Clinton: Tech Revolution Has Become Weaponized

13 Comments

1. 

   Arthur Gilroy on May 31, 2017 at 7:47 pm

   What? She just noticed!!!??? Scarred for life by bllions of bits and bytes?

   Hell…there were times during the campaign when she seemed to be  trying to commit suicide by bit packet!!! (The live “deploarables” and “public and private” things particularly.)

   This is just another excuse for losing. The fact of the matter is that she was not yet up to the challenge of the digital world. Not nearly as ready as was Trump, who himself is basically just a digital image of a man. There have been all kinds of stories up recently about how his disjointed sentence structures are a symptom of age-realated brain degeneration, that he at one time was actually very clear as a speaker and could put together quite complex sentence structures that were both grammatically correct and also easy to understand. I disagree. I think that he has so embraced the digital world that he has to some degree become “digitized” himself.

   He speaks Twitter with the best of them. He even thinks in Twitter now.

   He’s the first political cyborg.

   He’s fooled everybody!!!

   

   AG

2. 

   Marie3 on May 31, 2017 at 8:22 pm

   [Hillary] “I take responsibiltiy for every decsion that i make, but that’s not why I lost.”

   “Q: why did u speak with Goldman?
   A: They paid me.”

   On Russian interference in the election: “The Russians in my opinion could not have known how best to weaponize that information unless they had been guided by Americans.”

   On who was directing Russian interference: “I’m leaning Trump.”

   • 

     Marie3 on May 31, 2017 at 11:16 pm

     “I set up my campaign, and we have our own data operation,” said Clinton. “I get the nomination. So I’m now the nominee of the Democratic party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic party. I mean, it was bankrupt. It was on the verge of insolvency. Its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it.”

     hmm.  The Democratic party poobahs had nothing to do with Clinton getting the nominations.  Some might see that differently.  

     Odd that I can’t find Bill & Hill donations to the DNC.

     • 

       Marie3 on June 1, 2017 at 3:17 pm

       Andrew Therriault is one that disagrees. But you’ll have to go to WaPo or Heavy dot com to see what he said because he’s deleted his tweets.

       btw — it was announced on 5/25/16 that he was leaving the DNC for a job with the City of Boston (a job that he appears to like very much) and (iirc) he left the DNC on 6/15/16.

       • 

         Oui on June 1, 2017 at 4:56 pm

         Ex-DNC aide hits back hard at Clinton, says her campaign ignored data on Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin | WaPo |

         A top former DNC aide tweeted overnight that Clinton’s allegations were “f‑‑‑ing bulls‑‑‑” and even suggested that the Clinton campaign ignored its warnings about how competitive Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were. Those three states proved decisive for President Trump and, especially in the case of Michigan and Wisconsin, were neglected by the Clinton campaign.

         In a Wednesday appearance at Recode’s Code Conference in California, Clinton pointed to the DNC’s data deficit when she became the Democratic nominee.

         “I set up my campaign and we have our own data operation. I get the nomination. So I’m now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party,” Clinton said, according to a transcript. “I mean it was bankrupt, it was on the verge of insolvency, its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it — the DNC — to keep it going.”

   • 

     Oui on June 1, 2017 at 5:10 pm

     Recode interview – transcript

     Mossberg: Okay, I want to do one more of these misjudgement things and then we’re going to go on. Goldman Sachs.

     Yeah.

     Mossberg: You knew you were going to run for president, or you thought you might, or probably, you were thinking about it — you had to be thinking about it as a possibility — why did you do those?

     Why do you have Goldman Sachs here? [laughter]

     Swisher: Because they pay us.

     They paid me [laughter and applause]. You know, look, again …

     Mossberg: Let’s get serious …

     But …

     Mossberg: I know they paid you …

     Yes.

     Mossberg: And they paid you a lot.

     Yes, yes.

     Mossberg: But you’re not somebody who needed that money for the next week’s shopping, and you knew you might run, so why do it?

     Well, I gave speeches to many, many groups. I spoke to camp counselors, I spoke to health-care executives, I spoke to, you know, just a wide range of groups, right? And not just in the United States but particularly in Canada and a few other places.

     And I was a Senator from New York. I knew these people and I knew what they did for the economy and I knew what they did to the economy. And I think that speaking to them, raising questions — which I did in 2008 and 2009 — you know, people have no reason to know this, but in the 2008 campaign before the Iowa caucus, I actually ran an ad about the looming mortgage crisis. So I have to say, Walt, I never thought that anybody would throw out my entire career of standing up and speaking out and voting against and voting in favor of what I thought are good policies, because I made a couple of speeches. When you’re the Secretary of State, people want to hear what you talk about. The most common thing that I talked about in all those speeches was the hunt for Bin Laden. You know, that was one of the central missions that I felt from the time the towers fell on 9/11 as a Senator from New York.

     And to be part of that, to be one of the very few people advising the president on that, that was a fascinating issue. And I thought I could tell that to a lot of different people, and you know, men got paid for the speeches they made. I got paid for the speeches I made. And it was used, and I thought it was unfairly used and all of that, but it was part of the background music.  

     ○ In secret Goldman Sachs speeches, Clinton explains why the rich should rule | WSWS – Oct. 2016 |
     ○ How Goldman Sachs Helped Greece to Mask its True Debt | Der Spiegel – Feb. 2010 |

   • 

     oaguabonita on June 2, 2017 at 10:08 pm
3. 

   Oui on June 1, 2017 at 7:50 am

   Feminist critic Camille Paglia: ‘Merkel is an important role model for mature women’ | DW |

   In one of your essays for “Time” magazine, you described Angela Merkel as “the best model for aspiring women politicians.” What did you mean by that?

   What I have always admired about Angela Merkel is her ability to project confident leadership while also maintaining her naturalness and spontaneity as a real person with a rich personal life. She gardens, she cooks, she loves both sports and opera!

   ○ Merkel Becomes Fourth Woman Since 1927 to be Named Person of the Year (2015)

   The contrast to Hillary Clinton as a public figure is immense. Hillary lives like a darkly brooding Marie Antoinette, barricaded behind her wealth and security guards. She seems to have no hobbies and few interests, aside from her pursuit of money and power.

   Every public appearance is carefully scripted in advance for maximum publicity. She is stiff and guarded, incapable of improvisation, which is why she held virtually no press conferences at all during her presidential campaign.

   Everything she does or says is researched and poll-tested by an army of hired sycophants. A recent book, “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign,” has revealed that even the top managers of Hillary’s own presidential campaign were often unable to speak to her directly. Everyone had to go through her chic courtier and major-domo, Huma Abedin.

   I love the way that Angela Merkel is completely content to look exactly her age. She has a relaxation, a comfort within her own skin, without all the glamorous, artificial interventions of Hillary’s fancy cosmetics, luxury hair styling, and expensive designer clothing. I regard Merkel as an important role model not simply as a politician but as a mature woman of the world.

   It must be emphasized that I am not in any way evaluating Angela Merkel’s policy decisions, where there is reason for controversy, notably about immigration. However, in my view, Merkel has achieved the most successful persona yet for a modern woman politician: She is steely and pugnacious in conflict, yet she exudes warmth and humor, an ease with ordinary human life.  

   My first diary about Chanvellor Merkel in 2006 …

   ○ Amazing Chancellor Angela Merkel :: Takes Germans By Pleasant Surprise

   • 

     esquimaux on June 1, 2017 at 11:27 am

     I understand that some people hate Hillary Clinton enough to appreciate this stuff, but damn what a load of shit.

     I don’t think you can get much lower than discussing her clothes and hair and makeup.

     • 

       Marie3 on June 1, 2017 at 3:02 pm

       Has Trump’s hair, weight, and ridiculously long ties been off limits?

       • 

         Arthur Gilroy on June 1, 2017 at 9:44 pm

         Yeah but…he’s a man!!! (Ostensibly heterosexual, at that.)

         It’s ok to mock his clothing choices and physique!!! Heterosexual males are the bad guys!!!

         What…you didn’t get the memo???

         AG

     • 

       Marie3 on June 1, 2017 at 3:20 pm

       Should add that I don’t think that I’ve ever agreed with Paglia and that includes this latest from her.

       • 

         oaguabonita on June 2, 2017 at 10:05 pm

         link