Donald Trump Is Going To Be Elected; Huffington Post, 8/21/16

Michael Rosenblum, Huffington Post; Donald Trump Is Going To Be Elected:

"And Donald Trump is great TV.

He knows how to entertain.

He understands ratings.

Hillary Clinton is crap TV.

She may be smarter, better prepared, a better politician. It won’t matter. She is terrible entertainment.

That’s just how it is. Depressing, but true.

He is Kim Kardashian. She is Judy Woodruff.

Who gets better ratings?

Who would you rather watch for the next four years?

Honestly...

In 1825, the great French gastronom Brillat de Savarind said, “tell me what you eat and I will tell you what you are”. Today, in America, we can safely say, “tell me what you watch and I will tell you what you are”.

And what do we watch?

It isn’t The PBS Newshour."

Hillary Clinton’s Ethics Problems Are Worse Than She Understands; New York Magazine, 8/19/16

Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine; Hillary Clinton’s Ethics Problems Are Worse Than She Understands:

"“Give a man a reputation as an early riser,” said Mark Twain, “and he can sleep ‘til noon.” Hillary Clinton finds herself in the opposite situation: She has a reputation for venality — the merits of which we can set aside momentarily — that forces her to a higher ethical standard. Her inadequate response to the conflicts of interest inherent in the Clinton Foundation show that she is not meeting that standard, and has not fully grasped the severity of her reputational problem."

Is the ‘lesser of two evils’ an ethical choice for voters?; Washington Post, 8/13/16

Travis N. Rieder, Washington Post; Is the ‘lesser of two evils’ an ethical choice for voters? :

'On the first point: If a Trump presidency would be as bad as predicted by claim 1, then failing to vote for the candidate who can stop him is contributing to what will likely be a massive, moral harm. While it’s true that each of us has but one vote to cast, in so casting it, we are participating in a collective action with serious moral consequences, and that makes our actions morally serious.

On the second point: Although voting for a candidate we dislike can feel dirty, my guess is that most of us don’t actually hold the ideal of voting for the very best candidate as a central, guiding commitment. Rather, we see voting as a thing we do, but not something that’s deeply tied to who we are. So voting in a way that feels dirty does not seem to rise to the level of undermining our integrity.

Those who are wrestling with whether to vote for Clinton out of fear of Trump are tapping into something real, then. They are distressed that a threat of bad consequences can undermine their freedom to choose as they please. But it is self indulgent, I would argue, to claim their integrity is on the line. If you believe Trump is a moral disaster, then you may well be obligated to vote for Clinton — even if that means getting your hands a little dirty."

Hillary Clinton’s Tax Return Is a Message to Donald Trump: I Pay, Do You?; Daily Beast, 8/12/16

Jackie Kucinich, Betsy Woodruff, Daily Beast; Hillary Clinton’s Tax Return Is a Message to Donald Trump: I Pay, Do You? :

"In May, Trump bragged to George Stephanopoulous that he fights “very hard to pay as little tax as possible.”

When asked what his tax rate was exactly, Trump responded, “It’s none of your business. You’ll see it when I release. But I fight very hard to pay as little tax as possible.”

But that’s the problem.

Because when your whole message is about this rigged system that is ripping off the average American and your tax forms might show you’ve been doing the same in a completely legal way that—well, to use Trump’s verbiage—could be a disaster."

She’s With Us: The fundamental choice in this election is between Trump’s “I” and Hillary’s “We.”; Slate, 7/29/16

William Saletan, Slate; She’s With Us: The fundamental choice in this election is between Trump’s “I” and Hillary’s “We.” :

"Trump sees the “we” approach as timid and liberal. But Clinton, like Obama, hears echoes of the anti-government message of Ronald Reagan. “Our founders fought a revolution and wrote a Constitution so America would never be a nation where one person had all the power,” Clinton warned. Obama, in his speech to the convention, issued a similar rebuke: “Our power doesn’t come from some self-declared savior promising that he alone can restore order as long as we do things his way. We don’t look to be ruled.”

Framed this way, the election isn’t a choice between Trump and Clinton. It’s a choice between authoritarianism and self-government, between a man and a team. Clinton can’t match Trump’s ego, and she doesn’t have to. She just has to offer a better alternative. The alternative is a different conception of the presidency, one that’s less imperial but gets more done. It’s less about the president and more about us. The choice isn’t left versus right, or him versus her. It’s Trump versus America."

Clinton’s Fibs vs. Trump’s Huge Lies; New York Times, 8/6/16

Nicholas Kristof, New York Times; Clinton’s Fibs vs. Trump’s Huge Lies:

"ONE persistent narrative in American politics is that Hillary Clinton is a slippery, compulsive liar while Donald Trump is a gutsy truth-teller.

Over all, the latest CBS News poll finds the public similarly repulsed by each candidate: 34 percent of registered voters say Clinton is honest and trustworthy compared with 36 percent for Trump.

Yet the idea that they are even in the same league is preposterous. If deception were a sport, Trump would be the Olympic gold medalist; Clinton would be an honorable mention at her local Y.

Let’s investigate."

Why Are The Media Obsessed With Trump's Controversies And Not Clinton's?; NPR, 8/11/16

Ron Elving, NPR; Why Are The Media Obsessed With Trump's Controversies And Not Clinton's? :

"The question is repeated in one form or another millions of times a day in social media and random conversation. It comes primarily from the backers of Donald Trump, but also from others — including the simply curious:

Why are the media obsessed with Trump's controversies and not Clinton's?"

Ethicists: Clinton team violated ‘spirit’ of pledge; Politico, 8/11/16

Katy O'Donnell, Politico; Ethicists: Clinton team violated ‘spirit’ of pledge:

"Ethicists tended to agree that while there may be no evidence of a deliberate violation of Clinton’s pledge, the emails underscored the blurry lines between the globe-spanning charity and Clinton’s work as the nation’s top diplomat.

“The Clinton Foundation was taking money from anybody who would give it, and the biggest contributions were from people who had business before the State Department,” said Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen.

“They didn’t follow the pledge. … I don’t think anyone in the foundation sought to deliberately violate the pledge, I just don’t think they cared about it,” he added."

Do menacing comments about Hillary Clinton cross the First Amendment line?; Washington Post, 8/10/16

James Hoefler, Washington Post; Do menacing comments about Hillary Clinton cross the First Amendment line? :

"Did Trump cross the First Amendment line with his comments? We look for guidance to the Supreme Court’s most recent case to test the limits of this sort of speech: Brandenburg v. Ohio. In that 1969 decision, the court set forth a three-part test to determine the contours of First Amendment sanctuary: Was criminal action (1) intended, (2) imminent and (3) likely?...

We all celebrate the First Amendment and its broad protections of speech, as egregious and unpresidential as that language might sometimes seem. But all political liberties come with limits, and a case could be made that Trump’s brutal entreaties have exceeded that limit. Should he continue to exhort violence at his rallies, it may be his own legal defense needs, rather than those of his followers, that he will need to worry about."

 How False Equivalence Is Distorting the 2016 Election Coverage; The Nation, 6/2/16

Eric Alterman, The Nation; How False Equivalence Is Distorting the 2016 Election Coverage:

" Journalistic abdications of responsibility are always harmful to democracy, but reporters and pundits covering the 2016 campaign will be doing the public a particularly grave disservice if they continue to draw from the “both sides” playbook in the months leading up to the November election. Now that Donald Trump has emerged as the presumptive Republican nominee for president, some simple facts about him and his campaign should be stated clearly and repeatedly, not obfuscated or explained away or leavened into click bait. Trump is a pathological liar and conspiracy theorist, a racist, misogynist, and demagogic bully with a phantasmagoric policy platform and dangerously authoritarian instincts. Hillary Clinton’s flaws and failures are many, and they should not be discounted, either. But they are of an entirely different order. Love her or hate her, at least we don’t have to wonder whether she believes in democracy. When it comes to sane and even semi-sensible policy proposals for America’s future in the 2016 presidential election, there is only one side."

Trump Is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism; New York Times, 8/7/16

Jim Rutenberg, New York Times; Trump Is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism:

"If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.

But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?"

Trump in trouble over 'Second Amendment' remark; Politico, 8/9/16

louis Nelson, Politico; Trump in trouble over 'Second Amendment' remark:

"Donald Trump on Tuesday said "the Second Amendment people" may be the only way to stop Hillary Clinton from getting to appoint federal judges if she wins the presidential election in November.

“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment,” he said as an aside while smiling. “By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.”"

I Ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton.; New York Times, 8/5/16

Michael J. Morell, New York Times; I Ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton. :

"In sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump has no experience on national security. Even more important, the character traits he has exhibited during the primary season suggest he would be a poor, even dangerous, commander in chief.

These traits include his obvious need for self-aggrandizement, his overreaction to perceived slights, his tendency to make decisions based on intuition, his refusal to change his views based on new information, his routine carelessness with the facts, his unwillingness to listen to others and his lack of respect for the rule of law.

The dangers that flow from Mr. Trump’s character are not just risks that would emerge if he became president. It is already damaging our national security."

‘Stronger together’ vs. ‘I alone can fix it’, Boston Globe, 7/29/16

Michael A. Cohen, Boston Globe; ‘Stronger together’ vs. ‘I alone can fix it’ :

"Thursday night at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Hillary Clinton did not deliver the best address of this convention or even the runner-up. Instead she gave a solid, substance-laden, and highly effective acceptance speech to her fellow Democrats. It never reached the rhetorical flights of fancy achieved by Obama the night before — but it didn’t need to. Clinton delivered rhetorical shot after rhetorical shot to Donald Trump as she laid out a clear vision for her presidency. She offered the nation an unabashedly liberal agenda — one surely intended to appeal to Bernie Sanders supporters — but in its wonkish, populist tone was eerily reminiscent of political speeches once delivered by her husband. She fully embraced the diverse and multicultural society America has become. But above all, she did the one thing that she and her party absolutely needed to do this week in Philadelphia — make clear the stark political contrasts between Clinton and Trump for the general election to come.

“Stronger together’’ has become the theme of Clinton’s campaign. In a country with the motto epluribus unum, out of many one — it’s an idea that would have resonance in any presidential race."

How the DNC Is Subtly Rebuking Donald Trump’s Mockery of a Disabled Reporter; Slate, 7/26/16

Ruth Graham, Slate; How the DNC Is Subtly Rebuking Donald Trump’s Mockery of a Disabled Reporter:

"It is worth contrasting Trump’s casual cruelty with the tone the DNC has set on disability issues so far. On Monday, disability rights advocate Anastasia Somoza delivered a powerful speech in which she said she felt sorry for Trump. “I honestly feel bad for anyone with that much hate in their heart,” she said. “Donald Trump doesn’t see me, he doesn’t hear me, and he definitely doesn’t speak for me.” Somoza, who has cerebral palsy and spastic quadriplegia, delivered her talk from a wheelchair to the roars of an approving crowd.

In his keynote speech on Tuesday, Bill Clinton acknowledged Somoza in the audience as he talked about his wife’s early work on equal educational access for children with disabilities. Hillary “never made fun of people with disabilities,” he said, alluding not-so-subtly to her opponent. “She tried to empower them based on their abilities.”

On Tuesday, the 26th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act, several other disabled people took the stage in Philadelphia to share their stories."

The DNC Hack Is Watergate, but Worse; Slate, 7/26/16

Franklin Foer, Slate; The DNC Hack Is Watergate, but Worse:

"What’s galling about the WikiLeaks dump is the way in which the organization has blurred the distinction between leaks and hacks. Leaks are an important tool of journalism and accountability. When an insider uncovers malfeasance, he brings information to the public in order to stop the wrongdoing. That’s not what happened here. The better analogy for these hacks is Watergate. To help win an election, the Russians broke into the virtual headquarters of the Democratic Party. The hackers installed the cyber-version of the bugging equipment that Nixon’s goons used—sitting on the DNC computers for a year, eavesdropping on everything, collecting as many scraps as possible. This is trespassing, it’s thievery, it’s a breathtaking transgression of privacy. It falls into that classic genre, the dirty trick. Yet that term feels too innocent to describe the offense. Nixon’s dirty tricksters didn’t mindlessly expose the private data of low-level staff."

Michelle Obama delivers a passionate defense of Hillary Clinton; Washington Post, 7/25/16

Krissah Thompson and Ed O'Keefe, Washington Post; Michelle Obama delivers a passionate defense of Hillary Clinton:

"Obama did not mention Donald Trump by name, but she had a pointed critique of the Republican nominee.

“When you have the nuclear codes at your fingertips and the military in your command, you can’t make snap decisions. You can’t have a thin skin or a tendency to lash out. You need to be steady and measured and well informed," Obama said...

“When they go low, we go high,” she said, repeating a mantra she heard as a child.

She delivered a passionate defense of Hillary Clinton — touting her “lifelong devotion to our nation’s children -- not just her own daughter – who she has raised to perfection, but every child who needs a champion.”...

"“When I think about the kind of president I want for my girls and for all children, that’s who I want,” Obama added. “I want someone with the proven strength to persevere. Someone who knows this job and takes it seriously. Someone who understands that the issues that a president tackles are not black or white and cannot be boiled down to 140 characters.”...

“I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves. And I’ve watched my daughters, two beautiful intelligent black young women, playing with their dogs on the White House lawn. And because of Hillary Clinton, my daughters and all of our sons and daughters, now take for granted that a woman can be president of the United States,” she said."

How Trump attacks the media, and why that distorts reality; New York Times, 7/24/16

Margaret Sullivan, New York Times; How Trump attacks the media, and why that distorts reality:

"In this presidential race, falsehoods by both candidates aren’t hard to find. And yes, both candidates deserve to be called out — consistently, clearly, determinedly. But they aren’t close to equal. The nonpartisan PolitiFact project found that Trump’s untruths during the campaign have far outpaced Clinton’s. When it checked questionable statements, it rated 60 percent of Trump’s as false, as opposed to 13 percent of Clinton’s.

Trump’s charge that the mainstream media has hidden Clinton’s misdeeds — or “edited out” the truth from news reports — is another one of his falsehoods. There’s no more evidence of this than of the “thousands and thousands” of Muslims cheering 9/11 in Jersey City — or of his early opposition to the invasion of Iraq."

Both Sides Now?; New York Times, 7/18/16

Paul Krugman, New York Times; Both Sides Now? :

"And in the last few days we’ve seen a spectacular demonstration of bothsidesism in action: an op-ed article from the incoming and outgoing heads of the White House Correspondents’ Association, with the headline “Trump, Clinton both threaten free press.” How so? Well, Mr. Trump has selectively banned news organizations he considers hostile; he has also, although the op-ed didn’t mention it, attacked both those organizations and individual reporters, and refused to condemn supporters who, for example, have harassed reporters with anti-Semitic insults.

Meanwhile, while Mrs. Clinton hasn’t done any of these things, and has a staff that readily responds to fact-checking questions, she doesn’t like to hold press conferences. Equivalence!

Stung by criticism, the authors of the op-ed issued a statement denying that they had engaged in “false equivalency” — I guess saying that the candidates are acting “similarly” doesn’t mean saying that they are acting similarly. And they once again refused to indicate which candidate was behaving worse.

As I said, bothsidesism isn’t new, and it has always been an evasion of responsibility. But taking the position that “both sides do it” now, in the face of this campaign and this candidate, is an act of mind-boggling irresponsibility."

Can Hillary Clinton overcome her trust problem?; Washington Post, 7/3/16

Anne Gearan, Washington Post; Can Hillary Clinton overcome her trust problem? :

"“The hardest thing is vouching. When you vouch for them you say ‘I’m putting my reputation on the line. I believe this person is a good person, has character,” Biden said in the interview for NPR’s “Weekend Edition.” “You’re putting your rep on the line. You’re saying, ‘I think this person has character,’ and that’s what I’m prepared to do for Hillary.”

Character is exactly Clinton’s trouble spot, according to polls that have charted an increase in the number of people who say they don’t like and don’t trust her as the campaign has marched ahead...

“The campaign trail is just not designed to help her with her trust issues,” said Patti Solis Doyle, who managed the first portion of Clinton’s failed 2008 presidential campaign and is now a prominent supporter.

“Having said that, I think it is important for her to acknowledge that she has trust issues and to tell voters that she will work to earn their trust,” she added. “It shows that she is in tune with the public and can recognize her flaws. This is not something she would have done in ’08. Voters appreciate the honesty and self-reflection.”"