Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was forced to withdraw from a high-profile Hamptons fundraiser for Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz on Monday due to a COVID-19 diagnosis.
According to Page Six, former President Bill Clinton stepped in to replace his wife at the event held at the Sag Harbor home of prominent art collectors Lisa and Richard Perry.
The fundraiser, which commanded ticket prices of up to $100,000 at the highest tier, also featured Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff as a speaker. The event was billed as one of the last small gatherings in the New York area before the upcoming election, making it a significant stop on the campaign trail for the Democratic candidates.
The Sag Harbor fundraiser attracted a number of notable figures from the political and business world. Among the event chairs were Sharon and Jon Corzine, Crystal McCrary McGuire and Ray McGuire, Brooke Garber Neidich and Dan Neidich, and Laurie Tisch. The Perry residence, known for housing works by renowned artists such as Frank Stella, Alexander Calder, Ellsworth Kelly, and Donald Judd, provided an impressive backdrop for the political gathering.
An invitation obtained by Page Six emphasized the exclusivity of the event, stating:
This is likely to be one of the last small events in the NY area before the election, so it is not to be missed.
The sudden change in speakers due to Hillary Clinton's illness did not seem to dampen enthusiasm for the event. A source close to the situation noted that the Clintons' involvement was not obligatory, saying, "They don't have to show at these things," and added that the switch was made on short notice.
Despite the last-minute change in lineup, the Hamptons fundraiser, along with another Democratic event held earlier the same day, proved to be highly successful. A source reported that the two events combined raised over $2 million in just four days, indicating strong support for the Harris campaign.
The previous function, held at the home of Michael Kempner, CEO of MWW and an acknowledged supporter of Clinton, was part of a dual-event strategy that seems to have been very successful. A source mentioned that these events together generated more than $2 million in just four days, indicating significant enthusiasm for Harris.
The fundraising success comes on the heels of Hillary Clinton's well-received appearance at the Democratic National Convention, where she reportedly received a standing ovation. However, it's worth noting that the convention itself was not without its health concerns, as multiple attendees later reported testing positive for COVID-19.
While Hillary Clinton's absence from the Hamptons event was unexpected, it appears to be part of a broader series of campaign activities for the Democratic Party. Earlier in the month, celebrities such as Joy Behar and Chris Rock were spotted at another Hamptons fundraiser for Governor Walz, where tickets reached up to $150,000.
The campaign trail is expected to continue heating up as the election approaches. Reports suggest that Vice President Harris will be appearing at a larger event in New York City in the near future, though specific details were not provided in the original article.
These high-dollar fundraisers in the Hamptons and other exclusive locales have long been a staple of presidential campaigns, offering candidates the opportunity to connect with wealthy donors and supporters in intimate settings.
Hillary Clinton's COVID-19 diagnosis led to her withdrawal from a significant Hamptons fundraiser for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Former President Bill Clinton and Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff stepped in to speak at the event, which was held at the home of art collectors Lisa and Richard Perry. Despite the change, the fundraiser and another event held the same day raised over $2 million. This success indicates strong support for the Harris campaign as the election approaches, with more campaign events planned in the near future.
Independent presidential candidate Cornel West has implied that Democrats offered him a position in a potential Kamala Harris administration if he dropped out of the 2024 race.
In an interview with leftist podcast host Jordan Chariton, West discussed alleged offers made to him to exit the presidential contest.
The former Harvard University professor is seen by some Democrats as a potential spoiler in key battleground states like Michigan and Wisconsin, according to The Western Journal.
West responded vaguely when asked about specific offers, saying there were "definitely various kinds of offers" but declined to provide concrete details. He emphasized that his focus was not on these offers but rather on addressing issues such as wealth inequality, homelessness, and criminal justice reform.
West recounted that various individuals reached out to him, encouraging him to "get on the bandwagon" and support what they described as a historic moment for a black and Asian woman to lead the country.
He mentioned that religious leaders questioned whether he was truly honoring the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by remaining in the race.
In response to these requests, West stated:
You're talking to the wrong brother. You can offer resources, a position or what have you. That's not what I'm all about. That's not the game I play. That's not my conception of what I'm here for.
He further criticized the Democratic Party, describing the "toxicity" within it as "pervasive" and accusing both major parties of failing to adequately address key issues facing the nation.
The interview with Chariton delved deeper into the nature of the alleged offers. When asked if he was offered a position in a Harris administration or financial incentives to drop out, West responded that there were "serious, substantive conversation[s] about all of those that could lead toward a real possibility."
These allegations come amid ongoing efforts by some Democrats to consolidate support behind the Biden-Harris ticket. West's presence in the race as an independent candidate has raised concerns among party strategists about potential vote-splitting in crucial swing states.
Despite attempts to remove West from the ballot in key states, he has recently secured victories in maintaining his candidacy. The Wisconsin Elections Commission voted to keep West on the ballot following a legal challenge filed by an employee of the Democratic National Committee.
Similarly, the Michigan Court of Claims ruled against a challenge brought by the Michigan Democratic Party to remove West from the ballot. These decisions ensure that the West will remain a factor in the upcoming presidential election, potentially influencing the outcome in these battleground states.
In conclusion, Cornel West's allegations of being offered a position in a potential Harris administration highlight the complex dynamics at play in the 2024 presidential race. His refusal to drop out and recent legal victories to remain on state ballots suggests that he will continue to be a factor in the election. The Democratic Party's alleged attempts to persuade West to exit the race underscore the concerns about vote-splitting in key battleground states, which could potentially impact the final outcome of the presidential contest.
Vice President Kamala Harris is facing a rapidly approaching deadline to fulfill her commitment for an August interview. On August 8, Harris informed reporters on an airport tarmac about her intention to schedule an interview before the month's end.
With August 27 already here, there's growing anticipation and speculation about when and if this interview will materialize. National Review reported on this developing situation, highlighting the potential implications for Harris's public engagement strategy.
The urgency of this interview is heightened by the approaching first presidential debate, currently slated for September 10, and the imminent start of early voting in some states. This context adds significance to Harris's media engagement, as it could potentially influence public perception and voter sentiment.
According to Politico's Playbook newsletter, there's considerable activity behind the scenes regarding Harris's potential interview. The Vice President's campaign staff have been reaching out to reporters, seeking input on potential interviewers. Simultaneously, television producers representing high-profile anchors are pitching their talent to the campaign.
The preparation for this interview isn't without its challenges. There's an ongoing debate within "Harris world" about the purpose and timing of the interview.
While the prevailing narrative in political media suggests Harris needs a lengthy, serious interview with a prominent news anchor, Harris herself reportedly disagrees with this perspective.
Harris's team is also grappling with how to effectively deploy her running mate, Tim Walz, in media appearances. There are concerns about Walz's ability to fully articulate Harris's stance on various issues, including her concept of the "opportunity economy."
The pressure on Harris and her team is mounting, as evidenced by recent headlines from major publications. News outlets are increasingly questioning when Harris will participate in a substantial interview, reflecting growing public interest and media scrutiny.
Politico's newsletter provides insight into the internal discussions:
There has been considerable debate in Harris world about the purpose and timing of the interview. The main narrative in the political press is that Harris needs to do a lengthy serious interview with a brand-name news anchor who will push her on issues. Harris herself has expressed disagreement with that view, we're told by two people, telling some Democrats she doesn't need a big showy interview.
The handling of this interview situation could have significant implications for Harris's campaign strategy and public image. The decision on when, where, and with whom to conduct the interview will be closely watched and analyzed by political observers and the media.
The outcome of this situation may influence perceptions of Harris's accessibility, transparency, and readiness to engage with pressing issues. It also raises questions about her campaign's communication strategy and ability to manage public expectations.
As the deadline approaches, the Harris campaign's response to interview requests becomes increasingly noteworthy. National Review reported that two Harris campaign aides did not respond to their request for comment about the planned interview, adding another layer of intrigue to the unfolding situation.
In conclusion, Vice President Kamala Harris faces a rapidly approaching deadline to fulfill her August interview commitment. The situation has drawn significant attention from media and political circles. As the month concludes, observers eagerly await Harris's next move, which could have important implications for her campaign strategy and public perception in the lead-up to crucial political events.
Political analyst Larry Sabato believes that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s recent endorsement of former President Donald Trump will likely have a minimal effect on the forthcoming presidential election.
After suspending his presidential campaign last week, Kennedy's influence in politics has diminished. Reports from The Hill indicate that Kennedy's initial strong polling numbers declined sharply following Vice President Kamala Harris's entry into the race. His support, which was once in the range of the upper teens to low 20s, has now fallen to just 2 to 6 percent in crucial states.
Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, expressed doubt that Kennedy's endorsement would translate into a notable boost for Trump.
Despite the former president's campaign releasing a memo claiming Kennedy’s supporters would likely shift to Trump in a head-to-head matchup with Harris, Sabato suggested that this outcome is far from certain.
"For those who believe that Kennedy's endorsement will simply move his support base to Trump, they might be underestimating the complexities of voter behavior," Sabato remarked. He emphasized that Kennedy's supporters could just as easily align with other candidates, including Harris.
Sabato also pointed out that Kennedy's political trajectory had been steadily declining, even before his campaign suspension. "He has been dropping like a rock ever since Kamala Harris got in," Sabato said, noting that Kennedy's initial surge in the polls had dissipated almost entirely by the time of his endorsement.
As Kennedy's campaign struggled, Harris's candidacy gained momentum, narrowing the gap between her and Trump in national and swing state polls. Kennedy’s endorsement of Trump once considered a potential game-changer, now appears to be a less significant factor in the overall election dynamics.
Sabato further commented on the diminishing relevance of the Kennedy name in contemporary politics. While the Kennedy family has long been a staple of American political life, Sabato suggested that RFK Jr.'s failure to capitalize on this legacy contributed to his campaign's struggles. "He couldn’t cash in on the Kennedy name," Sabato observed.
This decline in influence is reflected in the polls, where Kennedy's numbers have dropped to the low single digits. A recent poll showed him garnering just 2 percent of the vote, a far cry from his earlier standing.
The Trump campaign's optimism about absorbing Kennedy's supporters is not widely shared among political experts. Despite a memo from Trump pollster Tony Fabrizio claiming that Trump would benefit from Kennedy's endorsement, the latest polls paint a different picture.
In a hypothetical three-way race featuring Trump, Harris, and Kennedy, the latter’s support remains minimal, with Harris maintaining a lead of 5.6 percentage points over Trump. Kennedy's endorsement, it seems, has done little to alter the broader electoral landscape.
Sabato reiterated his skepticism about the impact of the endorsement, noting that "people who think that, because he’s endorsing Trump, he can just move that 2 percent into Trump’s column don’t know much about politics." He underscored the reality that voter behavior is not always predictable, especially when dealing with a figure like Kennedy, whose support has been on the decline.
Political analyst Larry Sabato doubts that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s endorsement of former President Donald Trump will significantly influence the upcoming presidential election. Sabato, who is the director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, noted that despite claims from Trump's campaign, Kennedy's dwindling support, which has plummeted to 2-6% in crucial states, is unlikely to substantially benefit Trump. He highlighted that voter behavior is complex, and Kennedy’s declining influence, exacerbated by his inability to leverage his family's political legacy, makes the endorsement less impactful.
A federal judge has exonerated two former Louisville police officers from felony charges related to the death of Breonna Taylor, attributing responsibility for the fatal shooting to her boyfriend instead.
According to a Fox News report, U.S. District Judge Charles Simpson dropped felony "deprivation of rights under the color of law" charges against former Detective Joshua Jaynes and former Sgt. Kyle Meany.
The judge's ruling on Thursday stated that the actions of Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, who fired a shot at police during the raid, were the legal cause of her death, not a faulty warrant. This decision comes after U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland announced federal charges against Jaynes and Meany in August 2022, accusing them of falsifying part of the warrant that led to the dangerous situation at Taylor's apartment.
In his order, Judge Simpson declared that Walker's conduct became the proximate, or legal, cause of Taylor's death. The judge stated that there was no direct link between the warrantless entry and Taylor's death, effectively reducing the civil rights violation charges against Jaynes and Meany from felonies to misdemeanors.
Simpson's ruling emphasized that while the indictment alleged Jaynes and Meany set off a series of events ending in Taylor's death, it also claimed that Walker disrupted those events by deciding to open fire on the police. This decision significantly altered the narrative surrounding the case, which had previously focused on the actions of the police officers involved.
The judge's ruling has been met with mixed reactions, with attorneys for Meany and Jaynes expressing satisfaction with the decision, while Taylor's family expressed devastation and disagreement with the judge's interpretation of events.
The judge's decision has implications for the ongoing legal proceedings related to the Breonna Taylor case. While Simpson declined to dismiss a conspiracy charge against Jaynes and another charge against Meany for making false statements to FBI investigators, the reduction of felony charges to misdemeanors significantly alters the potential consequences for the former officers.
The Justice Department has stated that it is reviewing the judge's decision and assessing next steps. This development may impact the scheduled October retrial of former officer Brett Hankison on civil rights charges, as well as the pending trial of Jaynes and Meany.
It's worth noting that a third former officer, Kelly Goodlett, had previously pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge and is expected to testify against Jaynes and Meany at their trials. The outcome of these proceedings could have far-reaching consequences for how the Breonna Taylor case is ultimately resolved in the legal system.
Judge Simpson provided the following explanation for his ruling:
While the indictment alleges that Jaynes and Meany set off a series of events that ended in Taylor's death, it also alleges that (Walker) disrupted those events when he decided to open fire on the police.
This decision raises questions about the extent to which police officers can be held accountable for the consequences of their actions during raids, particularly when civilians respond with force. It also highlights the complex legal considerations involved in cases where multiple parties' actions contribute to a tragic outcome.
The judge's ruling may influence future cases involving police shootings and the legal standards applied when determining responsibility for fatalities during law enforcement operations. As the legal proceedings continue, this case will likely remain a focal point in ongoing discussions about police reform and accountability in the United States.
The federal judge's decision to clear two former Louisville police officers of felony charges in the Breonna Taylor case marks a significant shift in the legal narrative surrounding her death. By placing the blame on Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, for firing at police during the raid, the judge has altered the potential consequences for the officers involved. This ruling has implications for ongoing legal proceedings and broader discussions about police accountability.
The Alaska Supreme Court has confirmed that a measure to repeal the state’s ranked-choice election system will be put to voters in November.
The state's high court upheld a previous ruling, rejecting an appeal challenging the measure’s certification, as the Alaska Beacon reports.
The decision, announced on Thursday, secures the measure’s place on the November ballot. The ruling backs a lower court’s approval of Ballot Measure 2, which seeks to overturn Alaska’s ranked-choice voting and open primary systems. These systems were established following a 2020 ballot initiative, but now face a potential reversal by the electorate.
The legal debate centered around whether the Alaska Division of Elections properly certified the repeal measure. Critics of the certification process argued that the Division allowed corrections to petition signature books after their submission, a practice they claimed violated state law. The plaintiffs contended that such corrections were illegal and, if disqualified, could have invalidated enough signatures to prevent the measure from reaching the ballot.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Lael Harrison, speaking on behalf of the state, confirmed that the court’s decision effectively closed this chapter of the dispute. “Today the Court quickly affirmed that the Division of Elections properly interpreted and applied the law in qualifying this initiative for the November ballot,” she said.
The swift ruling by the court, Harrison added, ensures the Division has ample time to meet its upcoming ballot printing deadlines. However, the justices offered no detailed explanation for their decision, leaving some questions about the underlying legal reasoning.
Former Alaska Attorney General Kevin Clarkson, who represents the group pushing for the repeal, expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision. “I was very pleased the court was able to so quickly see through the smoke the other side was putting out,” Clarkson remarked. He further noted that the justices’ pointed questions during oral arguments indicated a clear understanding of the legal issues at stake.
On the other side, Scott Kendall, an attorney for the plaintiffs and a key figure in crafting the state’s current election laws, expressed disappointment in the outcome. “We do not yet know the Court’s reasoning, but despite demonstrated irregularities in the Division of Elections’ handling of the … petition, they were obviously unwilling to reverse the superior court,” Kendall commented via text message.
Kendall also highlighted the ongoing legal battles for the repeal backers, who are currently facing nearly $100,000 in fines due to citations from Alaska’s campaign finance regulator for illegal fundraising practices. These fines add another layer of complexity to the repeal effort as the November vote approaches.
The upcoming vote will decide the fate of Alaska’s relatively new election system. Ranked choice voting, which allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, has been touted by supporters as a way to encourage broader participation and reduce political polarization. However, critics argue that it is confusing and undermines the traditional voting process.
In addition to ranked choice voting, the measure also seeks to abolish open primary elections, where all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, compete in a single primary, with the top candidates advancing to the general election. This system was intended to give voters more choice and reduce the influence of party machinery in elections.
As the November election looms, both sides are gearing up for a contentious campaign. Repeal proponents will likely emphasize perceived flaws in the current system, while defenders of the status quo will argue that the reforms have made Alaska’s elections more fair and representative.
The court’s ruling ensures that Alaskans will have the final say on whether to keep or discard these election reforms. The outcome of the vote could have significant implications not only for the state but also for the national debate on election reform.
In a heated exchange on CNBC’s Squawk Box, Joe Kernen and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) debated the efficacy of price controls following Kamala Harris's nomination acceptance.
The discussion centered on the implications of price-gouging laws and their impact on inflation, with Kernen arguing that such measures are misguided and ineffective, contrary to Warren's -- and Harris' -- stance, as The Blaze reports.
The debate took place on the Friday following Kamala Harris’s acceptance of the Democratic presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention. Kernen, a CNBC anchor, engaged with Warren on the historical effectiveness of price controls, a topic that has long been contentious in economic circles.
Kernen strongly opposed the idea of price controls, pointing out their potential pitfalls. He cited historical examples where such measures failed to stabilize markets, arguing that they often lead to more harm than good. “Nothing works when you try to artificially control prices,” Kernen remarked during the debate.
Warren, however, differentiated price-gouging laws from traditional price controls, emphasizing that states like Florida and Texas had successfully implemented such laws. According to Warren, these measures were necessary to protect consumers from corporate greed, which she blamed for price hikes during the pandemic.
Kernen was quick to challenge Warren’s assertions, accusing her of using sophistry to defend policies that he believes are fundamentally flawed. He argued that blaming corporate greed was a diversion from the real causes of inflation. The CNBC host contended that increased demand due to the post-pandemic reopening and supply chain issues were more significant factors.
The conversation grew increasingly tense as Kernen pressed Warren on why she would support such measures. He labeled her arguments as “fallacious and misleading,” asserting that price controls are a “fool’s errand” that would ultimately fail to address the root causes of inflation.
Warren, unfazed by Kernen’s critique, maintained that the government has a role in regulating prices during emergencies. She referenced her work on a price-gouging bill during the Trump administration as evidence of the effectiveness of such policies. “And they have used them effectively,” she insisted during the discussion.
The exchange between Kernen and Warren quickly went viral, sparking widespread debate on social media. Many viewers took to Twitter and other platforms to voice their opinions on the effectiveness of price controls and the role of government in regulating the economy.
CNBC later uploaded the full video of the debate to its YouTube channel, where it garnered significant attention. The comments section was filled with both support and criticism for the positions taken by Kernen and Warren, reflecting the polarized nature of the discussion.
Kernen’s argument that the current administration was using price controls to distract from the real causes of inflation resonated with many viewers. He pointed to stimulus spending and supply chain disruptions as the primary drivers of recent price increases, a viewpoint that sparked further conversation online.
In conclusion, the fiery debate between Joe Kernen and Senator Elizabeth Warren on CNBC's Squawk Box highlighted the deep divisions over economic policy in the United States.
While Warren defended price-gouging laws as necessary consumer protections, Kernen argued that such measures are misguided and do not address the root causes of inflation. The debate has since sparked a broader conversation about the role of government in the economy, with both sides drawing significant support and criticism.
Leaders of the Uncommitted National Movement have initiated a sit-in outside the Democratic National Convention in Chicago after their request for a Palestinian American speaker was denied.
According to a report by CNN, the group's co-founder, Abbas Alawieh, was informed by convention officials that their request would not be granted, partly to avoid distracting from Vice President Kamala Harris' acceptance speech.
The sit-in, now in its second day, began on Wednesday night when Alawieh and other uncommitted delegates positioned themselves outside the United Center. The group, which emerged during the Democratic presidential primary to protest the Biden administration's support for Israel's war on Hamas in Gaza, is demanding a speaking slot for a Palestinian American at the convention.
Democratic National Committee officials have not publicly commented on the situation. However, Ian Sams, a senior adviser to Vice President Harris, addressed the issue, stating that the Uncommitted group has a right to be heard and that the convention has engaged with them through dedicated conversations and meetings.
Sams emphasized the Vice President's efforts alongside President Biden to secure a ceasefire in the ongoing conflict. He suggested that the administration's actions should be the focus rather than the speaking slot controversy.
Michigan Democratic Party Chair Lavora Barnes expressed support for the Uncommitted group's request. Barnes stated that these voters are part of the Democratic family and have a right to voice their concerns.
The sit-in has garnered support from several prominent Democratic figures and organizations. Representatives Ilhan Omar and Cori Bush have joined the protesters, with Bush drawing parallels to her own activism in Ferguson, Missouri. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has also voiced her support on social media, urging the DNC to reconsider its decision.
The United Auto Workers union, whose president spoke at the convention earlier in the week, issued a statement backing the Uncommitted group.
They accused the party of ignoring Palestinian American voices and called for a Palestinian American speaker to be heard from the DNC stage.
The controversy has sparked a debate within the Democratic Party. Some Harris allies, including former UN Ambassador Susan Rice, have questioned the group's demands, noting that they haven't pledged their support to the Vice President.
Democratic Majority for Israel, a political action group, supported the DNC's decision, stating that the party's position on the issue is clear and that giving a speaking slot to a minority intent on criticizing the president and party would not be beneficial.
The Uncommitted movement leaders have clarified that they are supporting Harris and are now delegates for the Vice President. They have attempted to rebrand themselves as "ceasefire delegates" and continue to push for a more prominent platform at the convention.
In conclusion, the sit-in by Uncommitted delegates at the Democratic National Convention has brought attention to the ongoing debate within the party regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While some party members and organizations support giving a platform to Palestinian American voices, others argue that it could detract from the convention's main focus. As the protest continues, it remains to be seen how the Democratic leadership will respond to these demands and balance diverse viewpoints within the party.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, widely known as AOC, has praised former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her graceful transition of power, drawing parallels to President Joe Biden's decision not to seek re-election.
Speaking at a Dream.org event in Chicago, AOC's comments signify a thawing of relations between the two Democratic lawmakers who were once at odds.
As reported by The Daily Beast, the remarks came a day after AOC's notable appearance at the Democratic National Convention, where she delivered a speech that garnered significant attention. Her praise for Pelosi marks a shift in their relationship, which political differences and generational gaps had previously characterized.
AOC's commendation of Pelosi reflects her commitment to fostering unity within the Democratic Party. The 34-year-old congresswoman emphasized the importance of building coalitions and maintaining a broad tent for political success.
"What we saw last night, and what we are seeing this moment is a real passing of the torch," Ocasio-Cortez stated, referring to both Biden's decision and Pelosi's leadership transition. She went on to mention Hakeem Jeffries, potentially becoming the first Black speaker, pending the November election results.
AOC acknowledged the challenges of balancing her progressive principles with the need to work alongside more centrist Democrats. This approach has not been without criticism from some of her left-wing supporters.
The fiery congresswoman candidly discussed the impact of criticism, particularly from those within her own political circle. She admitted that disapproval from allies can be especially difficult to handle. AOC shared:
It is sometimes the incoming from our friends that's the most hurtful. It is the most hurtful because these are the folks that you don't want to disappoint the most.
She stressed the necessity of maintaining political relationships even in the face of disagreements, pushing back against what she termed a "disposability culture" in politics.
Despite her efforts to work with mainstream Democrats, AOC reaffirmed her commitment to core progressive ideals. She continued to advocate for class-based politics and criticized corporate influence in the political sphere.
"There is no making nice with Wall Street and having a strong economic message and a strong economic plan," she asserted, highlighting her stance on economic issues. AOC also used the opportunity to criticize former President Donald Trump, describing him as a symbol of Wall Street and corruption.
The congresswoman offered insights into her preparation process for significant events, such as her convention speech. She revealed that prayer and conversations with long-time friends and family members helped her manage pre-speech nervousness.
"Yesterday morning, I was very nervous before going on to the convention," AOC admitted. She elaborated on her coping mechanism, stating, "I spent that morning talking with my friends who I've known since childhood, talking to my family, praying."
AOC's praise for Nancy Pelosi marks a significant moment in Democratic Party dynamics. Her comments reflect a broader effort to bridge generational and ideological gaps within the party while maintaining her progressive stance. As the Democrats look toward future elections, AOC's ability to balance her left-wing principles with party unity may play a crucial role in shaping the party's direction and messaging.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will speak at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago on Monday to make the case for electing Kamala Harris as the nation's first female president.
According to The Washington Times and The New York Times, Clinton and Harris have developed a close friendship in recent years and are working together to help Harris secure the Democratic nomination.
"She has been an incredible partner to Vice President Harris," DNC Chair Minyon Moore told The Washington Times. "They have a great friendship. You know, they're on speed dial with each other."
The two women, who were once rivals during the 2008 Democratic primary, have bonded over shared experiences as high-profile female politicians.
Over the summer, as some Democrats questioned President Biden's decision to seek re-election, Hillary Clinton remained publicly neutral, not wanting to be involved in efforts to replace him.
However, sources familiar with her thoughts reveal that she was clear about her stance privately: if Biden were to withdraw, she believed Kamala Harris should be nominated by the Democratic Party immediately, avoiding a prolonged primary battle.
The Clintons were among the first major party figures to endorse Harris after President Biden withdrew from the race in July. Hillary Clinton has been advising the Vice President on key decisions, such as her running mate selection, and providing support during Harris' historic run.
At the DNC on Monday, Clinton is expected to reflect on her own groundbreaking 2016 campaign as the first female presidential nominee of a major party. While she won the popular vote, Clinton ultimately lost the Electoral College to Donald Trump.
"She will probably talk a lot about what it means at this moment to have the second female, and a female of color, running, but what our responsibility is to that as well," Moore said. "We are trying to change and shift the mindset of people to see a woman of color as commander in chief, and Hillary Clinton has served as secretary of state and as our first nominee. So, she has a world view on this."
Clinton's speech will aim to rally voters behind Harris and generate enthusiasm for electing the first woman and first Black woman as president. Her address will be part of a program paying tribute to the Biden-Harris administration's accomplishments.
For Clinton, who came so close to shattering the ultimate glass ceiling herself, Monday's convention speech represents a poignant passing of the torch to the woman she hopes will achieve that historic milestone.
While seeing another woman potentially achieve what she could not is sure to be bittersweet, those close to Clinton say she feels great pride in helping Harris and continuing to advance female leadership at the highest levels of American politics. With her full-throated endorsement and counsel, Clinton is determined to do everything she can to help Harris cross the finish line.
In conclusion, Hillary Clinton's prominent convention speaking slot and the strong backing of Kamala Harris demonstrates the powerful alliance between the two trailblazing women. As Harris seeks to make history as the first female president, she will have one of the Democratic Party's most iconic and influential figures firmly in her corner. Clinton's support provided a major boost as Harris looked to unite the party and win the White House in November.