Let's Share Hillary Clinton's Final Pitch on Prime -Time TV on Election Eve :“Tomorrow let’s make history together”

Hillary Clinton delivers her closing argument in a two-minute ad to be aired Monday night 

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton will make her final pitch to voters nationwide in a two-minute campaign ad that’s scheduled to run Monday during prime time slots on TV.

In the direct-to-camera commercial, Clinton vows to “work my heart out” and be a president “for all Americans.”

Wearing white and backlit by soft white lighting, Clinton looks directly into the camera the entire time to deliver her final pitch without ever mentioning her opponent by name:


Our core values are being tested in this election, but everywhere I go people are refusing to be defined by fear and division. . . . Look, we all know we’ve come through some hard economic times and we’ve seen some pretty big changes, but I believe in our people.

She pledges in a calm tone, “I will work my heart out as president to make life better for you and your family,” adding, “We won’t always get it right, but you can count on this: I’ve never quit, and I never will.”

The candidate acknowledges, “I think we can all agree. It’s been a long campaign.” She adds, “But tomorrow, you get to pick our next president.”

The former secretary of state, senator and first lady who is vying to become the first female president of the United States says, “Tonight I’m asking for your vote, and tomorrow let’s make history together.”

Watch the ad above:

Clinton’s campaign estimates that the ad, set to air during NBC’s “The Voice” and CBS’ “Kevin Can Wait” — the prime-time network shows with the greatest audience — will reach an audience of about 40 million people nationally and  via shared  social media over 100 million.

The ad is a marked tonal shift from a Clinton ad released on Friday that depicted the terrifying hellscape that a President Donald Trump would usher in during his first year in office:

Clinton also made a final national pitch to newspaper readers in a USA Today op-ed published Monday morning.

“Everything I’ve done, as first lady, senator, or secretary of State, I’ve done by listening to people and looking for common ground, even with people who disagree with me,” Clinton wrote. “And if you elect me on Tuesday, that’s the kind of president I’ll be.”

Here are the four priorities she outlined in print for her first 100 days:

First, we will put forward the biggest investment in new jobs since World War II. We’ll invest in infrastructure and manufacturing to grow our economy for years to come. We’ll produce enough renewable energy to power every home in America within a decade. We’ll cut red tape for small businesses and make it easier for entrepreneurs to get the credit they need to grow and hire — because in America, if you can dream it, you should be able to build it. We’ll pay for it all by asking the wealthy, Wall Street and big corporations to finally pay their fair share. And this commitment will go far beyond the first 100 days. Creating more good jobs with rising incomes will be a central mission of my presidency.

Second, we will introduce comprehensive immigration reform legislation. The last president to sign comprehensive immigration reform was Ronald Reagan, and it was a priority for George W. Bush. I’m confident that we can work across the aisle to pass comprehensive reform that keeps families together and creates a path to citizenship, secures our border, and focuses our enforcement resources on violent criminals. This is the right thing to do, and it will also grow our economy.

Third, to break the gridlock in Washington, we need to get secret, unaccountable money out of our politics. It’s drowning out the voices of the American people. So within my first 30 days, I will introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. We should be protecting citizens’ rights to vote, not corporations’ rights to buy elections.

Fourth, we need to get started on end-to-end criminal justice reform. Too many people have been sent away for far too long for non-violent offenses. I believe our country will be stronger and safer when everyone has respect for the law and everyone is respected by the law.

Let's Share Hillary Clinton's Final Pitch on Prime -Time TV on Election Eve :“Tomorrow let’s make history together”

Hillary Clinton delivers her closing argument in a two-minute ad to be aired Monday night 

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton will make her final pitch to voters nationwide in a two-minute campaign ad that’s scheduled to run Monday during prime time slots on TV.

In the direct-to-camera commercial, Clinton vows to “work my heart out” and be a president “for all Americans.”

Wearing white and backlit by soft white lighting, Clinton looks directly into the camera the entire time to deliver her final pitch without ever mentioning her opponent by name:


Our core values are being tested in this election, but everywhere I go people are refusing to be defined by fear and division. . . . Look, we all know we’ve come through some hard economic times and we’ve seen some pretty big changes, but I believe in our people.

She pledges in a calm tone, “I will work my heart out as president to make life better for you and your family,” adding, “We won’t always get it right, but you can count on this: I’ve never quit, and I never will.”

The candidate acknowledges, “I think we can all agree. It’s been a long campaign.” She adds, “But tomorrow, you get to pick our next president.”

The former secretary of state, senator and first lady who is vying to become the first female president of the United States says, “Tonight I’m asking for your vote, and tomorrow let’s make history together.”

Watch the ad above:

Clinton’s campaign estimates that the ad, set to air during NBC’s “The Voice” and CBS’ “Kevin Can Wait” — the prime-time network shows with the greatest audience — will reach an audience of about 40 million people nationally and  via shared  social media over 100 million.

The ad is a marked tonal shift from a Clinton ad released on Friday that depicted the terrifying hellscape that a President Donald Trump would usher in during his first year in office:

Clinton also made a final national pitch to newspaper readers in a USA Today op-ed published Monday morning.

“Everything I’ve done, as first lady, senator, or secretary of State, I’ve done by listening to people and looking for common ground, even with people who disagree with me,” Clinton wrote. “And if you elect me on Tuesday, that’s the kind of president I’ll be.”

Here are the four priorities she outlined in print for her first 100 days:

First, we will put forward the biggest investment in new jobs since World War II. We’ll invest in infrastructure and manufacturing to grow our economy for years to come. We’ll produce enough renewable energy to power every home in America within a decade. We’ll cut red tape for small businesses and make it easier for entrepreneurs to get the credit they need to grow and hire — because in America, if you can dream it, you should be able to build it. We’ll pay for it all by asking the wealthy, Wall Street and big corporations to finally pay their fair share. And this commitment will go far beyond the first 100 days. Creating more good jobs with rising incomes will be a central mission of my presidency.

Second, we will introduce comprehensive immigration reform legislation. The last president to sign comprehensive immigration reform was Ronald Reagan, and it was a priority for George W. Bush. I’m confident that we can work across the aisle to pass comprehensive reform that keeps families together and creates a path to citizenship, secures our border, and focuses our enforcement resources on violent criminals. This is the right thing to do, and it will also grow our economy.

Third, to break the gridlock in Washington, we need to get secret, unaccountable money out of our politics. It’s drowning out the voices of the American people. So within my first 30 days, I will introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. We should be protecting citizens’ rights to vote, not corporations’ rights to buy elections.

Fourth, we need to get started on end-to-end criminal justice reform. Too many people have been sent away for far too long for non-violent offenses. I believe our country will be stronger and safer when everyone has respect for the law and everyone is respected by the law.

Donald Trump and his Foundation of Fakery :Trump Foundation is no charity at all: New York AG says Trump lacks certification to collect funds.The Washington Post is out with another blockbuster report on Trump's "foundation of fakery"

Trump Foundation is no charity at all: New York AG says Trump lacks certification to collect funds.The Washington Post is out with another blockbuster report on Trump's "foundation of fakery"


(Credit: Reuters/Lucas Jackson)


Two weeks after New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced he had opened a broad inquiry into Donald Trump’s troubled foundation, a new report alleges the Republican nominee never actually obtained the certification that the state requires before charities can legitimately solicit money from the public.

According to exhaustive reporting by David A. Fahrenthold of The Washington Post, the Donald J. Trump Foundation never obtained the necessary certification to solicit money from the public during its nearly 30-year existence, an investigation by the state’s attorney general’s office has found.

ABC News has also confirmed the report.

New York law states that any charity that asks for more than $25,000 per year needs to obtain a special registration before soliciting offers. The Post, citing tax filings, reported that the Trump Foundation had raised more than $25,000 from outsiders in each of the last 10 years. The Post specifically detailed cases involving $2.3 million that raise questions about whether the money should have been taxed as income and whether that income was properly reported:

If New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) finds that Trump’s foundation raised money in violation of the law, he could order the charity to stop raising money immediately. With a court’s permission, Schneiderman could also force Trump to return money that his foundation has already raised.

Despite claims of giving away millions of dollars of his own money, Trump has not donated to his namesake foundation since 2008.

Another Post report earlier this week claimed Trump spent $258,000 from his foundation to settle lawsuits that involved his businesses – an apparent violation of laws against “self-dealing,” which prohibit nonprofit leaders from using charity money to benefit themselves.

Of course, the Trump Foundation has adopted a very charitable definition for its charitable giving, which included a $25,000 campaign donation to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi just four days before her office decided not to participate in a lawsuit against Trump University.

The Daily Beast also reported Friday that in 2010, the Trump Foundation gave $10,000 to Jenny McCarthy’s Generation Rescue, a nonprofit group whose primary goal is to promote false links between vaccinations and autism.

“McCarthy’s charity promotes ‘alternative vaccination physicians’ and has a grant program to provide families with autistic children with vitamins, minerals, and supplements; urine testing; and ‘dietary intervention training,’” The Daily Beast noted.


I am being proven right about massive vaccinations—the doctors lied. Save our children & their future.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2014

So many people who have children with autism have thanked me—amazing response. They know far better than fudged up reports!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 4, 2014

#ImWithHer #Vote ClintonKaineforthe45th Media’s big mistake: When we focus too much on Trump’s depravities, we ignore bigger issues.Is anyone interested in talking about what the next occupant might actually do?

Media’s big mistake: When we focus too much on Trump’s depravities, we ignore bigger issues.Is anyone interested in talking about what the next occupant might actually do?


Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally in Manchester, N.H., Aug. 25, 2016. (Credit: AP/Gerald Herbert)

Is this presidential race anything more than a chronicle of depravity? Is it about anything more than race hatred, emails, the deportation of millions, Benghazi, the alt-right, the founding of ISIS, the building of walls and the finances of Ukraine, the insults directed at a former prisoner of war and the parents of a soldier killed in another war, the encouragement of mob rule and the donors to the Clinton Foundation?

The reporting and excavation have to be done. The consequences of this election will be immense, and often enough a scandalous blurt is revealing. The Trump campaign qualifies as an emergency, and journalists who don’t know it and say it and explore its dimensions are cheating the public.

Yet one of the depravities that follows from Donald Trump’s efforts to convince America to take him seriously is that those depravities demand so much attention. A huge price is being paid for all the space and time devoted to the necessary exposés.
That price is nothing less than skilled reporting to help voters evaluate the candidates’ proposals. This may sound old-fashioned, but elections determine the direction of government, and government affects people’s lives. If the candidates’ proposals are not laid out and rationally questioned, not only does ignorance flourish, but the candidates are unable to build mandates to implement what they propose when the moment comes to take office.

Currently, the outrages, almost all from Camp Trump, come so thick and fast that journalists pile on, distracted by their excitement, justifiable as it often enough is. (I am not immune to the temptation.) Who wants to cut back reporting on the latest trampling of truth and decency, the latest insulting travesty of political speech, to issue forth from the loud mouth of the Golden Boy of Fifth Avenue? Who wants to bother much with what the next president proposes to do once she or he crosses the White House threshold unless the issue has exploded to firestorm proportions?

Not that this pattern of campaign by distraction is entirely new. Two obvious truths about the American campaign norm bear restating: (1) Determined candidates run smoke rings of evasion around the issues of the time. (2) Political journalists allow, or encourage, them to do so. These practices have hardened into a tradition. Routinely, the dominant theme at virtually every moment has been who’s ahead, who’s behind, who’s gaining, how tactics are and are not changing. Handicapping the horse race has been the dominant pursuit of political journalists as long as I’ve been paying attention to elections. I’ve been writing about the dreary results in various publications every four years since 1980.

That was the year, you may recall, when candidate Ronald Reagan said, “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.” I was hardly alone that year in noting Reagan’s artful dodging and the way journalists routinely gave him a pass. For Reagan had a long record of expressing himself on political issues, but his past record might as well have been sealed away in a vault. For years he had been writing weekly columns and giving radio talks on all manner of issues. Yet throughout 1980, not a single mainstream reporter thought them worthy of journalistic notice. Very few reported on how Reagan’s handlers handled his press “appearances.” I remember vividly a marvelous, exceptional piece by Maureen Orth, in theVillage Voice, revealing that reporters, frustrated at Reagan’s elusiveness, went to a tarmac somewhere, propped up a painting of Reagan and interviewed it for laughs. (Unfortunately I can’t locate her piece online to let readers laugh for themselves.)

It was left to the excellent Ronnie Dugger, four years after Reagan’s first victory, to pore through and report (in a book and in The Nation) on Reagan’s radio transcripts from 1975, 1978 and 1979, when he was broadcasting for five minutes a day, five days a week and also writing a column syndicated in 100 newspapers. Despite the relative brevity of his political life, there was plenty of material lying around to help a voter assess his outlook.

I remember ranting to a “60 Minutes” producer about the above in 1980. “I know,” he said wearily. “We talk about it all the time. But we can’t figure out how to do things differently.”

So what’s developed differently over the past 36 years, aside from the sleazy and consequential advertising campaigns featuring Willie Horton and “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” and the meteoric rise (and belatedly apologetic fall) of Lee Atwater? A fact-checking industry, for one thing — a good development. Statements and ads regularly go under the microscope, sometimes in real time — even, at times, on CNN’s chyron. Granted, fact-checking is a laborious business, even with Google’s help. Fact-checking must be one of America’s growth industries, and long may it be in the business of hiring, whatever the burden.

It’s not the fact-checkers’ fault that this year so many grotesque distortions have been uttered, the liars’ share of them by Trump, that fact-checking has encroached upon the space that otherwise have been taken up with color commentary.

But back to those neglected issues. Let’s pause for a moment on questions of workers’ rights. The eclipse of unions in an age of union-busting — and the rigging of union elections to favor management — are not just injustices but causes of wage stagnation and the collapse of the middle class.

But overwhelmingly the economic issues that have attracted attention in the campaign over recent months are trade deals and tax brackets. Both are important, but neither is exhaustive. In the meantime, Hillary Clinton has endorsed a number of significant economic positions virtually unnoticed. For the present, I’ll mention only three:

• She proposes to offer tax credits for businesses that hire apprentices. She endorses job training. Questions: How new are her proposals? How many hires does she anticipate? What do employment experts assess the effects of such programs? Candidates have been endorsing job training to the eyes-glazing-over point for decades. Why haven’t they been more effective? What will she do differently?
• On jobs, she proposes “bold investments in infrastructure,manufacturing, research and technology, clean energy andsmall businesses” to “create millions of good-paying jobs.” Question: How would workers displaced by the shutdown of manufacturing benefit? How would they find out about the new jobs?
• On unions, she proposes to “restore collective bargaining rights for unions and defend against partisan attacks on workers’ rights.” Question: Will any reporter ask why Canadian workers, as much affected by globalization as Americans, are unionized at a rate roughly triple the US rate? (Hint: It has to do with the difference between Canadian and American laws and regulations.)

These questions are only for starters. They’re not hard to come up with. One might, in a normal race, pray that an investigation of views, and the reasons the candidates hold them, might hold a candle to the horse race in sheer volume of coverage. Even then people holding old-fashioned ideas about the role of public discussion in a democracy would likely end up disappointed. Still and all, some journalists would come to feel proud that they did their duty to help the people make more informed choices.

In coming weeks, I hope to address such other questions as the candidates’ views on nuclear weapons; on crash programs to reduce carbon dioxide and methane emissions in electricity, industry, transportation and building; on anti-discrimination enforcement and the crisis in policing; on the Supreme Court — to name only a handful.

It would surely help elicit some answers to such questions if Clinton would hold press conferences. But then we would have to see if reporters would show one-tenth as much interest in her economic proposals as in the server she installed in Chappaqua.