When Hillary Clinton first launched her campaign in April, THE WEEKLY STANDARD reported that her website was asking for donations up to $2,700 on the English version of the site, but only up to $250 on the Spanish language version. Within hours after the story was published, the campaign updated the Spanish site to match the English one. But now, three months later, the Spanish language site once again only asks for donations up to $250.
As we reported in April, the main donation page for the English site includes preset amount buttons for $5, $25, $50, $100, $500, $1,000 and the maximum for the primary election cycle, $2,700. However, the preset amounts for the Spanish language version of the donation page are significantly less.: $5, $10, $15, $25, $50, $100 and $250. (Interestingly, the present amounts are different than the lower amounts in April, so this is not simply a case of the original code being reinstated. The amounts used in April were $3, $5, $10, $25, $50, $100 and $250.)
Both the English and Spanish sites include an "other" button where donors can fill in a different amount. Screen captures of both the English and Spanish donation pages are shown below:
When asked for comment on the lower donation amounts, Clinton campaign rapid response spokesperson Josh Schwerin replied, "Wasn't true then, isn't true now. We're continuously testing different ask amounts across the site. Some examples attached." The examples consisted of screen captures of another page on the Spanish-language site showing pre-set amounts equaling the English site, plus the original example from April showing the lowest amount at $3. Schwerin did not respond when asked why it "wasn't true" when in fact the main "donate" buttons on the site lead to disparate solicitation amounts. (After the email exchange with Schwerin, a check of the English-language donation page showed that the page had been changed to ask for lower amounts.) Schwerin did provide one other example of a page on the English-language site asking for the lower amounts.
Republican National Committee spokeswoman Ruth Guerra, when asked for comment, replied: "Not only has the site been riddled with mistakes from the day it launched, but what’s more telling is the fact that Hillary’s campaign is once again suggesting different donation amounts to English and Spanish speakers. Hillary’s campaign needs to explain why they think Spanish speakers can’t contribute the same as anyone else."
One might think that after the last Iraq war Democrats would be wary of allowing intelligence to dictate policy. Yet that is effectively what Barack Obama has done with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed in Vienna on July 14. The agreement with Iran is strategically premised on the notion that greater commerce will transform the virulently anti-American, antisemitic, terrorism-fond, increasingly imperial Islamic Republic into something more pleasant. Tactically, the agreement depends on Western intelligence against the Iranian nuclear target.
In his first Inaugural Address, President Obama offered an open hand to the Iranian regime. On July 14, announcing the nuclear deal that is the culmination of that overture, he shook a closed fist at the American people. The president came out swinging—not at the regime in Tehran but at his predecessors in the Oval Office and in Congress who for decades imposed an increasingly tough sanctions regime on Iran.
Hillary Clinton has already spent nearly one million dollars on polling. According to the Democratic presidential candidate's first Federal Election Commission disclosure report, the campaign has already spent $904,915.00 on polling.
Someone joked this past week that for the first time in 2,500 years, Persia and Greece are dominating world news. But now, as then, the questions raised by Persia and Greece go beyond Persia and Greece.
As a senator from New York, Hillary Clinton was staunchly opposed to recognizing same-sex marriage. She expressed that sentiment clearly in this 2002 interview with TV host Chris Matthews (starting at 2:05 mark):
Americans feel—with a good deal of justification—that the political establishment has been serving them poorly for roughly the last quarter-century. Policy has generally been driven by a need to give instant gratification to the 24-hour news cycle at the expense of solving long-term problems. We’ve run three monetary bubbles, all of which were fun while they lasted; two ended badly, and the establishment is promising the third time is the charm.
I'm not sure what the great political philosopher Leo Strauss would have thought of the Internet (he was a skeptic about progress, but also a skeptic about reaction). I personally think he would have appreciated aspects of it. Perhaps he would have even written an essay on "Persecution and the Art of Tweeting." Or not.
Hillary Clinton is asking supporters to chip in a buck. In an email this afternoon, Clinton writes, "I’m asking you to step up today, give just $1, and become a Launch Donor -- one of the tough, essential supporters who stood with me from the very beginning."
But Clinton says it's not about the dollar.
"It's not about the money. It's about knowing that when I step on the stage on Saturday, you’re with me. You have my back -- just like I’ll have yours."