Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Will Hillary Clinton be the Next President? (Part 1)

*******
*******
Sorry, Bernie fans, Hillary Clinton’s pre-planned ascension is back on schedule
Dems relieved that she still owns minorities.
By  Robert Laurie -- Bio and Archives 
February 22, 2016
In the beginning, the conventional wisdom said that Bernie was jus a fringe crackpot - a left-wing pipe dream with no real chance of securing the nomination. Clinton had all the money and power on her side so, despite the fact that she’s unlikeable and untrustworthy, she became known as an “inevitability.” ...Then Iowa and New Hampshire happened.
Even though Hillary technically won, Iowa was seen as a victory for Bernie. He came within a hair’s breadth of taking a state that Hillary should have controlled. Then, Bernie parlayed that momentum into a dominating New Hampshire performance.  The left ignored the fact that he was being trounced in terms of pledged delegates and began to argue that “President Bernie” was no longer some crazy, pie-in-the-sky, idea.  Allegedly, he could win.
That notion was pretty much decimated on Saturday night. Team Hillary is now all but unstoppable. As left-wing rage Slate.com reports, “barring a catastrophe, her nomination is,” once again, “inevitable.” Bernie is pretty much finished.
He didn’t just have momentum—he was putting money and people into Nevada, the third state on the Democratic nominating calendar after Iowa and New Hampshire, and expanding his outreach to Latino voters. Suddenly, Nevada was in doubt. So much so that Mook issued a memo downplaying Nevada, focusing on South Carolina, and looking forward to the next swath of contests in March.
It turned out that all of this was unnecessary. On Saturday, Clinton won the Nevada caucuses by a comfortable margin of around 5 points. Yes, the Sanders campaign had made up ground on Clinton, who he noted in his concession speech led him by as many as 25 points in polling in Nevada last month. But that comeback effort wasn’t fast enough to overcome her built-in advantages and deny her a victory. ”The truth is, we aren’t a single issue country” Clinton said in her victory speech, hammering on her most recent line against Sanders. “We need more than a plan for the big banks.”
So, how did this happen? Well, it comes down to what Slate calls “the theory of the race.” The idea is that Bernie appeals only to idealistic white hippies and millennials. They pinned their hopes on the belief that he couldn’t corral black voters.
Basically, as a certain Mr. Herman Cain likes to say, all Democrat presidential races rely on keeping black voters “on the reservation.” The official party of race-baiting knows that - should the day come when a Republican (or a non-Democrat like Sanders) can take even a small percentage of “their” black voters - the DNC power structure will be completely undermined.
This is why the DNC elites invest a staggering amount of time and effort into labelling every opponent an “ist.”  Every outsider - regardless of political orientation - is either a sexist, a racist, or some kind of classist. These attacks were tougher to mount against Sanders, but they tried.  Bernie, Hillary claimed, is a borderline sexist who isn’t particularly interested in addressing systemic racism.  This is a little more oblique than what we usually see from team Clinton, but it may have worked.
Hillary won, and - as Slate argues - unless blacks abandon her in droves, she’ll be the Dems’ nominee:
By winning, Team Clinton doesn’t just score delegates—it proves its theory of the race. The Clinton campaign believes that Sanders’ strength and enthusiasm is illusory; that it reflects the peculiar demographics of Iowa and New Hampshire—rural states with few minorities—more than any pro-Bernie tide in the Democratic Party. Nevada, in other words, was a test. If Clinton lost, then it presaged a tighter race in South Carolina and beyond, and possibly one that ended with a Sanders nomination. Now, instead, we have a race that essentially looks like it did in the beginning of the year. Clinton has the advantage, and barring a catastrophic decline with black voters, she’ll march steadily to the nomination.
As I’ve argued before; if the Democrat primaries were functioning solely ‘on the merits’ Hillary would probably have been defeated a long time ago.  However, the DNC is not doing things ‘on the merits.’ Contempt for Sanders has been on display since day one. For evidence, you need look no further than the way the party set the debate schedule to benefit Clinton. The fix was in from the start.
The fact that someone with Hillary’s monumental pile of baggage is still in the race simply boggles the mind. She’s also the Dems’ worst campaigner since Dukakis.  That’s impressive, considering that they previously nominated vintage audio-animatronic figures named John Kerry and Al Gore.
For the party, though, none of that matters. Bernie will never be allowed to be the Democrat nominee - and Saturday’s loss probably sealed his fate.
Robert Laurie’s column is distributed by CainTV, which can be found at caintv.com
Be sure to “like” Robert Laurie over on Facebook and follow him on Twitter. You’ll be glad you did.
*******
Anti-Semitic Ex-Congressman with Ethics Issues Joins Hillary's Team
"That came from Jews and Republicans"
November 30, 2015
Daniel Greenfield
It seemed impossible, but Team Hillary has actually gotten uglier and nastier. The Free Beacon's Alana Goodman has the scoop.
Hillary Clinton has appointed to her leadership team a former congressman who blamed his defeat on “Jewish interests” and the “Jewish media,” her campaign announced earlier this month.
Shortly after his defeat, Earl Hilliard,  gave an interview to the Black Commentator in which he said “Jewish interests” bought the election for Davis.
Does it get worse? It's Hillary. S of course it gets worse.
“The only thing I know for sure, that I saw in black and white, is $1,098,000 that [Davis] reported,” said Hilliard in the July 16, 2002 interview. “You can’t take money from corporations, so that came from Jews and Republicans. There’s no question where that money came from.”
Hilliard said his opponent also received millions of dollars in free media coverage.
“Remember, the Jewish media. They started putting word out, they wanted everybody to know, because … obviously they felt that the money they had, that they put in, that they were going to beat me,” he said.
Hilliard’s campaign was also accused of distributing an anti-Semitic leaflet against Davis in the 2002 race.
“Mr. Davis must simply understand that Jews the world over have never come to the aid of black or dark skin people because it was the right thing to do,” said the flyer.
Hilliard denied any connection to the advertisement. After the election, he warned that his loss would incite “retribution” against Jews.
“I see a future with a great deal of conflict between African-Americans and Jews in this country,” Hilliard told the Associated Press on June 28, 2002. “It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I don’t think African-Americans are going to sit back and let this continue. There will be retribution.”
What's next? Welcoming Cynthia McKinney to the team?
But Hilliard's loss might have had less to do with the Jews and more to do with his ethics issues. That gives him something else in common with Hillary.
The committee found three separate violations, all involving expenditures that were not for legitimate campaign purposes:
From April 1993 through March 1994, the Hilliard for Congress Campaign made at least nine loans totaling $16,205 to three individuals. Two of the recipients were employed in the lawmaker's district offices.
From July 1992 through August 1996 the campaign paid salary and benefits to three individuals working both for the campaign and the private companies. The three "routinely performed administrative, secretarial, bookkeeping and other services" for three private companies, the committee found.
From approximately 1993 through 1996, campaign funds were converted to personal use by Hilliard and used to pay rent and utility costs for the Hilliard family corporations.
The committee found that $13,205 was loaned to Hilliard's niece, Rita Hall Patterson. She held positions in the campaign committee and the family businesses.
Also receiving personal loans were two congressional staff members of Hilliard's Alabama offices, Elvira Williams and Jacqueline Smith.
The campaign committee paid salary and benefits to Elizabeth Turner. While working for the committee, "the majority of her time and efforts were spent in the service of" the Hilliard companies, the ethics committee said.
The firms and the campaign used the same building.
A slow day at the office in Clintonworld.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
*******
Also See:
Days Before the Two Candidates Are Known!
14 January 2016
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2016/01/days-before-two-candidates-are-known-it.html
and
What Do You Know About The Clintons?
24 December 2016
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2015/12/what-do-you-know-about-clintons.html
 and
Hillary Clinton, the Wanttabe President!
06 October 2015
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2015/10/hillary-clinton-want-be-president.html
and
Will Hillary Run For President?
19 April 2015
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2015/04/will-hillary-run-for-president.html
and
War on Drugs is a Farce!
09 January 2014
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2014/01/war-on-drugs-is-farce.html
and
The Next President of United States - Hillary Clinton!
21 December 2013
and
What's with Recent U.S. Presidents?
27 June 2013
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2013/06/whats-with-recent-us-presidents.html
and
Hillary Clinton's Testimony on Benghazi!
24 January 2013
and
The Saga of the Benghazi Report!
22 December 2012
and
What Happened in Benghazi?
31 October 2012
and
Some News From the Democratic Race
18 April 2008
and
Three Hopeful Presidential Candidates
13 December 2007
and
Bill Clinton was a Great President. Wasn't He?
03 October 2007
*******

No comments: