My must read of they day is “Clinton would get Iowa caucus votes, but Elizabeth Warren also a contender,” in the Des Moines Register.
“We can fix these problems,” Paul Ryan tells me. He’s referring to the sluggish economy, the rising cost of living, broken immigration and health care systems, burdensome regulations, and stifling tax code. What would it take? The Republican Party has to win the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016.
The U.S. military is developing a high-tech exoskeleton that would allow mobility-challenged individuals to perform everyday tasks with little to no effort, the Washington Post reports. The news is yet another indication that elderly homeowner Hillary Clinton will run for president in 2016.
The so-called FORTIS suit, developed by Lockheed Martin, is being touted as “human augmentation for the 21st century,” and promises to increase strength, endurance, and productivity. According to the Lockheed website:
FORTIS exoskeleton transfers loads through the exoskeleton to the ground in standing or kneeling positions and allows operators to use heavy tools as if they were weightless. An advanced ergonomic design moves naturally with the body and adapts to different body types and heights. Using the Equipois zeroG® arm, operators can effortlessly hold objects up to 36 pounds, increasing productivity by reducing muscle fatigue and avoiding muscle injury.
A mere 19 days after the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., Hillary Clinton has decided to weigh in, something liberal pundits have been urging her to do for some time. In other words, Clinton’s political team has finally concluded its focus group on the issue.
Hillary Clinton offers a statement on Michael Brown and Ferguson. 19 days later. Next she’ll offer her thoughts on Rodney King and Vietnam.
— Marc Lamont Hill (@marclamonthill) August 28, 2014
Clinton took a brave stance against tragedy, offering bold declarations, such as: “Nobody wants to see our streets look like a war zone, not in America.” The timing of the remarks—just as the media was beginning to acknowledge the Russian invasion of Ukraine—was interesting, as was the venue.
On Wednesday, Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal blaming the United States for the rise of the terrorist group known as the Islamic State, while taking shots at “interventionists” like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well “hawkish members” of the Republican Party.
Beyond that, it is unclear what Paul is trying to argue, as the op-ed is only semi-coherent. As best I can tell, he is suggesting that U.S. policymakers talking about military intervention in Syria, and then ultimately deciding against it, is a major reason why ISIS came to power. Or something. He also comes out in favor of having both foresight and hindsight.
Paul’s column invited a lot of predictable criticism, but it was also trashed by an unlikely source: