. As for the press following Sanders?  Not even once has this happened with Sanders, who is thriving on small donations to dominate and redefine the fund raising game, but has yet to do a closed door, big money fund raising event.

George Clooney not only agree's that the big money fund
raising events do produce obscene amounts of money that
needs to be removed from politics, he thinks Hillary can
help win congress and the White House to fix it.

Aside from the extreme infusion of money, not much about The2 party power maintenance program has actually changed in decades or longer.  The key change is mass media and social media that allow the inquisitive to instantly discover details that The2 could readily hide before.

Details such the rules are always adjusted as needed during the convention; or how unbound delegates and faithless electors can, and have disregarded the popular vote during the primary season and the general election.

Are there any laws to prevent delegate faithlessness?  Only in 24 states, but NO ONE has ever been held accountable for acting in bad faith as an elector or delegate. and there is NO WAY to change the election results from their faithless act, even with criminal prosecution. In the world's greatest democracy, only two states in the entire union- Maine and Nebraska- democratically distribute the electors proportionate to the actual voting results, and even they suffer a significant flaw.

Proportionate distribution, while very altruistic, exposes the real problem with American politics and the reason why delegates and electors have value.  Voter apathy.  Distributing the votes fairly demands a fair representation of the populace, which NOBODY has figured out how to achieve since ONLY Bernie Sanders is calling for MASS voter turnout as a national necessity- possibly the only hope to save America.  He and I agree.

Is this recent lesson about The2 enough to ignite our lazy electorate?  God willing. But for now, the democrats are willingly playing the old hush hush game better than republicans who are currently cursed by Trump's tantrum, which has made our rigged system the headline issue for the GOP.

Bernie Sanders complains about everything, but never term limits for congress or the need to win over superdelegates just to stay even in primaries and caucuses that he's destroys Hillary on popular vote.

Why no burn from Bern?

Because Sanders, a Senator of MANY years, who voted in favor of Bill Clinton's crime bill by the way. is well aware of how things work.  While he is technically not part of the democrat establishment, a democratic socialist who runs as a democrat is hardly someone the democrats have not depended on to support causes sensitive to democrats.  From all assessments, Bernie is only an independent in congress because he is so far left on most things that he is ends up on the right over one key issue. Gun control.

Other than his NRA loyalties and decades in congress, what makes Bernie completely a part of the establishment of The2- from which he is seeking a nomination from one- is his willingness to stay around when the mirky pathway says he might be running on symbolism only.  Bernie is not staying in this race because he's too stupid to see that his path is simply blocked thanks to superdelegates, he is staying in this race because he was asked to do so and understands that, for Hillary's sake, he must.

Sanders has already conceded in a recent interview that he wished he had realized sooner how truly relevant his movement was.  In other words, he realizes that it's too late already to win the nominaton, otherwise Sander's would have NEVER allowed those words to come out before quittng or writing his autobiography about the experience.

Disregard all of the contentiousness that we've seen between the two remaining candidates for the democrat nomination. Hillary not only needs Sanders to stay, she needs him to stay viable enough for news coverage because, although the delegate game is rigged already, the news coverage game has been exposed, and is under the grips of The Donald and The Bern, not Clinton, Cruz, or Kasich

8 years ago, when Hillary was overwhelmed by The2 herself, she was smart enough to keep her mouth shut and learn what they allowed Obama to do to her so that she could do it herself next time.  She could have blown the whistle on flip flopping delegates herself, who she improperly courted and eventually lost some as they switched to Obama in the closing weeks of that primary.

Trump, on the other hand, can smell the hustle happening early, and he's not having it. Nobody has been fired, but Trump is scrambling to hire the kind of people that he needs to win this delegate game, while basically exposing the world to the fact that many really smart Americans have no real understanding of the very system WE all depend upon to fill the office of the U.S. president. What isn't quite clear, is how exactly did the deal maker, Trump, not deal with the demand for delegates.

The2 have been able to write wrong rules because they know that few understand the rules in the first place. With a couple of tweaks to the rules, The2 ruse together two similar puppets and prop them up for US to choose between. May the strongest money machine win.

I call it a ruse because many of the big money donors that finance campaigns give money to both sides, during the same election often.  Trump funded this kind of ruse himself before actually running for president. But it will probably come from our Colorado republicans, who disregarded stupid voters and made the entire caucus process nothing but a ritual this time around after assigning their delegates to Mitt Romney last time, a candidate that didn't survive the 2008 presidential season.  Soon after, Colorado republicans decided to disregard dumb voters and distribute their delegates as they saw fit.

I'm prettty proud of my state, because once again, as with the direct democracy of weed laws, Colorado could play a pivotal role in shaking up the direction of national politics and policy for years to come. If something finally changes relative to The2 and their hustle, Colorado's extremely undemocratic decision from the republicans of our state could impact a constitutional amendment that mandates our national manner of distributing votes.

But WE must show up to vote and let politicians know we're aware.

Many American's have no clue that right now, it is already too late to register to vote even if they get the gumption to give in to the urge. This is another 2party trick that helps polling to remain consistent with the registered voters and turnout trends and not population or eligible voters.  If the electoral hustle proves too complex to dismantle, at the very least, every eligible American should be able to register to vote the moment they decide it is important. It is hard to imagine US reaching massive voter turnout without a massive overhaul in the ease of voting.

One way or another, our system sanctions political rape in too many deeply entrenched ways to dismantle them all. Yet, it is very hard to imagine that we allow The2 to continue to screw US in the same way again. Four years from now, something will change.

God willing.

What Does No TPP For HRC Really Mean? Biden's Out, Bernie's A Problem- things we mostly knew

What does it mean that Hillary Clinton doesn't support the TPP deal.

Mostly nothing.

But actually, it is not only the clearest signal to me that Joe Biden is not running for president, it also says that Hillary knows it.

With Obama and Republicans already being odd bed fellows on the TPP, what good does  climbing in  to endorse or opening your mouth to oppose, do for Clinton's campaign?

The answer is mostly nothing.

Those who support Clinton will likely do so whether she was in or out on the TPP.  Those who oppose her but would vote for her over the GOP options are likely those thousands of folks flooding in to see Bernie Sanders speak, a flood unlike any other candidate is experiencing including Donald Trump who does  at least draw enough folks to make the room look full.

During Bernie's events, his mass appeal has forced his curious onlookers and ardent supporters into outdoor overflow areas with widescreen television views while raising millions on nickel and dime donations from the same eager masses.

Hillary got killed for having one particularly empty roomed event, and Jeb Bush has resorted to the quiet room where his big giant 'Jeb! 2016' campaign board fills half of it. Granted, neither of these known entities actually need the extra name recognition, but neither does Trump.

Trump is slowly losing his campaign crowd panache, and is quick to categorize his crowds alongside Sanders who is clearly the current crowned king of turnout.

Feel The Bern Now?

Hillary can't run from her plummeting poll numbers nor can she deny who and what is causing all of this. Bernie Sanders is doing what even I, a proud Socialist, doubted he could do; owning those fictional independent voters, that wide swath of the electorate that votes rather predictably even if they hate party affiliation.

What Sanders must also do is attract just enough right leaning independents to make his candidacy possible, pulling out the volume of commoners that it will take to give Hillary another horrific primary failure.

Conventional wisdom says that Hillary is feeling her own burning desire to overcome the mistakes that caused her to come up short the last time around.  That same conventional wisdom chimed in on the rise of Trump and has been wrong every time.  In other words, nothing feels conventional this time around, especially the Bern.

If Trump keeps it up, Bernie and Hillary might actually have hope with the massively growing Libertarian wing of the GOP, which is the new vocal minority.  Libertarians are not beholden to the religious aspects of the GOP agenda favoring a self reliance mentality that finds them typically skeptical of everything including two party politics. .

In this area of interest, Libertarian skepticism finds itself allied with the Progressive skepticism like that of Sanders or Senator Elizabeth Warren, the leaders of modern populism.  Neither Sanders or Warren are down for the TPP, but their opposition of it isn't any more significant to the losing side than is Hillary Clinton now that she has joined them there.

Not being for the TPP will eventually look a lot like not being for the Iran deal. Capitalism has expanded thoroughly enough for other nations to recognize the importance of cooperation and regulations to protect public health and insure corporate profits, and Iran has long since been a nation that opposes the old war mentalities that foster nuclear proliferation, seeing nukes as an antiquated weapon.

Hillary can't deny her plummeting poll numbers nor can she deny who and what is causing all of this. Bernie Sanders is doing what even I, a proud Socialist, doubted he could do; owning the fictional independent voters, that wide swath of the electorate that votes rather predictably even if they hate party affiliation.

"I oppose this deal"
for whatever that's worth.

In the end, the world will look at those who oppose the TPP and say, sorry that you did not appreciate capitalism's enemies finding reasons to wave the white flag of cooperation that promises profits for all.

Capitalism is nothing if not pragmatic, and our feeble attempts to insure democracy in our own homeland (without the Voters Rights Act?), while also trying to spread it abroad have fallen woefully short of reaching the mass epidemic that capitalism has.

We've developed into a generation of Americans who think that the Made In America label still matters more than Show Me The Money.  If corporations can find cheaper means of production, they find greater hope of longevity in a competitive world where cheap labor won't suddenly die and go away just because a few Americans insist on trying to outwork third world countries.

Change The Model?

We will always be in competition for the leanest means of production/profit because companies that survive also maintain consistent profit/production.  High priced workers have to double production amounts just to achieve profit/production to the capacity of those who earn less than half of what you do, thus WE (American workers) disrupt the only model for measuring the success of capitalism that we know- profit and loss. Unless we change the model, we all remain  enslaved to its design.

Our current model demands that WE expand our reach, and that we do so while protecting corporate profits a bit better than we are doing right now.  For the most part, the TPP will do just that, working to improve copyright protections and product ownership rights that are basically ignored or non-existent in competing economies. U.S. Pharmaceutical companies, for example, are the sole profiteers of a new drug  for 12 years before the market can compete by creating generics that are cheaper.

If an approved drug is seen as being beneficial to the world, not a lot of good things come from a 12 year corporate monopoly on that drug except price gouging and profit stashing.

12 years is a timeline that even the Obama administration thinks is too long, so the TPP negotiations are intended to move it closer to the 5-8 year range that is more common to international standards. Although the pharmaceutical industry wanted stronger protections than this, any negotiated compromise will help drug companies who currently see generic versions of their drugs hitting foreign markets within a year or less of their release in the U.S.

To stand in opposition of the purpose of the TPP, or the Iran Deal for that matter, is essentially immaterial because it comes down to whether or not the countries involved in the negotiations will commit to being more fair and more accessible as a result as these signed negotiations insist they all will do.

If the assumption of fairer trade practices is also connected with a promise of expanded access to corporate opportunities in each market, this is a win win that is larger and more significant than the ink that created it.  Both of these deals amount to a promise to work together for the benefit of all involved, including the ability to respond if commitments aren't met.

Whether expanded access to American capitalism eventually leads to corporate outsourcing of production is a foregone conclusion since corporations have long since acted to insure the growth of production/profit, and very little will ever change that capitalistic reality.

With or without the TPP, large corporations search for global trends and respond, or they are swallowed whole by the leaders of the trends. Don't be surprised at how quickly Iran is involved in certain aspects of TPP commerce.

Hillary knows all of this because her husband authored that last trade deal (NAFTA) which expanded the trend of global expansion and outsourcing, causing US to not want another magic trade deal, no matter what it is supposedly intended to magically achieve.

So why did Clinton bother coming out either way?

Standing against the TPP is Clinton's best hope of minimizing the impact of Bernie Sanders.

Period! (with an exclamation point)

As I mentioned before, it is also the first sure sign that Biden is likely a spectator for the 2016 race.  Hillary is in no position to want or need to show her hand on this deal and risk losing an Obama endorsement that will likely be the only reason she wins.  But she's doing it anyway.

Satisfying a voracious press core didn't force Hillary's hand before the polls aided them, and the polls say that Clinton's numbers and her pathway to the victory are being impacted by the segment of swing voters (that Bernie is owning) who she will ultimately need regardless of the eventual GOP nominee since most of the GOP front runners are in favor of the TPP, further alienating yet another segment of their potential voters.

Hillary's hope, and every presidential candidates hope for the foreseeable future, hangs on that sacred swing voter. Clinton is positioning herself for those who won't have Bernie as their final choice (unless he goes 3rd party), can't imagine standing behind Trump as the GOP nominee,  and want a candidate that hasn't agreed to any "trade deals", a populist pseudonym for shipping more American jobs overseas.

Enter Hillary Clinton who would denounce TPP, NAFTA and Bill Clinton too if it helps her win the White House. "As of today I am not in favor of what I have learned about it" said Clinton (CNN).

Translation: This Bernie Sanders thing is serious and there are already way too many strange bedfellows for the TPP as it is.

Unlike Donald Trump, who can't win and can only lead the conversation into directions most of us wish it wouldn't go,
Bernie Sanders can't win either, but has changed the conversation.  
Maybe for good.

Will Women Confront Today's "Legislative Daddy's"?

Hillary is currently the only woman Donald has
not tried to destroy. Is he saving it for later?
Don't republican women have a problem with this?

If resiliency is the TRUE test of mettle that helps us to determine our president, than this is actually more of a coronation then any of us knew.

What we know about American politics has been shaken to the core.  First, by two terms of a Muslim named black president, and currently by the total inability to connect the dots on what will happen tomorrow.

Will Bernie "the Socialist" Sanders really keep rising in the polls as Hillary and Trump remain the most hated and likely candidates to represent their party in a general election?

Trump gets away with being utterly offensive towards key segments of the republican electoral path while Hillary gets beaten and battered for reasons we might take years to ever agree about cause we'll be too busy beating her still.

Will she eventually get the positive impact of all the negative press that she's getting when voters have to stand in a ballot box and decide who can actually handle the rigors of the job, realizing that an adversarial media is among the greatest of all human hurdles?

Sort of.

More accurately, the press is proving themselves to be  one part journalist' and two part predators of sensationalism above substance. Like the way in which they've clung like stink to crap on the story about The Donald who dared to describe another presidential candidates facial features as a reason for her inability to preside.

Did Donald actually say that  Carly Fiorina's mean mug and pursed persona makes her less capable of leading others?

No, but I GUARANTEE you that had Donald declared such a thing about any man, the automatic question that would have followed would have been:

"Do you feel that his facial features will hinder his ability as a president"

That question never came. During the interview or in post interview analysis of what he said or what he meant while trying to clean it up.

What also didn't happen....again, is the expected drop in poll numbers that would connect the dots between the behavior and the response that says Americans, primarily republican American women, care about electing a misogynistic president.

Did I just call out republican women?

Actually, all women- including my wife and 5 daughters and my momma, and grandma- are unfortunately squarely in my line of sight today because the more and more we really take a true examination of the REAL war on women (and it is a real war, rather you like it or not), some of the combatants are lobbing grenades at themselves from both sides of the battlefield.

Sorry ladies.  I say this with all of the due respect and humility that a male feminist represents.  The mere notion is an oxymoron and nearly moronic if you think about it.  How can the slave master pretend to be interested in ending slavery while benefiting from free labor and idly watching the systematic brutality that insures the future of the program?

Our women are victims of men. They are victims of our inability to understand their core motivations.  Where men failed to fulfill the role of leader/provider, women have done what was necessary.  Changing your duties doesn't necessarily change your core motivations but it will expand your capacity to do what otherwise had been expected of others.

Is it proper for women to be in leadership roles?

Is Nina Turner too passionate for her own good, or is she willing
to sacrifice anything and everything for the cause of  justice?

I grew up around churches that didn't know if women could be trusted to preach (so they took over testimony service, which is now mostly gone as a result), or be trusted in pant suits similar to the style a man commonly prefers.

Today, we still don't trust women to be smart enough about their own reproductive choices.  "What makes them think we need legislative daddy's to tell us what to do. We are grown 'A' women" said former state Senator Nina Turner of Ohio on Saturday's (9-12-15) MSNBC's Melissa Harris Perry Show.

In her always passionate refrain, Turner added, "If your hair is on fire, make like your hair is on fire" responding to the tacit response that women often choose to avoid the risk of agitating the fearful masses and risking their own existence.

Her words inspired me to wonder why I always run to the television when Nina Turner speaks, but don't necessarily feel the same heat from other women who undoubtedly feel the same burn Turner has.

To be Square and fair, black folks do this towards black folks and every group of challenged individuals picks sides in the struggle to either embrace or reject their plight.

Not just black on black crime, I'm talking black on black criticism, or white looking Mexicans who denigrate those who cruise and low ride during Cinco De Mayo.  

I listened to an interview with Dr. Damon Tweedy, a black doctor who recently describe how one elderly black patient rejected him as a doctor feeling that the hospital had passed the inferior black doctor upon an unwitting black patient. (NPR interview)

Self hatred examples are ample, but y'all women really need to do some reckoning.  Not because you are the sole cause of the problem, but because you are the focus of the change. Men can Lean In, but we have to bend our posture towards the cause of happiness for the women in our world and in our lives.

We know that our drunk and disgruntled daddy can do a lot to help cure the damage of our childhoods that we carry into our adult lives, but the real work is personal.  Sometimes drunk daddy isn't ready to help you in the healing. Yet heal you must.

Women must heal themselves from misogyny by addressing the misogyny that they do to each other, as we've long since realized that women mostly dress up for each other and hardly for us guys.  In kind, women criticize each others dress and hair style while we guys obsess over the hips and curves hiding behind all of the pomp and circumstance of being a woman.

 We've always known that women are notoriously skeptical of other women relative to the issue of rape. When it comes to Bill Cosby, I don't really want to tell you the lack of universal disgust among women, even in my house.

Donald can get away with being an ass because he knows what we all need to come to grips with.  Women are as tough on women as anybody.  Maybe worse at times.

Had Hillary's assistant been Anthony Weiner and  Weiner's wife was caught sending naked pictures on a phone, goofy looking Weiner would be a hero of sorts, especially if the nude woman involved was his rather attractive wife Huma Abedin, whose nude photos would only draw criticism from other women judging the size or the amount of firmness in her breast', or the presence of stretch marks if she's had children and/or a weight control issues.

This demand to be beautiful could also be blamed on men, but it loses its impact among wise women who know that men are attracted to ALL types of women, especially confident ones.

Whether she's elected or not, Hillary is going to win in the court of public opinion just because of the perseverance she gaining vis a vis this media butt kicking she's bravely enduring .   She won't get it from The Bern, who is too nice to go there, and Joe Biden is hoping that this email thing will hurt her instead of help her as it ultimately will when it comes time to actually vote for just one of these candidates on either side of the isle.

Americans notice the attacks, but not more than the camera which has a way of focusing itself over and over upon the person who eventually gets the nod.

Is Hillary Struggling With Women Too?

Hillary not only needs to actively court the support of women, she needs to actively court the vote of black women like Michelle Obama, Nina Turner and the 6 that are in my immediate family (all will be voters in #2016).

 While a coalition of black voters can be inspired to get out and vote by the Obama voter turnout machine, who they vote for (especially in the primary races) could be a mixed bag without some necessary female guidance.  

Some aspects of that guidance will need to softly inspire that segment of society that only a soft spoken black woman can push into action. Other parts will need to go Nina Turner all over this nation to inspire those people who only listen when passionate, trustworthy black women like Nina Turner challenge you with her vision and values.  Does that represent a form of my own male self hatred?  I won't pretend not to be more cautious around a smooth talking man versus a loud but loving lady.

Does Hillary need a "blacker" woman to lead her cause?

With rugged women, you may not always like what you see but you always trust that it is real.  That is the power of what it means to be a woman, and nobody seems to harness and utilize this power better than black women. Hillary needs a couple of strong voice, dark skinned (no offense Karen Finney. we insiders know you are black) black women to get out in front for her for the sake of both the female vote and the black vote, key reasons for 8 years of Obama.

Women must harness the breadth of their power for more than just silent control of unsuspecting men. Women can force the hands of justice by simply patting out the fire in each others hair and destroying all of the matchbooks of self hatred that starts many of them.

What does that mean exactly?  Push back at Trump's polling numbers until he lets up on Fiorina, and remind all of the other legislative daddy's that Roe .v. Wade was decided by a lot of smart adults, some of which were women.

Can You Win Any Election Without Women?

Even that cute skinny comedian who did the Fat Shaming video has a reason to join this cause since she will not be young and pretty forever, however, she MIGHT decide to remain a woman since she mentioned that being a man would have made her humor more funny or  more generally accepted. (But you knew you weren't a man going into the satire that you hoped would shamefully inspire people..........huh????)

Women could insure the wage equity that they seek as well, but not without bringing along other disadvantaged people (men) in the process.

Don't assume that I see women as some monolithic conglomerate of voting sameness? Hardly!

Yet, the attack of Carly Fiorina's face is an attack on the entire gender, regardless of political bend. And the cause of gender equality is ONE.

 This was a similar revelation that Dr. Martin Luther King faced when last he marched on earth.  How do we fight for the conditions (via policy) that impact blacks the most without fixing the greater impact on poor people as a whole?

How can ONE woman rise above beauty as a pre-requisite if so many other women tacitly support these trappings of beauty and popularity?

You can't do it, so don't try.

Is Mitt Romney To Blame For The Rise Of Trump?

Republican strategists, who are the one's most responsible for figuring out what to do about Donald, have typically tried to use the old "failed Obama policies" as a reason for explaining the GOP anger that's leading to Trump's meteoric rise.  Since Democrats are responsible for the same explanation as it relates to the rise of Bernie Sanders, both parties have taken to the assumption that America is basically angry but for different reasons.

What the basic voter in both parties knows for sure is that universal economic complaints that ushered in the Obama presidency have lost several voices since the wealthy are not complaining a bit, but are bleeding the benevolence of the Obama years before somebody inevitably pulls the plug on the whole money making machine.  No one really trusts that the money machine will ever truly be dismantled even if its forced to distribute its output a bit more equitably.  Smart people understand that the machine must be forced to produce more just to move towards this mythical, mystical concept of equity that so many are striving to achieve.

Translation, the rich will get even richer if the rest of us have any hope of mere stability.  Add capitalistic wisdom with political frustration and Donald Trump might be the most obvious answer for president, explaining a presidential view of Trump that's catching more momentum each day.

Of course this probably is more a result of that loser Mitt Romney (Trump's words, not mine). If Republican strategists are really using the failure of Obama angle to explain Trump, its probably because they understand that a lame duck Obama is still seeding the dissent of the right.  President Obama gets universally described by the right as a failed president despite news reports of Obama victory after Obama victory that keep occurring since the landslide republican sweep of congress during midterms.

Sure, the middle class is still hurting even thought the country seems to be on the rise.  Yes, our educational system is stuck in flux between the Bush years and the Obama/Clinton support of Bush policies that are slowly losing favor despite few prominent opposing plans to do education differently. Health care is in similar disarray given the infancy of universal health care in America, but none of these issues are the reason Trump keeps rising in the polls.

Trump is the guy that will hopefully make a losing party feel like winners once again.  The entire field of republican candidates were pegged by power brokers for what is perceived as their anti-Romneyesque natures.  In other words, these are supposedly electable candidates with crossover appeal designed to wow the electorate and win one for the GOP.

As it relates to straight WOW factor, nothing beats Donald Trump.  In fact, every other candidate in the republican field has a platform so similar to the other candidates in the field that neither of them will be able to make a case that they are the best voices for the republican ideology because the sales pitch comes across like the adults on a Peanuts cartoon. "Waa wa waa waa waaaaa".  Most Americans could recite the tenants of trickle down republicanism in their sleep. Rand Paul is the only real deviant in the entire group of republicans,  but not on economics.  Hillary will pound this point into the ground for the next year until somebody in the GOP comes up with a form of capitalism that takes care of people better.

"I will police the Iran deal, not rip it up"

WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF PEOPLE

                                         ......and you can't rip up the Iran deal.

Correction!  True Trump deviates as well since he has a background in liberalism that might make him the greatest of crossover candidates among the field of republicans if he is able to survive and conquer the primary season.  He has already begun to spill the beans on some aspects of his liberal side, yet, he seems media savvy enough to avoid specifics until he no longer has an option, which could be somewhere near the last month of a general election in reality.


Do You Want To Win Or What?

What Donald Trump has unveiled is the extreme weakness in the republican field which was compiled for one particular purpose; overcoming the charisma that killed them for two presidential cycles.  Right or wrong, every losing party is always working on the last election even at the consequence of recognizing current and future trends of importance.  America appears to be a nation of young people concerned about a future being squeezed between the palms of corporate greed and congressional cronyism that makes it all possible. Republicans responding to the call for charisma could be the equivalent of chasing after echoes from the past versus the visionary populist passions of our present political climate.

Thanks Donald!  I knew going to that
wedding would pay off eventually.

This all means that Trump can and might actually represent the GOP, a party determined to put forth a  candidate charismatic enough to accomplish what Barack Obama did on the way to the white house.  What they won't likely recognize is that we've moved on from Hope, Change and charisma and need a president who can continue to grow the economy and share the wealth at the same time.

This sounds like an opportunity for a true moderate like Hillary Clinton to succeed, but the forces designed to derail presidential cake walks are hard at work placing thorns in her path.  As the potential first woman president, she should expect no less.  If Hillary wins it all, she might in fact owe a debt of gratitude to those who toughened her up to both win and perform in the role.
History is aligning for her first presidential "thank you's" to go to a cantankerous media and to her old friend Trump who are both unknowingly conspiring to provide an assist of a lifetime.

"First Shall Be Last" Leaves Media Mad At Hillary

The last shall be first and the first shall be last.

No, this isn't about religion, God, church or even anything particularly spiritual.  This is nothing more than the approach that Hillary has taken as she works to pursue the presidency following an unbeaten trail.  As she skates her way around the travails of campaigns, it might be worth investigating if the Clinton foundation has enough global connection to engineer earthquakes in Nepal, train wrecks in Philly and meltdown's in L.A., taking the spotlight off of Hillary and confirming that the Clippers are still just the Clippers. Stop smiling Donald Sterling!

Today's non-Hillary news cycle tells about a 'Son's of Anarchy' like flash mob shootout in Texas in which 9 people died at the scene, with 18 others hospitalized. Meanwhile back in the newsroom, every news person has their eyes locked on television sets wondering who will be the FIRST network to get the Hillary exclusive, or will Hillary continue to stiff the media who keeps insisting that she can't get away with such an approach....can she?

In the past, being the first was a really big deal in the news business.  Not a whole lot has changed in regard to gaining exclusive interviews, but a lot has changed as it relates to access.  When the news media was the only method for getting your message delivered, the demand of catering to their invasive behavior loomed large.  Now that Obama's Hope message (and internet approach towards delivery) Changed the game of politics, Hillary is following his lead and refining the model as well.

At Last!

Has month's of negative news actually
worked in the favor of Hillary Clinton?

Obama was the first to take his message to the average Joe or JoAnn when he began granting interviews to non-traditional media sources- the last if you will- after long absences from traditional media outlets.  Lately, unless you are a presidential candidate with common desperation for traditional media outlets. it seems the last might be the first and the most likely connection that Hillary (our next POTUS frontrunner) makes with America during her campaign. As the traditional news reporters are watching the TV universe, the exclusive is more likely to first appear on Twitter'verse.  Even the emails from her private server won't be released until 2016, a pace that the State Department will now dictate removing her from control of the release or culpability with further delay.

Who's To Blame?

News rooms with multiple screens blaring multiple news sources all at once are just as culpable to the demise of American politics as the proliferation of dirty money, especially in the eyes of Hillary who is pointing her admonition in both directions.  When you keep a watch on the news like news reporters do, there becomes a certain inevitability to certain proceedings.  Inevitably, all politicians have to endure the heat from the media as their litmus test of viability and their access to the news cycle. Except Hillary.  Whether she wants the exposure or not, only death and disaster can pull her from the top of every news program.

Yesterday, according to her liking and planning, Hillary gave a few reporters an opportunity at a few questions, just so she can place perfectly contained and packaged messages on Iraq and her emails into the recent news cycle. Unlike several republican presidential candidates recently, Hillary did not struggle to deliver a concise message that will calm the flames from reporter's burning to put the heat on Hillary. Every question had a thorough and concise response that will replay like magic for the guaranteed soundbites that news stations need from Hillary.

Hillary has never struggled in the face of media, but this Hillary is seemingly content and intent on changing the way we do politics in America which includes finishing the immigration problem once and for all.  Since Hispanic America will soon dictate a lot politically, a president who is truly prepared to win a general election without a plan for immigration is somewhat laughable. Only Jeb Bush seems to be aware of the joke so many republicans are making of their candidacy while trying to establish a platform of second class citizenship for immigrants.  Tracking back to the center on immigration after the primary is a dead tactic that will not survive the voting booth if pro-immigration voters are leery of a president who is not supportive of our nation for immigrants.

For all of our social flaws, too many reasonable people remain in America for unreasonable presidents to get elected anymore. The presidential press core has relegated themselves into the category of unreasonably desperate to be first instead of being fair or accurate and not appearing angry simply because of lack of access.  In the news business, if you can't get the first interview, you try to be the first to cause a fumble, which is the ultimate goal of every news station that chases after exclusive interviews and exclusive sound bites in the first place.  YouTube and Twitter don't allow for question and answer, and are simply not exclusive enough for the mainstream media to control the message or ruffle the messenger.  Hillary has decided that her need for notoriety is not the same as her need to share a message, which can be done these days via YouTube or Twitter.  She has all the notoriety a presidential candidate could need. However, if she was short on notoriety, her current posture of conscientious dissent against the media is indirectly giving her more media coverage than she could have otherwise dreamed of.

John Podesta; The man behind Obama is now
behind Hillary Clinton too. Is he too powerful?

Every word she speaks now becomes instant lead off news just as her silence has been as well.  When she needs to make definitive statements on important matters of significance, she does it in the midst of a scheduled event (rather presidential if you ask me) and keeps it moving without questions. News outlets that continue to anger themselves with not being the first, seem the last to recognize how they are being used as a tool for the Clinton's, of the Clinton's and by the Clinton's, who have enough support in the media realm to absorb the saliva from the wolves, hungry to get any taste of Hillary that they can, even a subordinate if necessary.

Hillary will probably duke it out with Jeb in the finals, but no one will ever throw political punches quite the way Hillary is throwing them right now.  Call her the Mayweather of politics if you will because her approach is totally defensive.  Thanks to Obama, she won't have the unblemished record of Mayweather, but she also won't have the main political opponent capable of beating her in the way either, since he's retiring under limited terms and seems poised to support Hillary's campaign.  Left in Obama's wake is a manner of politicking that Hillary has observed closely.  In some ways, she and Bill helped to shape the Obama doctrine that will gain a New Testament if Hillary continues with her coronation.

In fact, whether she wins or not, Hillary is already forcing anyone who hopes to beat her to adopt or counter the kind of change that potentially remakes our game called politics, since campaign finance reform, immigration, wage disparity and now drug addictions are all hot button Hillary issues.  For that, she's won already.

Whatever she's doing to the media right now is purely a bonus.

Hillary Is The Consummate Politician. Is That Her Achilles Heel?

Hard Choices and Stupid Decisions?
Is Hillary talking too much.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are en route to Martha's Vineyard to celebrate the birthday of Vernon Jordan's wife. Tensions have seemingly mounted recently among these families as Hillary continues to posture herself for a presidential bid. Part of that posturing included a denunciation of Obama's Iraq engagement, especially with the recent actions to send troops and military support back to the region.

My prediction is a lip kissing selfie.  What better way for Hillary to put to bed the criticism that she is getting for criticizing her former boss over Iraq.  As easy as it would be to dive into the inner workings of the Clinton-Obama relationship, I don't think it matters much.  Democrats remain united when it comes time to voting, and even if Clinton doesn't need Obama's presence, she will need his endorsement.  In reality, Obama needs Hillary too.  Losing the presidency in 2016 to the republicans will be more of an indictment on Obama's tenure than anything else.  Winning gives his signature legislation, Obamacare, a better chance of surviving a jilted congress still eager to gain a significant win over Obama.  Repealing his healthcare law gains revived energy if Republicans win the white house.

If my lip smacking selfie prediction holds true, it will testify to the necessity of Obama in Clinton's campaign calculations.  If calculations are the essence of the Clinton way, then Hillary might be proving herself the mastermind of this family.  Somehow, the Clinton's find a way to be on everybody's side, even Republicans when necessary, and that politically pragmatic penchant has now become a signature of their family; like a fragrance from someone familiar that tells of their coming or of their recent departure.

If the Clinton's were that cool uncle who still wears Brut by Faberge, then we might not be so annoyed with their odor.  For some reason their stench is no longer pleasant to the nostrils anymore.  They are starting to remind me of that sanitary hospital smell.  You are happy to smell it when you need the benefits and cleanliness of a hospital, but if you stay too long, the dirty smell of natural air provides a familiar comfort.

The Clinton's, especially Hillary, are way too sanitized.  Something so clean can be appreciated, but its unrealistic in a world full of germs.  If you eat 7 course meals with the elite for too long, something in your DNA will eventually long for an outdoor barbecue complete with flies and the 3 second rule on food that falls in the grass.

Hillary isn't unique in her political calculations, but she might be calculating the wrong numbers on this one.  The old America appreciated the Queen of Kings, Hillary Clinton.  Today's America needs the kind of leadership that sounds different then what we have heard for the past few years of congressional stagnancy.  Obama has taken the luster away from this historical moment thing anyway. Hillary might inspire a sexist nation to put another social feather in its cap, but she will have to do it being something other than the best  of the same old stuff we've seen for years.

Right now, she is the consummate politician.  Given the rancor associated with that word, this might just be her Achilles heel.  For Hillary to burn a trail to the White House, she will need to behave in a much less common way so that the public doesn't continue to see her as another predictable politician.  In other words, don't prep the public for your presidential bid by undercutting your former boss, just announce early or shut up completely until you do.