Hillary Clinton's strategists have identified Donald Trump's innumerable lies as a major weakness in his campaign for president. They're smart. Trump does lie a lot. He often gets caught lying. Voters want their next president to be trustworthy.
Death is usually a sad event. The passing of a world leader, particularly one who brought stability to a tense part of the Muslim world for several decades, is typically cause for concern.
More than half of the people who managed to score a personal one on one meeting with Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State donated money to the Clinton Foundation, either as an individual or through a company where they worked. "Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million," the Associated Press reported.
Conventional wisdom says Donald Trump is going to lose, and lose big.
Against the wishes of her New York Democratic constituents, Hillary Clinton voted with Senate Republicans to invade Iraq. (It was a pivotal vote. Without Democratic support, George W. Bush's request for this war of aggression would have failed.)
Hillary Clinton's strategy for the general election is to try to peel away anti-Trump Republicans. That's why we are seeing her move to the right.
After years of no one -- at least not the white people who control the media -- giving a damn about what happens to black people at the hands of white cops, suddenly the terrible relationship between people and the police is a huge problem.
Who are you going to believe: us, or your lying eyes? That's the good word from Democratic Party powers that be and their transcribers in the corporate media, in response to the "allegations" by Bernie Sanders supporters that the nomination was stolen by Hillary Clinton.
At this writing, securities markets and the international community are reeling at the news that British voters have opted to leave the European Union. The "Brexit" has provoked angry reactions from the pro-Remain camp, who accuse Leave voters of stupidity, shortsighted ignorance and, worse, thinly-disguised racism and nativism posing as nationalism.
What is wrong with Americans?
OK, that's a very open-ended question with many potential answers.
Unless you follow politics closely, you could be forgiven for thinking that Hillary Clinton has locked up the Democratic presidential nomination. This is not true. She still doesn't have the requisite number of delegates. That could, and probably will, happen next month when her lead in superdelegates puts her over the top at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia -- when the superdelegates actually, you know, cast their actual votes.
Though it might not always seem like it, the news media is composed of human beings. Humans aren't, can't be and possibly shouldn't be objective. Still, there's a reasonable expectation among consumers of political news that journalists of all political stripes strive to be as objective as possible.
After an election season in which nothing they predicted came true -- their confidence that Donald Trump would never be the Republican nominee comes to mind -- you'd think our losing-streak corporate pundits would be reluctant to underestimate Trump's chance of winning the presidency in November.
Hey, Bernie supporters: Hillary has a talking point for you.
Thomas Frank made a splash a decade ago with a bestseller called "What's the Matter With Kansas?" In his book, Frank attempted to answer the question: why do so many Americans -- working-class Americans -- vote against their economic and social interests -- i.e., Republican?
"New York Times" headline, April 12: "Donald Trump, Losing Ground, Tries to Blame the System."
The fight between Apple and the FBI has been framed as an epic battle between big tech and big government. Apple, says the Obama Administration, is siding with "its business model and public brand marketing strategy" ahead of public safety. That's not it, says Apple CEO Tim Cook. He says his company is "a staunch advocate for our customers' privacy and personal safety."
Could the clash between Clintonian "realism" and Sandersian "idealism" come down to personal history?
Late last year, I interviewed Bernie Sanders while working on my biography, "Bernie." I asked him if he planned to reduce the defense budget if elected president. "We will take a hard look at that," he told me, agreeing that there's an awful lot of bloat in America's military spending that ought to be cut.
Last week, I handicapped the Bernie Sanders campaign. He since pulled off an upset in the Iowa Caucus, where he overcame a 40-point lead by Hillary Clinton to a virtual tie so even that coin tosses and bureaucratic incompetence may have made a difference.
