Posts Tagged ‘Hillary Clinton’

Clinton versus Trump is the Bad versus the Ugly …

June 10, 2016

The Good is nowhere to be seen.

Of course, there may be some good among the bad and what is ugly is not necessarily all bad, but it must be immensely frustrating for US voters that the choice available is as impoverished as it is.

How Presidential candidates appear during the election is not a very good indicator of their performance. Ronald Reagan reduced expectations to those of a bad B-movie script, but ended up changing, and charging up, the mood in the country. Barack Obama raised expectations for all that he said he could but his Presidency has become a litany of all that he could not (did not).

So it is not impossible for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump to be great Presidents, but the signs are less than promising.

Still, it should be a fascinating contest with real entertainment value. I hardly watch and am no expert on how Big Brother functions, but my perception is that it is not “niceness” that wins. In fact, my perception is that ugliness is prized. Maybe Trump has shifted the battle to be an ugliness contest and has an advantage. But shrewishness also wins and wins big.

The Ugly Beast versus the Bad Shrew.

The Good is noticeable by its absence.


 

Obama, Clinton, media slam Trump, and Trump support will probably rise

June 2, 2016

This week has seen a concerted, seemingly coordinated, attack by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the establishment press on Trump and Trump University. If my theory, that Trump is riding an anti-establishment wave which feeds on attacks from the establishment, is correct, this will lead to an increase in Trump’s numbers. This will show up in next week’s polls.

The anti-establishment wave could, if fed enough energy by the media attacks on Trump, turn into an anti-establishment tsunami. I find it amazing that the NYT, WaPo, LA Times, HuffPo …. have not picked up on the reality that it is their “over the top” attacks on Trump which are energising and feeding his support. The content of their attacks has become irrelevant. It is their contempt which is creating a magnified reaction. The more the establishment seem to be “ganging up” on him, the greater the reaction. I see an analogy with the vibrational collapse of a bridge when troops march across in step and cause a resonance failure. As media attacks on Trump seem more coordinated, the anti-establishment reaction could reach resonance and become an uncontrollable tsunami.

Obama’s stuttering attack was particularly unconvincing and gives some backing to the suggestion that “Barack Obama as your enemy is equivalent to having a thousand friends”. 

(ISIS might agree. I note that the Iraqi (with US air support) assault on Fallujah has stalled. Massive advance publicity was released about the assault but it has been somewhat less effective than when Syria (with Russian air support) has taken back ISIS strongholds.)

https://youtu.be/mSxo9-Z5Ki0

In the meantime Clinton does not seem able to finally kill off Sanders. In line-ups against Trump, Sanders consistently does much better than Clinton. I take this as being consistent with the angry, anti-establishment wave which transcends “left” or “right”.


 

Hillary Clinton’s tweeter doesn’t understand Venn diagrams

May 22, 2016

I don’t suppose Hillary Clinton does it herself. I am sure she has a small army of bright young tweeters to help her engage socially.

This is the meaningless (to be kind – but incredibly stupid to be accurate) Venn diagram she tweeted about gun control.

clinton tweet

clinton tweet

The US has a population of 324 million (April 2016) and an adult population of about 240 million. Only about 160 million are registered to vote. Perhaps about 120 million will vote in the November election. So the next President will be elected with about 60 million votes (less than 20% of the population he or she will represent).

Surely the US could have produced two better candidates then Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.


 

Washington Post “promotes” video of Clinton lying

May 19, 2016

That somebody has made a montage of clips about Hillary Clinton’s untruthful statements over a number of years is not – in itself – so newsworthy or surprising. A Youtube video was posted in January this year. That such a video is promoted by the Drudge report is also not very surprising.

But I think it is a little surprising that the Washington Post (via Kathleen Parker) has helped this video to go viral is a little surprising. That a similar video of Donald Trump could be produced is certain. But why would the WaPo effectively help the Trump camp? Why now? The WaPo oped certainly has reached parts of the Democratic body corpus that other beers cannot reach. Of course the WaPo is far to the left of Hillary Clinton and they will do what they can to help Bernie Sanders. But even Sanders’ most ardent supporters cannot give him much of a chance.

Hillary Clinton’s vast resume of, shall we say, inconsistencies, is the dog that caught the car and won’t let go. A viral video collection of her comments on various subjects through the years is bestirring Republican hearts.

To those who’d rather vote for a reality show host than a Clinton, the video merely confirms what they’ve believed all along. For independents and even Democrats, it’s a reminder of how often Clinton has morphed into a fresh incarnation as required by the political moment.

Most of the highlights would be familiar to anyone who follows politics — her varying takes on Bosnia, health care, Wall Street, NAFTA — but the juxtaposition of these ever-shifting views is more jarring than one might expect. Politicians count on Americans’ short attention spans (and memories) as much as they do their own policies and/or charms. This video (https://youtu.be/-dY77j6uBHI), inartfully titled “Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight,” clarifies blurred recollections and recasts them in an order that, among other things, reminds us how long the Clintons have been around.

The video is worth watching in its own right: Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight

 

 

Trump does not need the GOP as much as they need him

May 11, 2016

Reuters’ rolling poll on the Trump/Clinton battle now becomes something to monitor. It is still early days, but the Reuters’ poll suggests that things are much closer than the headlines in the US media over the last few days. I begin to think that many of the stories in the liberal/left media are more wishful thinking rather than any real understanding. In fact, nobody still quite understands why Trump is riding as high as he is. Trump seems to be within 1 percentage point of Clinton rather than the tens of percentage points difference that some were quoting just a week ago.

RR 10 May

RR 10 May

I see no reason to change my opinion that this is an anti-establishment wave where the content of what Trump has to say is less important than how “anti-establishment” he is perceived to be. And that perception is directly related to how many establishment figures (including the media) are attacking him. Headlines against Trump in the Washington Post or Huffington Post or NYT are just as effective as attack speeches by GOP establishment figures in solidifying his support.

Chaos within the GOP is not necessarily a bad thing for Trump. In fact, visible opposition from establishment Republicans is probably a good thing for him. The GOP needs a Trump to rally around to keep the Party relevant, much more than Trump needs establishment GOP support to woo the electors.

For the Democrats Sanders is riding the same anti-establishment wave, and not a left-leaning socialist wave that some assume. There is very little chance for him to displace Hillary Clinton, but she has also misread the mood. She has been moving   to the left to try and steal Sanders’ thunder but traditional “left” and “right” are not drivers. Just moving to the left in policy terms will not serve her and will not remove the stigma of being “establishment” to her bones.

The rejection of “establishment” is showing signs of being a global phenomenon. Anti-establishment views are helping candidates from both the left and the right all across the globe (Greece for the left, Philippines for the right …). It is the perception of offering a “new way” which challenges old, “politically correct” platitudes, which is, I think, the dominating driver.

2016 could be the Year of the Mavericks.


 

Clinton supporters started the Obama “birther” movement

May 5, 2016

The level of ridiculous rhetoric is now going to rise in the US and it will be difficult for Clinton to match Trump. Yesterday he proclaimed (again) to the electorate that she had started the Obama “birther” movement. We can expect much more from Trump and Clinton’s staff may be hard put to keep up. In battles of exaggerated rhetoric, tempo is of critical importance. The person who makes the first claim always has an advantage. It is having the white pieces in a chess game.

But on the birther story, this certainly originated during the Clinton / Obama battle. There is still not much love lost between Clinton and Obama. The birther story was started, if not by Clinton, certainly by one or more of her supporters, and it was in 2008 during her primary battle with Obama.

The right wing is quick to point this out.

Hillary Team Started Birther Movement

  1. More than a full year before anyone would hear of Orly Taitz, the Birther strategy was first laid out in the Penn memo.

  2. The “othering” foundation was built subliminally by the Clinton campaign itself.

  3. Democrats and Clinton campaign surrogates did the dirtiest of the dirty work: openly spread the Birther lies.

  4. Staffers in Hillary’s actual campaign used email to spread the lies among other 0225_obamaturban_460x276Democrats (this was a Democrat primary after all — so that is the only well you needed to poison a month before a primary).

  5. The campaign released the turban photo.

  6. Hillary herself used 60 Minutes to further stoke these lies.

But even an objective review of the history does show that this narrative is essentially correct. The article reblogged below was published by FactCheck in July 2015, just after Trump had announced his intention to run for President.

Was Hillary Clinton the Original ‘Birther’?

 by , Posted on July 2, 2015

Two Republican presidential candidates claim the so-called “birther” movement originated with the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008. While it’s true that some of her ardent supporters pushed the theory, there is no evidence that Clinton or her campaign had anything to do with it.

In an interview on June 29, Sen. Ted Cruz said “the whole birther thing was started by the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008,” and earlier this year, Donald Trump claimed “Hillary Clinton wanted [Obama’s] birth certificate. Hillary is a birther.”

Neither Cruz nor Trump presented any evidence that Clinton or anyone on her campaign ever questioned Obama’s birthplace, demanded to see his birth certificate, or otherwise suggested that Obama was not a “natural born citizen” eligible to serve as president.

For those unfamiliar with the controversy over Obama’s birthplace, it refers to those who contend that Obama was born in Kenya and ineligible to be president.

At FactCheck.org, we have written about the issue of Obama’s birthplace on multiple occasions — indeed we were the first media organization to hold his birth certificate in our hot little hands and vouch for the authenticity of it. But facts have done little to squelch the conspiracy theories that continue to bounce around online.

The issue arose again this week in an interview with Cruz, who was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. Yahoo News’ Katie Couric asked Cruz if he thought that was going to be an issue for voters.

“It’s interesting, the whole birther thing was started by the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008 against Barack Obama,” Cruz said (at about the 25:25 mark). Cruz then went on to say that he believes he clearly meets the constitutional requirement for a president to be a “natural born citizen.”

The claim about Clinton’s tie to “birthers” was made earlier by Donald Trump in February at the CPAC event (at 24:20 mark). Trump — who has a history of pushing bogus theories about Obama’s birth —  said, “Hillary Clinton wanted [Obama’s] birth certificate. Hillary is a birther. She wanted … but she was unable to get it.”

We asked the Cruz campaign for backup, and it pointed us to two articles. The first ran in Politico on April 22, 2011, under the headline, Birtherism: Where it all began.”

Politico, April 22, 2011: The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008. At the time, the Democratic presidential primary was slipping away from Hillary Clinton and some of her most passionate supporters grasped for something, anything that would deal a final reversal to Barack Obama.

According to the article, the theory that Obama was born in Kenya “first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.”

The second article, which ran several days after the Politico piece, was published by the Telegraph, a British paper, which stated: “An anonymous email circulated by supporters of Mrs Clinton, Mr Obama’s main rival for the party’s nomination, thrust a new allegation into the national spotlight — that he had not been born in Hawaii.”

Both of those stories comport with what we here at FactCheck.org wrote  two-and-a-half years earlier, on Nov. 8, 2008: “This claim was first advanced by diehard Hillary Clinton supporters as her campaign for the party’s nomination faded, and has enjoyed a revival among John McCain’s partisans as he fell substantially behind Obama in public opinion polls.”

Claims about Obama’s birthplace appeared in chain emails bouncing around the Web, and one of the first lawsuits over Obama’s birth certificate was filed by Philip Berg, a former deputy Pennsylvania attorney general and a self-described “moderate to liberal” who supported Clinton.

But none of those stories suggests any link between the Clinton campaign, let alone Clinton herself, and the advocacy of theories questioning Obama’s birth in Hawaii.

One of the authors of the Politico story, Byron Tau, now a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, told FactCheck.org via email that “we never found any links between the Clinton campaign and the rumors in 2008.”

The other coauthor of the Politico story, Ben Smith, now the editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed, said in a May 2013 interview on MSNBC that the conspiracy theories traced back to “some of [Hillary Clinton’s] passionate supporters,” during the final throes of Clinton’s 2008 campaign. But he said they did not come from “Clinton herself or her staff.”

Josh Schwerin, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said Cruz’s claim is false. “The Clinton campaign never suggested that President Obama was not born here,” Schwerin wrote to us in an email.

It is certainly interesting, and perhaps historically and politically relevant, that “birther” advocacy may have originated with supporters of Hillary Clinton — especially since many view it as an exclusively right-wing movement. But whether those theories were advocated by Clinton and/or her campaign or simply by Clinton “supporters” is an important distinction. Candidates are expected to be held accountable for the actions of their campaigns. Neither Cruz nor Trump, whose campaign did not respond to our request for backup material, provides any compelling evidence that either Clinton or her campaign had anything to do with starting the so-called birther movement.

— Robert Farley

Donald Trump has to choose a woman and Hillary Clinton cannot

April 30, 2016

As the Republicans begin to accept, albeit reluctantly, that Donald Trump is going to be their candidate and as it becomes clear that Sanders has been eliminated, the choice of possible running-mates is coming to the fore.

It is pretty obvious to me that Hillary Clinton cannot chose a woman as her Vice Presidential pick. To be elected as the first woman President is already a risk. To have another woman as her running mate as well would be going over the top. She would risk alienating all the patriarchal minorities she is going to depend upon. A two-woman ticket, in the US of today, would almost certainly lose. It would be far too risky and Clinton just does not take risks.

Second, and more importantly, Clinton cannot afford, and will not tolerate, another woman who takes the feminist spotlight away from herself. Clinton’s feminist credentials are rather weak. She needs the comparison when juxtaposed with a man to get up to be just passable. Any woman she chose as her VP would almost certainly have stronger feminist credentials and would hog the feminist limelight. Clinton’s ego would not, could not, intentionally allow her to accept a position in the shadow of someone else.

Clinton needs to project an image of strength and resolve (which she does not naturally do). For this she requires a man as her running mate. She needs him to be perceived as being strong but subservient to her. In fact, all her closest advisors need to be men for the image of her strength to be enhanced. Not unlike how Indira Gandhi or Golda Meier or Margaret Thatcher chose in their heydays.

Just as Hillary Clinton has no choice but to avoid a female running mate, Donald Trump is, I think, forced to have a woman as his. His weakest support is with women and that support is necessary. But interestingly he needs an intelligent, feminine – rather than a feminist – partner. I merely observe that “intelligent and feminine” always trumps “feminist” (no pun intended) and even overrules “attractive”. A “feminine” female never needs to fight all the battles that a feminist does. “Feminine” always makes “feminist” look envious. She will need a track record for “smartness” and pragmatism. She will therefore have to be an experienced politician but feminine enough to eclipse Hillary Clinton. She will have to be feminine enough to make the feminist attacks seem like sour grapes or just envious “whining”. Trump has a track record of appointing women to high positions in his business empire and the voters will need to be reminded of that.

Ted Cruz has announced Carly Fiorina as his VP pick, but it seems a desperate bid for publicity against a rampant Trump. Fiorina herself would not qualify to be a Trump running mate. Sarah Palin’s name has been mentioned but I suspect she carries too much baggage. Condoleezza Rice has also been mentioned but she carries even more baggage. South Carolina governor Nikki Haley (nee Nimrata Nikki Randhawa and of Sikh origin) is not impossible and neither is Cathy Rodgers, a five-term Republican congresswoman. Susana Martinez is the Governor of New Mexico and in addition to being intelligent and feminine is also of Hispanic origin. Joni Kay Ernst is the junior Senator from Iowa and a combat veteran who has seen service in Iraq.

Trumps Picks

My guess would be that whoever he picks, in addition to being intelligent, feminine and with a track record in politics, will also probably represent an “immigrant” constituency. Which would take Nikki Haley and Susana Martinez to the top of the possible list.


 

Obama opposition to Trump could increase the anti-establishment wave in his favour

March 17, 2016

My theory is that Trump has activated and is riding an anti-establishment wave. Whenever an establishment figure (politician or main stream media) comes out against Trump, it increases the anti-establishment support for him. Therefore – my theory says – the only way to defeat Trump is by taking his ground away from him, not by attacking him from an establishment position. So Sanders, in my opinion, would have had a better chance against Trump. Hillary Clinton is the epitome of establishment.

Obama image: Sean Gallup-Getty

Obama image: Sean Gallup-Getty

Now it is reported that Obama and his advisors are strategizing against Trump and will likely come out, not just in favour of Clinton, but aggressively against Trump. Firstly there can hardly be a more establishment figure than the POTUS. Secondly, Obama and strategy don’t really go together. He will likely over-analyse the problem and try to make rational arguments against Trump. Which would be futile. It will be far too easy for Trump to counter-attack after Obama’s strategic and tactical fiascos in Syria against Putin. That added to Hillary Clinton’s own Benghazi fiasco will just be playing in to Trump’s narrative.

Washington Post: ….. President Obama is plunging into the campaign fray, not only to help Democrats retain the White House but in defense of his own legacy in a political climate dominated by Trump. ………

….. Obama and his top aides have been strategizing for weeks about how they can reprise his successful 2008 and 2012 approaches to help elect a Democrat to replace him. And out of concern that a Republican president in 2017 — either Trump or Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) — would weaken or reverse some of his landmark policies, Obama and his surrogates have started making the case that it is essential for the GOP to be defeated in November.

Assuming it becomes a Clinton / Trump election, Clinton would be far better off with Obama being silent. She does not need his support to become a visible confirmation that she is the establishment candidate. Obama being openly and vocally against Trump will only cement the anti-establishment wave behind Trump. It could even convert the wave into a tsunami.


 

Hillary Clinton’s health is suspect after fourth coughing fit

March 13, 2016

When one has a coughing fit one can’t do anything much and neither can Hillary Clinton. But she has now had her fourth major coughing fit in 3 months while making a public speech. She is left completely incapacitated. There has always been a question about her health (68 going on 69) and these questions are now coming to the fore. The speech incapacitation lasts for over 2 minutes and it is embarrassing to watch.

She is clearly in distress which lasts much longer than the actual coughing fit itself. I have acid reflux and asthma and I think I can recognise how she feels.

Maybe it is just acid reflux reaching the throat. But I doubt that.

The risk is that she is a lot sicker than she is letting on.

Inquistr: In July (2015), her campaign released medical records pronouncing her sufficiently healthy to serve as president and that also indicated that the Democratic front-runner in election 2016 is taking medicine for an underactive thyroid as well as another prescription for the above-mentioned blood clots following a concussion suffered in December 2012.

There are claims that the media is covering up the fact that she is suffering from hypothyroidism/Hashimoto’s disease.

The liberal press believes that these health concerns are a right wing conspiracy.

Gawker: These theories are promulgated by far-right fringe figures like Jerome Corsi at World Net Daily, but they’ve been amplified by people as mainstream as Karl Rove. They’re common knowledge to regular readers of Breitbart and the Daily Caller. The “Hillary Clinton is hiding a serious medical condition” theory has rapidly become an alternate conservative narrative of the election—it is, in other words, already the birtherism of 2016. How did that happen?

It is easy to dismiss over the top reports about Benghazi flu or brain injury or a heart problem, but it is not just a simple cough due to acid reflux.


 

The “Oh God! Anybody but Hillary” effect could take Trump all the way

March 3, 2016

The US Presidential election is getting to be extremely entertaining and well beyond my expectations. It looks like it is going to be Trump (85%) versus Hillary (98%) in November. An additional and quite unexpected source of entertainment has emerged as Republicans become contortionists to escape from their previous criticisms of Trump and find a convoluted way to align themselves behind him.

(I note also that many of Trump’s critics in Europe are beginning to realise that it might not be very healthy to be too loud in their criticism and disdain of somebody who could be the next President of the US. The Pope has already backtracked. Some Scottish Nationalists are also becoming intellectual contortionists.)

The Republican “elite” are in abject disarray it seems (but they have been in disarray ever since the Tea Party gained ground). As an opposition they have been pathetic. Even with a resounding majority in the House their establishment chinless wonders (guess who I mean?), have been remarkably ineffective.  “Stop Trump” is their new game, but they can’t. They can – possibly – dislodge him from being the GOP nominee but then he goes independent and then the GOP disintegrates.

For a Trump – Clinton battle in November, all conventional thinking is going to be of little use. The play-book for that game does not yet exist. It will be written from now on. It would, I think, be quite wrong to assume that the Trump then (in the mind’s eye of the electorate) will be the Trump we see now. It will be the perceptions he creates from now on, not those he has created so far, which will turn out to be decisive. Trump is turning out to be a rather smart – and clever – operator, in a clown’s clothing. He is becoming the champion of common sense and seems immune to attacks from “liberal McCarthyism” and from the tyrants of “political correctness”.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that Hillary Clinton would beat Trump easily. Her grass-roots organisation and the “Clinton brand” would, it is thought, rally the hordes to her cause and Trump would be wiped away. But I think conventional wisdom will turn out to be conventional folly in such a battle. Even on the feminism front, Clinton does not appear to have any decisive edge over Trump’s over the top support of being “feminine” (as opposed to feminism), which is sexist only to the most ardent of feminists. Clinton versus Trump will not be about ideologies but will be a battle of perceptions engendered and the emotions that are aroused. Clinton versus Trump will be black-and-white TV versus colour, it will be Blackberry versus the iphone, it will be – put simply – boring but known versus exciting if unknown. Normally unknown would be frightening – but not if the status quo is even more hopeless.

I have a sneaking suspicion that in a Clinton – Trump match-up, Clinton will defeat herself. Boring but known has its attractions when things are going well and the voter wants the status quo to be maintained. But for an electorate wanting “change” there will be little enthusiasm for Hillary. She projects the antithesis of “change”. She represents the worst of the establishment entrenched in their towers of elitism. Even adopting some of Bernie Sanders’ socialist ideas does not lift her up from “boring”. Obama promised “change” and “hope” and delivered neither. “American values” which made America “great” seem to have been diluted by too many years of wishy-washy liberalism.

“Oh God! Anybody but Hillary” and an anti-establishment tsunami could make Donald Trump President of the United States.