Jarqui
Jarqui's JournalVideo of those remarks to Code Pink on March 6, 2003
Didn't find a full screen version - it's been removed from Youtube. Hillary's quoted remarks start at 6:37
One other:
NY Times, Feb 18, 2007: Clinton Gives War Critics New Answer on ’02 Vote
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/us/politics/18clinton.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0
....
Yet antiwar anger has festered, and yesterday morning Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in.
“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.
Her decision not to apologize is regarded so seriously within her campaign that some advisers believe it will be remembered as a turning point in the race: either ultimately galvanizing voters against her (if she loses the nomination), or highlighting her resolve and her willingness to buck Democratic conventional wisdom (if she wins).
If that were true, you'd think they would document the failed attempt, like this:
"11:27:38 NH Attempts to run a search. At this point cannot access page sections."
It seems obvious to me that a log showing the activity of users suspected of taking advantage of a data breach with software that logs details of their activities would show attempts to export data like they showed for NV's Sanders data. But we didn't see any attempts like that. A common area for software to track activity is in error handling when the message comes back to the user saying "sorry you don't have security access to do that" (you write that out to the user activity log that that user tried to do something they were not allowed to do - it's technically very easy to pick that stuff off in nearly any software application)
When NGP VAN was responding to the breach - after the breach was reported, they said "While we investigated the issue, we restricted access to affected areas of the VAN product for all users and limited access to data exports." Why would they limit "access to data exports" after the breach if it was already blocked or the security limits were already in place? It seems obvious to me they would not need to do that if it was already secure.
Your position does not seem obvious at all to me. It's unlikely conjecture.
They were able to get one of their own Nevada lists exported
before their access was cut off and they were able to generate a summary report and export that.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/12/18/merged_document.pdf
"11:31:00 NV Logged into NV, ran a search on Sanders committee SQs, exported list"
(from near bottom of page 3)
I don't see why NGP VAN would tout NGP VAN having SQL capability, tout the ability of a campaign to add their owns fields, the Sanders campaign hire an IT Data manager who is capable of SQL (the SQL sentence I drafted is so quick and simple ...), the campaign design and implement their own fields to add to the data to the voter database ... and then leave the campaign in a limited position of not being able to get their customized data out.
Doesn't make tons of sense to me.
The uses more than one software application for their data
on the DNC server.
The vendor for the "modeling" software is who reported the October security breach to the Sanders campaign who, in turn, reported it to the DNC. The breach was apparently cause not caused by the NGP VAN software - might have been a third application that caused it.
Some of my source for that is at the start of this video of the Sander campaign's first press conference on this:
where campaign manager Weaver mentions the modeling software company (not by name but by "modeling" as a type of software)
Some of it came from Josh Uretsky's MCNMS interview
http://www.msnbc.com/thomas-roberts/watch/fired-sanders-campaign-staffer-speaks-out-588356675888
- where he maintains the October breach came from elsewhere - not NGP VAN
- which was corroborated by NGP VAN's blog
http://blog.ngpvan.com/data-security-and-privacy
Some of it came from subsequent media.
As campaign manager Weaver said in his press conference, they're "very confident" another campaign compromised the Sanders data last October. In light of that, it's hard to blame the Sanders campaign or Josh Uretsky for wanting to get to the bottom of it. The Clinton campaign may have accused the Sanders campaign of something they actually did ...
I can't vouch for every single word Uretsky said. Only a good audit can
I said more than once, if I were in his boots and someone had left my data naked for my competitors to see more than once before, as has been alleged, I'd do something similar to what Uretsky did and I stand up to the media and defend him. You cannot roll over and let your vendor or the DNC keep doing that to you.
If he hadn't done what he did, there's a good chance we wouldn't be having this discussion. Because his efforts gathered a lot of proof that the security of that data wasn't great - one security layer vendor controlled.
I generally believe what Uretsky said and feel the logs largely back him up.
I would have gone after O'Malleys data instead, if he's on that system and that data was exposed. And I would have stayed away from Iowa and New Hampshire to help keep the campaign's nose clean. (They'd probably be stuck to work on states that were coming up because that's where unique campaign data would be developed)
If I'm in Uretsky's or the Sanders campaign's boots and I'm concerned with
Clinton stealing my data from the October breaches and/or before. There's a pretty interesting way of dealing with it. You put in some fake data that only you know and your lawyer about - including for example, fake email addresses. Put in a few in each state that would have voter data that would appeal to the Clinton campaign (voter has money to donate, likes Hillary, you know 
...). If the Clinton campaign starts sending emails to those bogus email addresses that only the Sanders campaign created and knows about, how do the Clinton campaign explain that?
Sanders campaign manager Weaver is "very confident" a campaign got a hold of their data. He wants an audit. If that audit doesn't turn up the trojan horse data, well, he can cry foul on the audit, can't he.
This thing isn't over because the Sanders campaign took Clinton's data last week. The logs and the software vendor have already established that didn't happen. They knew from those logs very quickly it didn't happen. I strongly suspect they did it to smear the Sanders campaign - to make them look bad - worse than they really were at the very least.
This thing isn't over because the Sanders campaign is pretty convinced somebody took their data ... and from the sounds of Weaver, they must have some pretty compelling evidence to keep the court case going and stand in front of the national media maintaining they're "very confident" somebody took their data.
If they're in possession of Trojan horse emails (as one example) or evidence that the Clinton campaign took their data last October or whenever and that comes out, oh, say a week or a few days before Iowa goes to the polls, the primary polls could get pretty interesting, doncha think? Bernie would be getting a little media attention then I'll bet.
You're damn right this isn't over. This thing smells bad. I have no evidence the Clinton campaign is guilty. But the stench to me isn't coming from the Sanders campaign. The way their heading with this, it could be a real problem for another campaign - they're not letting go. If they're truly convinced someone took their data, why should they?
Going off the summary of the log they provided
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/12/18/merged_document.pdfI feel similarly with one technical exception. NGP VAN said Uretsky's group ran and exported one summary report (arguably to prove that they could do it). But that is similar to the "eaves dropping" he's talking about. They didn't get Clinton voter data fields or copies of those lists or anything else. They saw a bit of how the Clinton team currently perceived their data but have no knowledge of how much confidence the Clinton team had in it, etc. The difference is there's no political BS in that data.
The one correction that I would make to #3 is Uretsky was on the phone with his supervisors during the breach. He'd also be in discussions with his team. So he would be likely to be pounding away on the keyboard for the whole time. We see a user create other users (that's probably Uretsky). That person had two 10-11 minute sessions in four states looking at different fields in the states. That mirrored what Urestsky said he was doing.
I suspect one of the more junior people, maybe a data entry person, just did what Uretsky asked but Uretsky was running around chatting with his supervisors and others so they were left to just doing whatever they could think of and that resulted in less moving around or could be perceived as digging in and pounding. But I feel strongly that there's no way that was Uretsky.
Given her supposed experience of Hillarycare's failure in 1993
Lie # 1:”(For) a single payer system for health, . . . it’s been estimated were looking at 18 to $20 trillion, about 40 percent in the federal budget.”
That's a blatant lie and she knows it.
transcript of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s interview with the New York Times about health care.
March 27, 2008
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/march/hillary_clinton_on_s.php
"But I think from my perspective, having this Medicare-like alternative really does answer the desires of people. And there’s a significant minority who want quote a single-payer system. It at least gives them the feeling it’s not for profit, they’re not paying somebody a billion dollars for raising their premiums 200 percent and all the rest of the problems that we face with the for-profit system. You get the costs of overhead and administration down as much as possible."
There is video of that interview
http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/1194817098024/hillary-clinton-and-health-care.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article
but not of that particular quote.
If there was that would make it in her top lies videos.
A differrent software vendor (modeling) reported the problem.
When they did, the Sanders campaign forwarded the report to the DNC - who have the responsibility to oversee and address this issue. I don't think the modeling software company caused the problem or they could have just fixed it themselves and said nothing. They just reported it when they ran into it. I think there was a second complaint in October - might have related to the same software vendor back then.
A third software vendor may have been at fault because NGP VAN claims the recent problem was the first one for them.
So it's not a perfect tale describing what happened here with respect to the number of software vendors.
Where the DNC is concerned, and their responsibility in all of this, it's not so far off.
For the holidays this year, we're not exchanging gifts
We moved from the suburbs to an area closer to the area we call "downtown". It's been heart wrenching for all of us to walk past all these unfortunate people in the streets. Some days I come home, I'm near tears. It is so sad and awful - they are so destitute in so many ways. We started putting our change in a dish and we grab a handful when we go for a walk to the store. But you know that you can never do enough - there are simply too many of them.
My daughter came up with the idea about not exchanging gifts this year. She did some research and came up with a battered women's shelter to help. We went to a place she found and filled the trunk of our car with economical but new clothes for these women and their kids. We got a 50% off employee discount on top from someone we knew there. Then my daughter, who is working for minimum wage pays for the whole thing - hundreds of dollars. My jaw dropped. She worked really hard for that money ... and in doing so, she kind of left us out of it. I'm very proud of her and don't want to bicker with her about it being "too much" (even though I kind of feel it's a little over the top for her).
So this list is welcome because there's a bunch of ideas that are great to add to what my daughter got for them.
All the best
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Aug 23, 2015, 03:58 PMNumber of posts: 10,125
