Would be VP, Sen Tim Kaine has been signing letters to regulators that…
“Kaine, by contrast, is setting himself up as a figure willing to do battle with the progressive wing of the party. He has championed the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal that both Sanders and Warren oppose, and he is now publicly siding with bank deregulation advocates at the height of Clinton’s veepstakes. …”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tim-kaine-clinton-vp_us_578fc8e3e4b0bdddc4d2c86c
Kaine is part of the conservative Democratic tradition that he rode to the VA governorship on the back of Warner’s political machine from the DC suburbs (since defunct). He was lackluster as DNC chair and, like Warner, pro big business. As Hillary is also big business friendly, if Kaine is chosen, then we will have the Moderate Republican Rockefeller/Romney admin we missed in 2012.
The mood of the country, rightfully, is anti-Establishment and a Clinton/Kaine ticket would be as about as Establishment as possible. Goes to show how important a Progressive caucus in a Democratic Senate is.
R
I think he’ll be the vp pick; NYTimes today cites that HRC wants someone w FP creds. just for the record, I never thought she’d take Warren.
What FP credentials does Kaine have? He’s only been a Senator since 2013.
l’d counsel that you shouldn’t rush to judgement based on this particular circumstance; and l am definitely not defending tim kaine, as l do not particularly care for the man or his positions.
lt feels very much, imho, like a red herring…red meat…chum…whatever you may wish to call it, to roil the waters. ymmv
l also agree that warren will not be chosen either, primarily because l do not believe she would accept. at any rate, you’ve not long to wait until the plot of the HRC campaign is fully limned.
Perhaps he’s auditioning. Vilsack may be doing the same but behind more closed doors.
Couldn’t he just punch a hippie?
Give him time. Didn’t hurt Obama when Rahm threw a few punches.
Two male Catholic abortion squishes? Jeebus.
Monsanto Vilsack to go with Ukraine’s upcoming great adventure?
Hope the VP will not be suggesting Supreme Court nominees.
What Vilsack may be doing behind closed doors is disturbing me.
Now that he’s out for VP, he’s probably doing the same thing he’s been doing for the past few years. Something, something good for Tom, his Democratic buddies, and whoever pays them this week.
On paper Kaine is enough younger than HRC to make it look like a better choice than the others under consideration. Not too young and not too old.
Optics: He’s balding and therefore, won’t make HRC look old. He’s shorter and pudgier than some of the others and that will make her not look short and fat. Don’t laugh or scoff — not possible that all of this hasn’t been put through HRC’s brain trust.
speaking of which, is anyone else getting tired of the white-bride’s dress look for female personages, pioneered by Geraldine Ferraro? I certainly am tired of it. [what’s the word for a visual meme – I’ll think of it, got to be eideme [from greek eidos]
“white bride’s dress look for female personages?” Are you speaking of events other than weddings?
yes, I’m thinking of major political speeches
I’m drawing a blank. Other than the white tent that HRC recently wore.
Weird that you sick of seeing something that I can’t recall having seen at all.
Perhaps you meant this
Poor Melania — copying from Michelle Obama’s speech and Caitlyn Jenner’s dress.
given the centrality of bride tv shows nowadays, in contrast to Ferraro’s day, has even more subtexts. for Melania a re-invention as pure, for Hillary, redefines spotlight away from Bill (“the bride’s day, etc). i liked Melania’s dress a lot actually, bodes well for the campaign trail.
Oh, don’t even get me started on all the women that squeeze themselves into strapless, mermaid wedding dresses costing thousands of dollars they can’t afford. (And can never wear again, won’t be passed down, and mostly can’t be resold because they’ve been altered to fit just that one woman.) They’re like lemmings copying whatever they see wealthy celebrities wear.
You liked those big puffs at the end of Melania’s sleeves? Guess men are less critical of tight and cheap looking than women. At one time, men were more interested in and intrigued by women that left much to the imagination in their dress than those that displayed all. And preferred classy to cheap. Guess times have changed.
You mean Hillary’s white pantsuit for her acceptance speech? Why did she get the good face and flattering outfit for last night? And reserve that suit that made her look short and dumpy for tonight? White isn’t her worst color but not her best either.
Did you catch the speaker that also worse a boring white dress with scrunchies at the end of the sleeves? A clever comment: one wore a cheap copy and the other is a cheap copier.
l think it’s more likely that her vp choice will be more of an outlier, ergo castro…although some may consider him an insider due to his position…may be on the short, short list, or perhaps hickenlooper who’s really outside the beltway.
l won’t speculate beyond that. at any rate, we shall soon see.
Where do so many get that HRC isn’t the very definition of conventional? (Castro, who I don’t think was ever on her short-list, was busted this week for a Hatch act violation and there’s no way the GOP wouldn’t hammer him endlessly on this if he were the VP nominee.)
Hickenlooper is way too tall. And may not be sufficiently indebted to the Clintons for his political career.
With the polls looking a little rough for HRC in PA wouldn’t be surprised if her team isn’t taking a look at Bob Casey. That would cement the state for her and boost the changes for the DEM senate nominee. And Casey’s replacement would be named by a Democratic Governor. Casey has more going for him as HRC’s VP than Kaine –except for one aspect, he’s tall and towers over her.
yeah, he was, and he skated…but height challenged? really?
methinks you’re grasping here marie …but l do find it amusing 🙂
Optics my friend. Exceedingly important on the big stage. Remember this:
really, snoopy dukakis? he didn’t lose in ’88 because bentsen was to tall. they ran a campaign that, politely put, could best be described as a comedy of errors.
perhaps the hrc team is so myopic to believe that height is a real requirement for a running mate but frankly l am not a believer.
lf you know of any less height challenged candidate, please elucidate. otherwise, l’ll assume you’re being facetious.
just to be the devils advocate, let’s look at what hickenlooper would bring to the table:
he was a popular mayor
he’s a popular 2 term governor of a western state that may or may not be in play
a state with legalized marijuana…hello millennials
he’s championed lgbt rights…again, hello millennials
he’s not beholden to the national dem or clinton machines
he’s not an iside the beltway pol
so what he’s tall and a real long shot, but really, what’s not to like?
I’m actually quite serious. What’s the opposite of comedy of errors? Everything, no matter how seemingly small and possibly inconsequential, is controlled to avoid any awkward optics and words.
Team HRC are control freaks and this campaign has actively been their baby for the past three years and nurtured for a decade before that. These people are pros and they know that a ticket that looks, sounds, and acts like a team has an advantage. This has developed over the past several decades with the bar being raised in each presidential electoral cycle as TV has replaced most other media in presidential elections. There are innumerable ways that a ticket can look like two left feet, but many are quite controllable.
I only mention height as a factor because Hollywood figured that one out long ago. The height differential between a leading man and woman (or two leading men or two leading women) is minimized to give the perception of equal substance. When it can’t be done through casting, it’s manipulated in the filming. In political campaigns, the latter isn’t an option. GWB and McCain or their teams knew better than to pair them with a much taller running mate.
Of course, presentation chemistry between the two is more important than a large height difference. And a factor in this is mutual and authentic liking and regard for the partner. That’s one reason why the Obama/Biden team has been so successful and has raised the standard. That didn’t exist for the Gore/Lieberman, Kerry/Edwards, McCain/Palin, and Romney/Ryan tickets. It’s why an Obama/Clinton ticket in ’08 was a no-go, at least for him. You list
he’s not beholden to the national dem or clinton machines
as a plus for HRC’s running mate. I’d say the opposite; it’s a negative for her. She’s not comfortable with those that haven’t passed long-term tests of loyalty. Or those that have fundamental public policy differences with her.
l’m not dissuaded, so it appears we’ll just have to disagree on this particular issue.
like l said earlier, we will soon know what direction hrc will take. this election is now hers to lose…should she do so, it will go down in history as the greatest loss in demoratic history.
hubris and entitlement are not good partners.
I heard once (Public Radio, I think) that in every US Presidential election, the taller candidate won). Interestingly, Bush & Gore are the same height.
Don’t know how true it is. This would make it hard for female candidates, except Warren who looks like a beanpole. And maybe it only works when picking between two males.
I think I’ve heard this about boardrooms also.
That’s not true. (And GWB is/wasn’t 6’0″. More like 5’10”) Generally, over the past century, the relative height differences between the two nominees has been too slight to non-existent to even be postulated as a factor. However, most nominees are taller than the average in the population. No mystery as to why that would be as taller men have an advantage in business and politics and that’s the “talent” pool from which nominees are drawn.
Hillary’s height will not disadvantage her in the general election because we simply don’t use that measure in making comparisons between an individual woman and man and give the taller of the two a preference. If that weren’t true, very few women candidates would have won elective office. Mikulski and Boxer aren’t even 5′. Also, HRC is taller than the average American woman.
However, my comment didn’t concern the relative height differences between opponents but between a two person team. The key is to make it a visual non-factor. Not good to provide constant and difficult to ignore reminders that a candidate is short or shortish. And it’s only one of many factors. Charisma and general physicality and substance can minimize or eliminate an actual and significant height difference. Yet I’ll stand by my opinion that visually more alike than different is optically preferable for a ticket or team.
Thanks for the clarification.
” Mikulski and Boxer aren’t even 5′.” WOW! My Italian grandmother was 4’11” I didn’t know (European) women were that short anymore, although I know Filipina and Korean women that are very short. The Chinese women I know are on the tall side. Black women are all over the map from short to (mostly) tall.
Re “anymore” it seems each generation is taller than the one before for at least three generations now.
Has now mostly leveled off in the US. Child nutritional improvements decade after decade is why we grew taller. Now children (and adults) consume excess calories that have made us wider.
However, high quality nutrition during childhood only maximizes an individual’s gene expression. So, your grandmother’s statue could have been genetic and not nutritional deficits.
“…that have made us wider”
Don’t remind me!
http://www.heightweightnetworth.com/t1175-elizabeth-warren-weight-and-height-size-body-measurements
Not really tall (I have a female cousin over 6 ft). The beanpole look is because she’s emaciated.
5’8″ is four or more inches taller than the average American woman. Warren is also much slimmer than average. She deftly handled the 6’2″ Scott Brown, but so too did Barbara Boxer against her male opponents. (In 1998 her opponent’s campaign did try to make height and issue and it backfired on them.)
More high heels and cowboy boots for Hillary. Limit the number of times she appears onstage with any tall VP candidate.
She would be trashed unmercifully as a pandering if she started showing up in cowboy boots.
Better not to choose a very tall VP nominee than to do so and restrict the number of joint appearances. An unusually low number of joint appearances would be heavily criticized.
The high heels are a no go. HRC still has balance issues.
Trying to imagine Hillary in cowboy boots …
But if she does take your advice Bob, she might as well go for the Tom Mix ten-gallon hat, which would also help to cover up any height deficiencies. While she’s at it, she might as well add the chaps and the spurs too. And learn to use a lasso. And learn to say “Howdy” a lot.
LOL. Your phrasing put that whole image in my head. Much more complete than in ’08 when Obama said that she was trying to act like Annie Oakley.
If any wannabe POTUS knew that something like this was required to win, how many would say, forget it?
yes, could be; they’re getting media attention for actual political concerns, just for media and to contrast with the R circus – which, btw, I sort of still cannot believe still. it’s like some variety show, a devolved Ed Sullivan show, nothing to do with governance except insofar as R governance is always about keeping the man behind the curtain behind the curtain.
With Trump as the ringmaster, I expected no less than a wild and scary circus. (As a kid I thought circuses were sad.)
Ah, yes. Only HRC fans believed that Sanders pushed her to the left. Kaine will be to Hillary what Agnew was to Nixon.
Kaine will make it easy not to vote for Clinton.
Kaine in and of himself is not a bad politician. Did OK as Governor, but he had a fair economy and Tobacco Commission money to spread around. Didn’t shine as DNC chair but worked the back rooms competently and probably helped himself for the Senate run. Like HRC, he is fighting against the national mood in his positions and unless there is a 180 degree change, isn’t ready for the National stage this cycle. Maybe 2020? Depends how he handles himself in Congress the next few years. Siding with TPP and banks won’t do him any favors with a nationwide electorate and may bite him on the ass if the progressive mood seeps into the bedroom communities of Fairfax and Loudoun Counties Va. Already evident in the younger electorate of the western Va college towns.
R
Yeah, really like his call to deregulate (the barely regulated) banks. Such a man of the people.
But they’re going to have to work on the optics with these two and avoid poses like this one where Kaine appears dominant.
Kaine appears overfed and possibly hungover. Hillary’s teeth are plainly not real. What “optics” are going to change that? Digital fixes? We are well past “optics,” Marie. What we need is options, and it is beginning to look to me that we are presently flat out of them.
Scylla and Charybdis, Trump and Clinton. Take your choice. We are going to have to go through the strait anyway. There is no turning back. Pray that we survive.
AG
While optics have a role, it is declining with the use of portable devices with small screens as major source of information. They aren’t that important when “viewed” on a 3×5″ screen.
Tweets, FB, comedy shows and channels have greater impact. That a “neutral” national media has been downgraded for a generation was the goal of the GOP. The duplicitous or naïve reporting of Gulf War II was the final nail in that coffin.
As for Scylla and Charybdis, there is no alternate route. Some crew members (policy positions) may have to be sacrificed for the good of the nation. The last time folks tried a “3rd party” we got saddled with W. Trump has no desire to run an Admin, but he would leave it in the hands of culture warriors and Cheney like figures.
R
Oregon wouldn’t have gone for Nader if Gore had turned Left.
Don’t blame the voters for exercising their franchise. Blame the nominating process and Democrats fascination with heirs apparent and coronations.
Lash yourself to the mast.
“Kaine was one of 70 senators who signed a one-page letter asking Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray to try to “prevent any unintended consequences that negatively impact community banks and credit unions or unnecessarily limit their ability to serve consumers,” although the letter did not call for the rollback of any specific regulation.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/tim-kaine-banking-letter-225953#ixzz4FBdHxjC3
Given that progressives have said all along we need to make sure credit unions and regional banks become a bigger part of our banking system I actually think it is smart for the CPFB to make sure that regulations that are in place to curb the excesses of too big to fail banks don’t negatively impact credit unions and regional banks.
And here you are! What a surprise.
When banks were well regulated community banks, credit unions, and S&Ls existed as a large part of our banking system. Part of that regulation prevent “too big to fail” banks from coming into existence in the first place.
I’ve been a credit union member since 1975. And even during most of a twenty year period when it was not geographically convenient for me, it still serviced most of my banking needs at a very high level. At least once at an extraordinarily high level. Over those forty years my CU has grown and flourished and today enjoys a sterling reputation.
That credit unions and community banks should be well regulated. Well regulated meaning that banking regulations meant to curb the excesses of too big to fail banks should be nuanced enough to not adversely affect those community banks and credit unions.
Oh lord. Way to pick nits and deflect from the issue.
When banks were well regulated, community banks (no need to refer to them as anything other than banks), credit unions, and S&Ls were also well regulated. The first round of financial institution deregulation separately deregulated banks and S&Ls. Often omitted or overlooked in the period of the S&L meltdown was Continental Illinois Bankrupt in ’84 and bailed out.
If you want to discuss, debate, argue financial system regulation, know the history and the failures and what precipitated the failures. As a start, study LTCM (hedge fund) and Drexel … Throw in whoops for fun.
And unsupported arrogance. Some banking regulations are not one size fits all. Motley Fool explains this better than I can
“Last but not least, one of the most tangible differences between credit unions and banks is in their regulatory status. Banks are regulated by an alphabet soup of federal and state agencies. There’s the Federal Reserve, which is responsible for bank holding companies and banks that want access to its discount window. There’s the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which overseas banks with federally insured deposits — i.e., virtually every bank in America. There’s also the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is the primary regulator for nationally chartered banks. And in addition to a number of interagency regulatory bodies, there are state banking regulators that oversee state-chartered banks, as well.
Credit unions, by contrast, are regulated by the National Credit Union Administration on the federal level, and state agencies on the state level. Beyond simply regulating them, moreover, the NCUA is tasked with operating and managing the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund, which, playing an analogous role to the FDIC vis-à-vis banks, insures the deposits of more than 98 million account holders in all federal credit unions and the overwhelming majority of state-chartered credit unions.”
Asking the CFPB to take these differences into account is not asking for deregulation.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/06/07/credit-union-vs-bank-4-major-differences.aspx
Per small or regional banks:
Where do you think the mortgages for the bundling that the big banks bought and passed around like monopoly cards came from? They are under fiduciary responsibility to lessen their risk and maximize the shareholder value like the big banks. Due to deregulation, they are equivalent to the big banks in responsibility and pressure from shareholders as JPMorgan and BoA. In fact, degreg allowed the consolidation of small and regional banks in to the “to big to fail” behemoths. Look at Wachovia into BoA. The fantasy of George Bailey with the broken down old building and loan was killed by banking deregulation. To think you can get back to that by more or lessening regulations is crazy.
R
Your main point is correct. But a you have some details wrong.
Wachovia merged with First Union in 2001. It then gobbled up several other banks and brokers. On the brink of failure the FDIC and Fed brokered a deal with Citigroup to keep it a going concern and shortly thereafter, Wachovia merged with Wells Fargo.
NC based Nations Bank merged with BoA — BoA as the name was the survivor but it’s now based in NC. The BoA building in SF is now known as 555 California Street and is 70% owned by a foreign real estate investment trust with a 30% limited partnership, some portion of which is owned by Trump.
Bidness Dems will rule! Lobbyists will make hay with regulators!
Political Rents and Profits in Regulated Industries
A new working paper by James Bessen from Boston University finds that much of the rise in corporate profits since 2000 was caused by political rent seeking.
https:/promarket.org/political-rents-regulated-industries
If you believed HRC was moving left this is a disappointment
If you didn’t then this was predictable
Only numbskulls believed she was moving left. But do they care enough even to be disappointment? Or are they rather enjoying seeing her flipping off Sanders supporters.
Once again, Lucy has yanked the football away just as Charlie Brown was running up for the kick. Not unexpected, but I feel nauseous just the same.
Honestly don’t enjoy saying, “told ya.” The worst part is that that the same knuckleheads never freaking learn.
The HHH and Gore strategy. Never seem to learn that when the left is fiesty, not a good idea to tell them in one way or another to fuck off.
’68 was a very bad and unpredictable year, but at the beginning of that election cycle, I seem to recall that the odd for Nixon winning were low. So, low that the GOP kept trying to find an acceptable alternative. And Democrats sort of giggled at the prospect of taking on the ’60 POTUS loser and ’62 CA Gubernatorial loser again. Republicans united early around GWB, but Democrats were delighted when he knocked McCain out of the primary.
amen to that.
let the hippie punching begin.
the selection of kaine bodes ill for HRC’s electoral chances, inho. it’s not gonna be pretty.
like marie said:“…the same knuckleheads never freaking learn”.
Billmon:
And to think we could have said fine and let the GOP Senate convict Bill (on principle, a bad precedent) and had President Gore for at least a year and a half (and longer if he proved as adept as some think he’s capable of), and wouldn’t have had to deal with an ’08 attempted restoration and complete control of the party this time around.
and if she blows this one guess who’s going to get the blame…3…2…1…you got it: the progressive left. l, for one, am not althaea sanguine about her chances, especially given this fuck you to the left.
and if you want to get in the wayback machine, where do you think we’d be if carter had won in 1980? it sure as hell wouldn’t be in this fucking swamp.
not all that sanguine…
I prefer the wayback machine to ’76. The election after Democratic elites had their childish hissy fit and chose to teach lefties a lesson. (The youngest lefties in ’68 weren’t eligible to vote, but would have gone with what at that time for us was the lesser evil and hoped that the good and decent HHH would re-emerge if he were elected. Slim hope because that HHH may have already been gone forever.)
Anyway, by 1973 and most clearly in 1974, “told ya” was on the lips of lefties. Democratic elites took credit for the large gains in the ’74 midterms when those gains had more to do with the implosion of the GOP over Watergate and the resignation of Nixon. And where were those Dem elites in the ’76 presidential election?
Frank Church (my preference), Fred Harris, or Birch Bayh were all qualified and acceptable. Why was a conservative Dem with little time in elected office and no experience in federal office even considered? (Deregulation and the mess in the ME both began under Carter for which he deserves much criticism.) Difficult not to assign some responsibility for Church’s narrow ’76 reelection loss and Bayh’s ’80 landslide reelection loss to Dan freaking Quayle.
Why did liberal Dem elites rally around Kennedy to primary Carter in ’80. Dragging his obviously deeply troubled estranged wife around with him on the campaign trail. Chappaquiddick was a too substantial black mark on Kennedy for him to be viewed as a viable POTUS contender. The decision to primary Carter was the right one, but it was made too late and with the wrong candidate. Excluding the Israel-Egypt peace accord (March ’79), Carter’s last two years in office were a disaster. Of his (and Zbig’s) making. Carter really was uncommonly bad at listening to the right people. Why after the success of the Camp David accords did he chuck Vance in favor of Zbig? (After being ignored for over a year and in which he watched Carter-Zbig make major error on top of errors, he threw in the towel a few days after their Operation Eagle Claw folly. And Carter wasn’t done screwing up.
After bating the USSR to invade Afghanistan, he turned around and politicized the Olympics by leading a boycott and imposed a grain embargo on the USSR. How many athletes that had been training for years lost their one chance for an Olympic medal? How many farmers and shippers lost money and how many dock workers lost their jobs over the grain embargo? (I suppose I should research the links between that embargo and the decimation of farmers in the early 1980s). Let’s also not forget that the Iran-Iraq War began on Carter’s watch. Then his general election campaign was more hapless and inept than GHWB’s in ’92.
Yeah. The Democratic (and Catholic) side of my family voted for Kennedy but really did not like him personally. I’m sure the Republican (and fundamentalist Protestant) side of my family voted for Reagan, but I never asked. They sure loved him after the election.
I liked Teddy. From a young age he was raised to be in government service, and he developed into a pretty good legislator. However, he had his own personal issues (alcohol and women), responsibilities (the only male adult member of a once large family before he was forty years old) and demons (who wouldn’t after losing two brothers the way he did? child that lost part of his leg due to cancer and of course, Chappaquiddick) that made him unsuitable for POTUS. Even if in his official duties in public office, there’s not much to criticize. He remained a New Deal liberal Democrat.
My criticism wrt his 1980 primary challenge is more a criticism of the party elites than Kennedy. They had the information (obscured from or unavailable to the general public) that allowed them to recognize that Carter had to go. Then they flubbed it by overvaluing the Kennedy fandom. That’s one tendency that the Democratic Party has carried forward to today. It’s been The Clintons since 1992 and nobody else need apply. (Interesting the Teddy was wise enough to reject that stinking thinking in ’08.)
Yeah, he matured a lot. It was the womanizing that the Kennedys were famous for that drew their wrath. And, I have to admit, a lot of anti-Irish feeling on my father’s part, old stuff from the Irish-Italian clashes in his youth. In true Sicilian style, he would hold a grudge for Eternity. I’m more flexible. Too much pragmatic German. This all probably sounds strange to you, but Chicago is less of a melting pot than a cauldron of ethnicity. Yet melting does occur. The department head’s secretary at one of my clients was Chinese-Italian. And a young (unmarried) couple that my wife worked with at a fast food restaurant were both immigrants. He from Southern Mexico and she from Poland. They barely shared any English yet somehow got together. Nice kids, I felt very sorry that they were struggling and pregnant on two minimum wage salaries.
“The melting pot” myth. Also aspirational in a good way, but at the same time blunts unique and admirable components of various cultures and traditions that would make all of us less if they disappeared.
Ethnic/cultural divisions aren’t absent from the west coast. Just different as to those in factions. SF (older as a defined city) divided up more like Chicago and east coast city. Primarily, Italians, Irish, Chinese, natives/Mexicans. AAs came later. Divisions in the suburbs were mainly along the lines of skin color and so dominated by white people that hadn’t carried their ethnicity west that a “melting pot” looked like a real thing. As long as one didn’t notice the housing segregation of AAs and Mexicans from white people. Also, white people that remained identifiable as “Okie” didn’t fit in as well.
I wouldn’t call it a myth, but SF sounds a lot like Chicago. More melting among whites, it is true. A friend of mine from China told me his daughter (then 14, come with her parents to the USA at age 2) wouldn’t marry until she was 30 and then only to a Chinese. He was upset when I told him that he might have mixed race grandchildren and almost surely would have mixed race great-grandchildren.
Can’t stop thinking about 1992. The Guardian, Jill Abramson recycles “The Commback Kid” as “Granny Grit.” If at first you don’t succeed: how Hillary Clinton came back from the brink
(Disclosure: I haven’t and have no intention of reading another Abramson paean on the fantastic awesomeness of HRC.)
RT — Munich shooting not connected to refugees or ISIS, was inspired by Breivik – Bavaria police
Echoes of the Sandy Hook School murderer, but obviously not as out of touch with reality and didn’t have access to as many weapons and ammo.
Like many Iranian immigrants the murderer may have viewed himself as Persian and western.
Pardon — posted the above comment on the wrong thread.