Hillary Clinton, 2008: "I'm a Pro Gun Churchgoer".

Hillary Clinton had been traveling around Wisconsin at campaign events doing what only she has proved she can do with dexterity -- talk out of the left side of her mouth after talking out of the right side. Sometimes she even does ventriloquism putting words in other people's mouths.

Clinton's latest attempt at having a "conviction", (no pun intended considering the FBI investigation) is something we've heard before and was the subject of one of her Wisconsin rallies and something we are certain to hear more about in New York. It's about guns.

She was talking at her campaign rally about her strong anti-gun stance and how she is going to stand up to the gun lobby and fight the NRA, implying Sanders won't, and how committed she is to doing something about guns.

Her strong stance on guns even brought out Gabby Giffords and her husband to previous campaign events to show their support for Hillary and her tough stance against guns which includes her attacks against Bernie Sanders as being pro-gun even though he has a D minus rating from the NRA. 

Clinton also said  in Wisconsin how "important" this issue is for her and that she is "going to keep talking about guns and Im not going to stop talking about guns " and promised to continue to draw the contrast between herself and Sanders on guns.

Except that what she had to say about guns in 2008 was slightly different. 

At a campaign rally in Indiana in 2008 Clinton described herself to that crowd as "pro gun". She called herself a "pro gun churchgoer" and told everyone how her "father taught me to shoot when I was a young girl".

If you click the link above to the Times article the comments alone are a devastating indictment of Clinton, her constant shifting of positions to suit a political climate and even then how thoroughly she was distrusted and the contempt she aroused about her character.

It's hard to argue with the David Axelrod 2008 campaign memo calling Hillary Clinton politically dishonest and "having no real convictions, constantly shifting positions based on what's politically expedient at the moment". But still, things keep popping up that have to make even a staunch Clinton supporter have a hard time clearing their throat.

Clinton's love of guns and church in 2008 didnt come out of nowhere. And it didn't come out of any life long deeply held conviction about guns and church either. It was a result of Obama taking a lot of heat the week before over comments he was overheard to make which became public about people in rural Pennsylvania "clinging to their guns and religion out of bitterness and frustration. ''

Not one to let a political opportunity slip by Clinton pounced. And before long Hillary was telling everyone how "pro gun" she is, and how her father taught her to shoot when she was a young girl. And how important going to church has always been. 

If calling herself a " a pro gun churchgoer" seemed a strange combination since the two dont normally go together as Clinton's current pollster Joel Benson said about her back in 2008, when you have no real convictions, just political ambition, nothing is strange. And anything goes.

Its clear as Clinton continues to campaign in 2016 nothing has changed since 2008. Including the way she changes positions on controversial topics like guns, TPP, the XL pipeline, income inequality, Isis, minimum wage and who knows what tomorrow will bring. But her political character has stayed the same.

Clinton's original dishonest attack on Sanders as "pro gun"  was over a vote Sanders cast in the senate against a law that would have held gun manufacturers accountable for anything someone did with a gun and allow manufactureres to be sued simply  for having made the gun. Which would be like allowing the victim of a drunk driver to sue Ford for making the car in the first place. Or suing the hospital for having delivered the Charleston psychopath.  It was by any accounting a stupid law that had nothing to do with a gun dealer or manufacturer violating existing laws or regulations, or negligence or a product defect. It would have done nothing to keep guns out of the hands of people who should never have them. And Sanders voted against it. 

That is the basis for Clinton attacking Sanders as "pro gun" while in 2008 when it was to her political advantage, she proudly described herself as "pro gun".  Kind of like when she described herself as a moderate last year then a progressive this year which Sanders pointed out in a debate and which Clinton called " a smear". Making her the first candidate in political history to describe something she called herself as "a smear". 

Clinton doesn't bring up that Obama after he was elected in 2008 could have passed any gun legislation he wanted. Democrats were elected with the biggest congressional majority of any party in 60 years including a filibuster proof senate. Obama could have easily passed the re authorization ban on assault rifles. He could have passed almost any gun control legislation he wanted. He did nothing. It never occurred to him . Until Sandy Hook. By then Republicans controlled congress and it was too late. 

But you won't hear criticism from Clinton about that. Instead you'll hear attacks on Sanders for voting against a stupid law that would have accomplished nothing, a vote that was the basis for a NY Daily News cheap shot headline writer disfiguring answers Sanders gave in a Q&A with editors on a broad range of topics but chose to single out  the Sandy Hook law suit something Clinton will undoubtedly try to use for her own cheap shots. Shots that her father did not teach her to take when she was a young girl, but shots she learned how to take all by herself. 

Who's Your Birther? Clinton Campaign Memo, 2007: "Attack Obama On Lack of American Roots".

So Who's Your Birther? It looks like Hillary Clinton even before the Tea Party lunatics and Donald Trump.

A Hillary Clinton campaign memo from 2007 anticipating a run from Barrack Obama talked about a line of attack against Obama based on his "lack of American roots". Which might also be called Clinton's Who's Your Daddy strategy.

It didn't stop there. The memo, written by Clinton campaign manager Mark Penn went on to say, " I cant imagine America electing a president during a time of war (Iraq) who is not at his center fundamentally American" (italics added). Anyone who thinks that didn't reflect a  personal discussion of a potential strategy with Hillary before it was memorialized in a campaign memo circulated to staff are in the same place as climate change deniers.

It's hard to know what the results in the South might have been had the Sanders campaign stumbled across this memo and used it,  but it does show just how accurate David Axelrod's assessments in an Obama campaign memo in 2008 were in talking about how duplicitous Clinton can be. And how what she says can never be trusted, its all politics.

It's this kind of two faced duplicity and  facade that is all the more reason there is a real need to see the transcripts of Clinton's Wall Street speeches. Or make the case they are too damaging to Clinton for voters to see. There is every reason to believe she said one thing to them and another in her campaign speeches about "standing up to Wall Street". Which no one believes anyway but she still needs to be pressed on her speeches. 

This isnt about whatever innate abilities Clinton might have though the Axelrod memo of 2008 saying Clinton "has no convictions" is why her judgement on the most important issues she's had to deal with has been horrible and in many ways disqualifying. But along with that is mounting evidence that politically Hillary Clinton is as dishonest and untrustworthy as polls show Americans believe she is.

Every day Clinton continues to prove to be every bit the political opportunist with "shifting positions and no convictions" a 2008 Axelrod campaign memo said she was.

Comparing the two memos, Clinton's from 2007 and Obama's from 2008 is almost political satire with both sides privately trashing each other and their character.And makes it even more amusing they are both now singing each other's praises. And why the singing sounds so off-key. And is so phony and hypocritical. And why the Democratic Party is in such a need of a political house cleaning 

Obama went on to become perhaps the single biggest sell out of Democratic ideas, values and the progressive agenda in the history of the Democratic party for no other reason that his own personal lack of conviction,along with his prolific serial dishonesty from his sell out of the public option to the health insurance companies and ridiculously inflated numbers on Obamacare to his Get Out of Jail for a Price policies for Wall Street executives who pled guilty to fraud. Not to mention the ACLU statement some years ago that Obamas record on civil liberties was "disgusting". 

Clinton, deciding it was to her political advantage, is now running on supporting those sell outs and failed polices. But as we have seen in the past only for political expediency, stealing Sanders ideas and shifting positions where she sees Sanders winning on things like income inequality,  TPP and  the XL Pipeline. 

Seeing how Obama and Clinton privately attacked each other in 2007 and 08, but  now present themselves as political allies could lead to the conclusion that it takes one to know one. And why the Democratic party needs a thorough house cleaning. It's a house cleaning only Sanders can affect. Its those opposing Sanders within the Democratic party and supporting Clinton for the sake of preserving establishment politics whose political hypocrisy is why Democrats lose elections. The more Clintons own hypocrisy is exposed, the more likely they are going to jump ship to Sanders.

Bill's "Awful" Truth About Obama Exposes Hillary's Dishonest Deal.

Its hard to know if Hillary Clinton threw a shoe at Bill Clinton's head when he got home that night, but in a speech he made on behalf of Hillary's candidacy in Spokane,Washington, in a few words showed why an Axelrod memo from 2008 saying she has no convictions is true and why Hillary can't be trusted.

During a speech in which he tries to paint Hillary as the "agent of change", which as an aside is one more example of the blatant stealing from the Sanders campaign,he refers to Hillary and the Obama presidency as how Hillary can "take us out of the awful  legacy of the last 8 years".

Which makes it kind of funny along with illuminating since it's the "awful legacy of the last 8 years" that Hillary has been running on and pledging to continue. Which in one sentence not only revealed how politically dishonest Hillary is and has been and proved what David Axelrod said about her in 2008 is true -- that she has no convictions but only does what is politically expedient -- but Bill's blurting out the truth that just about every Democrat knows is true also made fools of everyone who voted for Hillary based on her pledge to continue Obama's "legacy" and everyone who still supports her.

Bill told the truth. As any real liberal or Democrat knows the last 8 years under Obama  have been awful. Obama has been the most underhanded, dishonest, duplicitious failed president the Democrats have ever had, from selling out the public option to the health insurance lobby and replacing it with his "bait and switch" failed Obamacare, to Wall Street and his too big to jail policies for executives who pled guilty to criminal fraud, his constant failures and bad judgement with Isis, and a hundred other things. 

Obama was also elected with the biggest congressional majority any president had in the last 60 years including a filibuster proof senate and did nothing with it .

Bill Clinton knows it and Hillary does too even though Hillary has been staking her campaign on continuing the horror show. It might be why when Sanders wins, he beats her by so much Sanders turns her into Lyndon LaRouche, a virtually irrelevant candidate most recently beating her by 57 points in Idaho and 60 in Utah. He's had similar wins in Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Oklahoma along with coming from 18-25 points behind two days before the Michigan primary and winning by 2.It hasnt gone unnoticed by the Clinton camp.(Note: Sanders added Washington,Alaska and Hawaii beating Clinton by margins approaching 4-1).

It also proves the obvious --  the sleazy backroom deal Hillary made with Obama, promising to praise him, praise his policies with nonsense like " President Obama doesn't get enough credit" and promising to continue them in return for his help.

It proves another point that was made in a David Axelrod memo in 2008:  that Hillary is willing to say anything to get elected, that she has no convictions and only does what is politically expedient for her at the moment.

What Hillary was promised in return for selling out whatever convictions she had was Obama's help, pulling strings for her in the South where it was Obama's influence alone that resulted in her big wins, and pulling strings at the Obama controlled DNC to provide phony superdelegate counts to make it look like she has a bigger lead than she does.

Bill Clinton knows that too. Referring to Obama's presidency as " the awful legacy of the last 8 years" was no accident. A slip of the tongue maybe, but he meant every word.

The damage control the Clinton campaign has tried is as laughably pathetic and transparent as her Wall Street speeches are opaque.

They tried to claim that what Bill Clinton was referring to as "awful"  wasn't Obama but was "GOP obstructionism". This shows that they either think they have a lot of dumb supporters, think their supporters have no integrity, or are willing to insult their intelligence with that kind of stupidity and assume Hillary supporters won't mind.

Bill Clinton knows what a "legacy" is. And it has nothing to do with political obstructionism. And anyone watching the clip can hear Bill in the same sentence add, "and the awful 7 years before that" referring to the the George W. Bush administration, rightly blaming them for the economic crash, lumping both Obama's presidency and Bush's together as "awful". And they are and were. Unfortunately it's the same awful presidency Hillary is running on and promising to continue.(In case you think the reference to "7 years" relating to Bush somehow is evidence that Bill "misspoke" or mixed up his years, the Democrats took over the House in 2007.)

What is also clear is that Hillary's message, continuing Obama's policies is not working elsewhere, its Sanders' message that is. So Bill was there trying to sell Hillary as the "agent of change" when everyone knows its Sanders who is that change. 

And finally admitting Obama has been awful isnt going to change that. No one is going to look to Hillary as a change from Obama. It's too late for that. 

There is little doubt that Hillary and Bill have had private discussions between themselves about how "awful" Obama's presidency has been. What Bill Clinton said didn't come out of thin air, especially since it's true. In fact at the beginning of the clip Bill makes reference to he and Hillary talking about it " just yesterday". Now we know what they talked about. And shows what both Bill and Hillary really think of Obama. 

But instead of running on her own qualifications and ideas she chose to ditch them in favor of political expediency and maneuvering by rolling over for Obama in return for whatever help he can give. Just as David Axelrod said she does.

It isnt the first time. Her preposterous politically motivated non-answer about George W. Bush and 911 was proof of how everything she says and does is politically motivated and the truth doesn't matter.  Which is why she is unqualified to be president. Along with her horrendous judgement motivated strictly by politics whether it was her awful decision on the Iraq war, her awful support of TPP and the Keystone Pipeline until it became more politically expedient for her to reverse her positions and her awful support of an awful healthcare law that was the biggest sellout to corporate interests -- the health insurance lobby -- in American history.

Bill's inadvertent truth telling shows what the polls say about Hillary is true. She can't be trusted. And what Democrats really need is a candidate who can be trusted, whose ideas resonate around the country and who will give the Democrats what they desperately need -- not only a victory in November but a thorough house cleaning. Bill could do it. But not Hillary. The only one who can now is Bernie Sanders. And that's the truth.

Why The Blame For Blocking Garland Belongs to Obama and the Democrats.

Democrats, showing again they can be every bit as dishonest as the Republicans they criticize (often with valid reasons) are now pretending that its the Republicans fault and their obstructionism that is blocking a hearing or confirmation of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court despite his unquestioned qualifications. That's because Democrats and their leadership will do anything to avoid the truth.

The fault of senate Republicans refusing to even consider or hold hearings on Obama's pick for the Supreme Court lies completely with Obama. If not for Obama's duplicity, dishonesty and a massive failure of integrity, Democrats,not Republicans, would still control the congress .

They don't because of Obama's betrayal right from the beginning of the Democratic agenda he was elected to implement aided and abetted by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who didn't have the backbone or integrity to stand up to Obama and his capitulations especially on health care ,that is the sole reason Republicans have the majority in the first place and so are able to block anything Obama does.

When Obama was elected in 2008, after 8 years of George W. Bush and a Republican controlled congress that ran the country into the ground, Barrack Obama was elected  president and along with Obama, a Democratic tsunami in congress that gave Obama and the Democrats the biggest congressional majority of any party in 60 years. That is what Obama had to work with. He could have passed just about anything.

What did Obama do with it? Practically nothing. 

George W. Bush saw more legislation passed in 3 months with a 52-48 Republican majority in the senate than Obama had in 2 years with a 60-40 Democratic majority.

Remember that it was Obama, when he was still running in the 2008 primaries, who was joked about as being the most unaccomplished do nothing candidate for president in history. And that was by many Democrats and liberals. He has shown why.

Did Obama reauthorize the assault weapons ban when he easily could have? No. It took what happened at Sandy Hook for it to have even occurred to him. And by then it was too late.  Did he eliminate derivatives, the instrument that banks gambled with that caused the financial  melt down? No. But it was what Obama finally did decide to do that proved a disaster not just for the country but the Democrats as a party.

Instead of simply passing the health care reform bill he had touted since 2007 which was all about the public option and which according to a NY Times/CBS poll 72% of the country wanted, he wasted everyone's time with useless unnecessary town hall meetings to "talk about it" that went on for a year resulting in the eyeball bulging, vein popping , spit running down people's chin spectacles everyone watched on television largely orchestrated by Republicans.

It had it's affect on Obama. At the last minute Obama did what has been his political hallmark : he caved in to the health insurance companies who didnt want the public option because it would hurt their business, and so Obama sold out the public option to the health insurance lobby and did it after healthcare reform with the public option had already passed the House and the votes were there in the senate to pass it (contrary to Clinton's lie that the votes weren't there to pass it).

Instead of seeing it pass easily, Obama, who has demonstrated his entire political life that he has no real principles, no real convictions, nothing he ever really believed in other than his own election, instructed Harry Reid to take the public option out of the health care bill. Obama kept quiet about it never admitting that he did and never saying why.What he did do was lie to Jim Leherer on PBS that he had never campaigned for the public option.

The result of Obama's sell out is the garbage called Obamacare which has been such a miserable failure, 22 of the 23 state exchanges have already or will go out of business due to low enrollment.

But it also failed Democrats who didn't stop Obama from selling it out. The result which I predicted in two articles one in February of 2010,  of what would happen if Democrats let Obama sell out the public option, was that in the 2010 congressional elections Democrats were wiped out and suffered the worst defeat of any political party in 80 years only two years after winning the biggest congressional majority in 60 years. It was solely because of the Democrats failure to deliver the promised public option when they could have. 

In 2014, in the first election after the first full year Obamacare was actually implemented and Democratic and Independent voters saw what garbage it was and rejected it, they rejected the Democrats too and sent them a "Thank You" note in the form of the Democrats getting wiped out again, losing  even the slim majority they had left over in the senate from 2010.

Thanks to Obama's callous sellouts of health care and what was called by Matt Taibi in Rolling Stone as Obama's "bait and switch" healthcare bill, the Democrats went from a 60-40 majority in the senate who would have confirmed Garland by now, to a 55-44 minority with one independent in Chaffee.  Given that senators have 6 year terms and how safe most incumbent senate seats are, losing 16 senate seats in 6 years is an unparalleled disaster that is as resounding as Obama's policy failures from health care to Wall Street, and the Democrats capitulation that went along with it.

A Republican majority in congress and a Democratic president unable to make a Supreme Court appointment is reaping what Obama,Reid and Pelosi sowed.

Had it not been for the total disregard of Obama and the Democratic leadership for doing what was right and delivering for voters what they were promised, the Democrats would still be in firm control of congress.And Garland would be heading to the Supreme Court. So there is no reason to blame Republicans for blocking anything Obama does when the reason they can is Obama and the Democrats in congress who sold out everything they promised. They are solely responsible for the Republican majority.

If Obama has any legacy its this: thanks to Obama and the Democratic leadership who didn't have the guts to stand up to Obama's sell outs,(the same sellouts presumably Clinton would continue) Republicans now have the biggest  Republican congressional majority since before WWII. That's Obama's legacy. That's what Obama will leave behind along with a broken and failed healthcare law.And that's what Clinton is pledging to continue. 

Those are the reasons Obama and Democrats can't get a Supreme Court nominee confirmed. And unless there are radical changes in the way Democrats do business, its going to stay that way.

It's called making your bed and lying in it.

Will Democrats Let a GOP Senate Get Away With Saving a Supreme Court Pick For Donald Trump?

After president Obama nominated Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court the talking heads including those on CNN droned on about everything except the current reality.Which is what they usually do, talking about reality as if the same reality exists today as it did a month ago when Republicans were adamant that they wouldn't even meet with a Supreme Court pick nominated by Obama.

 

Its almost as if of the GOP elephant in the room, didn't exist. That GOP elephant is Donald Trump. And despite the fact the talking heads can't figure it out, it changes everything.

 

The only purpose for the GOP dominated senate not to hold hearings or confirm a Supreme Court pick nominated by Obama was to preserve the pick in the hopes that a Republican will win the presidency in November. Its purely partisan and everyone knows it.  They have also been afraid that if they allowed Obama to name a Justice and confirmed that nominee their partisan constituency would take it out on them at the ballot box in November.

 

But in the last few weeks  everything has changed. It's become obvious  ( to everyone except the political talking heads at CNN) that the Republican nominee is going to be Donald Trump. The same Donald Trump almost everyone in the Republican party has been bashing, attacking and refusing to support from elected officials to party officials past and present and who most Republicans are on the record of hoping to stop from Lindsay Graham to Mitt Romney. Even Bob Dole got into the bash Trump act.

 

So after all that how do Republicans justify not even holding hearings on Garland in order to preserve the hope of a Supreme Court pick for a presidential candidate that most Republicans think is a horror show and have been trashing in ways no one has seen before?

 

 How do they think that is going to play with the rest of the country and in the party?

 

Now that it is a veritable certainty that Trump will be the nominee, a nominee that most GOP senators and party officials have disowned, rejected and attacked,  refusing to meet with, hold hearings on, or even confirm Garland is not just an endorsement of Trump but an embrace.

 

After all the Republican attacks on Trump do they even have any viable position both politically and institutionally? Are they willing as a party to compromise the institution of the senate and the Supreme Court  and let it function with only 8 justices for a year in the hopes of preserving a Supreme Court pick for  a candidate they are trying to stop from even getting the nomination? Are they willing to live with that both politically and as a matter of conscience?

 

Andrew Breitbart, the well known conservative,  called Trump a " gold plated sleaze" and " a moral cretin".  Is that who senate Republicans are blocking Garland for in the hopes of  preserving a Supreme Court pick?

 

How do GOP senators up for re-election run on and defend that in the fall?  Are they really willing to risk the condemnation of most Americans including their own Republican officials in the hope of savinga Supreme Court nomination for  candidate they publicly despise?

 

Those are the real stakes and the real issues.  Nothing else. And certainly not "principle".

 

Democrats for the most part have proved themselves to be the most politically pathetic collection of non-strategists and bumbling idiots in anyone's memory dating back to Al Gore's incompetent presidential campaign in 2000.

 

 But if Democrats cant win this fight, if they cant attack Republicans on Trump over Garland,  and beat up  Republicans including McConnell and others who have publicly trashed Trump and accuse them of the worst form of partisan dishonesty and hypocrisy in memory in willing to go against their own  judgement and beliefs so they can preserve a Supreme Court nominee for a candidate most of them despise, if Democrats cant beat them up over that and make them back down politically, then Democrats would be a  political embarrassment too.

 

Here is a tip for Republicans running for re-election. Confirm Garland and you take the moral high ground especially from Hillary Clinton if she should be the Democratic nominee, something still very much up in the air, and even doubtful  but missed by the same talking heads.

 

This is the chance for Democrats to put every Republican in the U.S. senate on the line, or hook for Donald Trump and either confirm Garland or make them look like partisan hypocrites willing to save a Supreme Court nominee for someone they say is unqualified to be president. 

 

And to make matters worse for Republicans, refusing hearings or to confirm Garland could be portrayed by Democrats as Republicans supporting  Trump's character over Garland's for purely partisan reasons when they don't believe it themselves.

 

A number of Republicans while acknowledging Garland's qualifications said its not about the person its about a principle.  No its not. It might have been 3 weeks ago but not now. It's no longer about a principle its about one reality and two persons, Donald Trump and  Merrick Garland.

 

If Republicans want to go to the mat over trying to preserve a Supreme Court pick for Donald Trump, if they want to make that an issue for  senate Republicans up for re-election to have to defend, let them.It's no longer about principle. Its about who Republicans  in the senate stand with and want to support, Merrick Garland or Donald Trump. And if Democrats cant win that argument they should just go home.

 

This is a fight you'd have to be not just incompetent but an idiot to lose. Its now up to Democrats and their so called strategists to prove that they're not.

Will Trump Ever End Up In An Orange Jump Suit?

NOTE: This article was originally written before the Sheriff's office in Cumberland county, North Carolina put out a statement by Ronnie Mitchell, the Sheriff's office attorney, that Trump is being investigated for incitement to riot over an incident that took place at one of his rallies in Fayetsville, North Carolina. Eventually the decision was not to charge. But that it was considered at all proves the article's speculation is not far fetched.

                                                                * * *
             

We might not be too far away from seeing Donald Trump give his first jailhouse interview. Trump is getting dangerously close to crossing the line into inciting a riot. And being arrested. That's not fantasy but a legal possibility.

 

It hasnt happened yet, but with his statement that he is exploring the possibility of paying the legal fees for the Trump supporter who cold cocked a protestor walking by, other statements about punching people in the face, killing them and clearly getting carried away by the crowds he is attracting, their fervor, his influence on them and lets not forget his statement a few months ago that he could shoot people in the street and his supporters would still vote for him, Trump's head is swelling as big as his bank account, he is starting to feel invulnerable, and maybe even above the law, and that is the first step to the possibility of seeing Donald Trump in an orange jump suit.

 

Trump is feeling a sense of power he has never felt or experienced before. And there could very well be a moment at a rally where it all goes to his head and in a brief moment it all gets away from him.

 

It wouldn't take much. Another big rally, feelings at a fever pitch, and group of protestors showing up like they did in Chicago, Trump determined not to call off a rally a second time, and when the protestors interrupt the rally, he urges his supporters to "shut them up", and "do whatever you have to do" or some statement that encourages violence and a riot breaks out.

 

If that happened, and it could, all it would take would be for a local prosecutor unmoved by political considerations to feel Trump was responsible by inciting it, get a local magistrate or judge to issue a warrant for Trump's arrest on incitement charges, and Trump is in handcuffs, doing a perp walk,  fingerprinted,mug shot and wearing the orange jump suit. He's freed on bail and is given a court date.

 

Would it do a thing to change his supporters minds? No. But it would be the end of Trump at the Republican convention. Even if they had to draft rules that  stated any candidate arrested for a crime,felony or misdemeanor, and awaiting a court date scheduled beyond the dates of the nominating convention will be ineligible to have their name placed in nomination.

 

A reasonable rule that no one could argue against and it doesn't violate due process since the RNC is not a judicial or extra judicial body, and they could easily argue, if Trump tried to get an injunction,that if the charges havent been adjudicated it would throw the party and the electoral process for the country into chaos since if the accused were found guilty it would put the Republicans in an impossible situation with no candidate.  The rule would make sense. And no judge would block it.

 

Judging by the way Trump's rallies have been going and the trouble it's inviting, not just for rally goers but for Trump, the Republicans might do well to start drafting that rule.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When Obama Was Caught Lying About NAFTA in Ohio While Attacking Clinton For Supporting It.

What's that old saying about dogs and fleas? The one thing Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama truly have in common is not his policies but that they are both charter members of The Liars Club as the above 2008 Obama campaign ad ripping Clinton on NAFTA clearly shows.

 It also exposes the backdoor under the table deal between Clinton and Obama where Obama,who in 2008 said of Clinton that she has no convictions but  has agreed to support her and pull strings for her in return for her fealty to him and his policies which Clinton agreed to in spite of having called Obama a liar in 2008, which shows how fundamentally dishonest they both are. Shakespeare would have had a ball with both of them.

In 2008 right before the Ohio primary, Obama attacked Clinton for her vocal  support of NAFTA which had cost Ohio tens of thousands of jobs. But in what could be called a Shakespearian twist if it wasnt so serious and pathetic, Obama was caught lying himself about his own position on NAFTA in one of the most underhanded lies ever told by a politician running for office. Showing just how much the two have in common. 

What happened in 2008 reveals much about the character of both Clinton and Obama and with the two of them practically campaigning as a team  now, shows why neither could be trusted as Clinton tries to run as a third Obama term.

But during the 2008 primary in Ohio, while attacking Clinton over her support of NAFTA,  Obama himself was caught red handed in what might be the most insidious, underhanded, callous, self serving political lies in the history of American  presidential campaign politics.

It was a lie so callous, cynical and exploitive of the suffering of people in Ohio getting caught in the lie would have ended not just the candidacy of anyone else, but probably their  entire political career. Obama got away with it when the news media made it a two day story and eventually moved on as they did repeatedly in ignoring Obama's lies and reneging on promises throughout the campaign ( and still do)  instead of treating it for what it was -- maybe the worst political lie since Nixon.

With Clinton now staking her candidacy on supporting Obama policies and with trade, the economy, and the loss of jobs as a result of lousy trade deals front and center in this years campaign and one of the cornerstones of the Bernie Sanders campaign, its worth remembering what happened in Ohio in 2008. Especially with Clinton currently lying through her teeth about Sanders and his auto bailout vote, and see just how much lying Ohioians can put up with .

Back in 2008, Obama was campaigning all over Ohio telling voters that the reason for their high unemployment was NAFTA which Obama tied to Hillary Clinton as the above campaign ad shows. Ohio had lost 275,000 jobs and that was before the economic crisis. Obama looked into the eyes of the unemployed in Ohio, told them NAFTA was their problem and vowed that if he were elected president he would get rid of NAFTA and that would solve the unemployment problems in Ohio. 

But not unlike the situation now with Hillary Clinton's speeches to Wall Street that she refuses to make public and is suspected of telling Wall Street one thing and telling the public another, Obama sent one of his economic advisors, Austan Goolsbee,  to the Canadian embassy in Chicago to tell them to ignore everything they hear Obama saying publicly about  NAFTA, he has no intention of getting rid of it and what he was saying publicly was just for political reasons.

Someone at the Canadian embassy didn't care much for Obama's duplicity and leaked the story to an AP reporter, Nedra Pickler, who wrote the story. 

It was picked up by some in the national media and Obama spent the next few days trying to do damage control but was caught in one lie after another trying to deny it. 

First he said he didn't know any Austan Goolsbee. When it was pointed out that Goolsbee was listed as an economic advisor to his campaign Obama's response was essentially, " oh that Austan Goolsbee". Because, you know, the name is so common it's easy to understand how someone could not recognize it. But, Obama said, he never sent him to the Canadian embassy in Chicago.

When the guest books at the embassy were checked and it did indeed show that Goolsbee visited the embassy on the date the AP said he did Obama said, okay, well maybe Goolsbee did go to the embassy but he went on his own, for his own reasons and not as a representative of the Obama campaign.

When the guest book showed that Goolsbee signed in as a representative of the Obama campaign Obama said, okay well, maybe he does work for the campaign and maybe he did go to the embassy and maybe he did go as a representative of his campaign, but Goolsbee was never told to tell anyone at the embassy to ignore what Obama was saying  publicly  about getting rid of NAFTA and that it was only "political positioning". 

Someone at the embassy  got fed up both with Obama's duplicity and his lying in trying to deny it,  and leaked a copy of the actual official  minutes of the meeting to the AP which published them. And the minutes clearly showed Goolsbee telling the Canadian officials to ignore what they hear Obama say in Ohio about getting rid of NAFTA and that he has no intention of getting rid of it, that its just "political positioning". 

Goolsbee put out a statement that they all misunderstood him at the embassy,  Obama continued to deny it and the Canadian government in Ottawa tried to do damage control not wanting to be seen as doing anything to interfere with a U.S. presidential election and tried to say it was all a misunderstanding. The news media let it go in spite of Obama having been caught in a succession of lies in trying to deny it. 

But in 2010, as a result of Canada's version of the Freedom of Information Act, Canadian journalists received copies of all the emails between Ottawa and the embassy in Chicago confirming what took place, confirming the meeting with Goolsbee and what he said, Ottawa showing concern for doing damage control while some at the embassy in Chicago were delighted with the leak  that exposed Obama was lying and his character, saying things like " good show".

While the American  news media let Obama off the hook for a variety of reasons and didnt make it a campaign or a character issue, including a fear of being accused of racism by attacking the first legitimate black candidate for president, Obama's callous lie is easily confirmed because his promise to get rid of NAFTA during his 2008 campaign in Ohio is a matter of public record and the fact that he never did  proves the lie. 

How many people in Ohio remember it is debatable. And the news media will never bring it up.  But since this is the first primary vote in Ohio since Obama was caught lying and Clinton's support of NAFTA is still a campaign issue, its an open question as to whether Ohio Democrats will take their wrath out on Clinton both for her own past support of NAFTA and that Clinton now supports everything Obama has done as the president who lied to them. 

And with Bernie Sanders having opposed NAFTA from the beginning, Ohio Democrats now have a chance for a little pay back.  If they have a long memory. Or if Sanders jogs their memory. 

Clinton's Fake Campaign Memo,Telling Lies, and Other Dirty Tricks.

Hillary Clinton said she knows she has " work to do" with the majority of people saying she is dishonest and untrustworthy. So far she is doing a good job proving why people say she is dishonest and untrustworthy.

First, as David Gergen pointed out and what is obvious to everyone, the Obama controlled DNC is in the tank for Hillary Clinton in return for Clinton agreeing to run as a third Obama term, praise his policies,most of them sell outs and failures and promise to continue them. 

This is what led to the dishonest super delegate "declarations"  that the DNC released which are not only not  binding but super delegates are only a contingency plan for the convention to break deadlocks that have never been used. No super delegate has ever cast a vote for a nomination. And probably  never will.  (Correction: super delegates cast a vote one time, 32 years ago in 1984 to help delegate leader Mondale reach the 2/3 needed to get the nomination based on DNC rules.) So to include them along with pledged delegates as part of Clinton's total is nothing less than fraud. 

Not a single superdelegate cast even a single vote in 2008. Not one, even though neither Obama nor Clinton went to the convention in Denver with anywhere near the 2/3 majority needed for the nomination. And a Google search cannot find an instance where superdelegates have cast votes at a Democratic convention and decided a nomination.

At the convention in Denver in 2008 when it looked like superdelegates had abandoned Obama and would vote for Clinton if called upon, Donna Brazile said, " If superdelegates decide this nomination I will quit the Democratic Party". 

Nancy Pelosi chimed in, "Superdelegates are obligated to vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates". Whether that is true or not is debatable. But its what Pelosi said.

The super delegates who recently made non-committal "declarations" for Clinton are Democratic party governors, members of congress and officials all part of the Democratic Party establishment willing to go along with the sham and rounded up by Wasserman-Schultz to fraudulently pad Clinton's delegate total to make it look like her lead is 5 times bigger than it actually is. 

A super delegate's "declaration" now is as valid as Monopoly money. And Clinton is happy to go along with the fraud. It's part of her payback. And strategy. And Democrats with any integrity should be furious at how low and dishonest party big wigs are willing to be. 

What does all that have to do with the phony self serving, fabricated "intra-Clinton campaign" memo, purportedly written by Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and intentionally "leaked" to the news media?  It's all part of the same strategy designed to create or add to  false expectation that Clinton will be the nominee.  It was intentionally "leaked" to news outlets like CNN in the hopes that they would be gullible enough to fall for it and turned into stooges for the Clinton campaign. CNN did not disappoint. A quick Google search on the memo showed, at least from the search, that Politico was the only other news outlet to fall for it.

The memo, portrayed as an objective "inside"  evaluation of the campaign, asserts how" difficult" it will be now for Sanders to win the nomination. Mook actually used the words "mathematically impossible". Then "leaked" this fabricated self serving memo to the media like it was some kind of actual analysis with some objective reality to it  instead of what it really was ,a cheap dishonest PR trick in an attempt at voter manipulation and showw how far Clinton is willing to stoop politically to try and win.

The purpose of the phony memo is the same as the phony padded delegate count -- it takes a page from Republican dirty tricks in trying to suppress the black vote to try and win an election: in this case suppress the Sanders vote and in the process try to diminsh his fundraising ability by giving the false impression that Sanders has no chance of winning. This is  supposed to make Sanders supporters think there is no point in voting, that it's "hopeless" and to negatively impact Sanders ability to raise money. It shows the kind of dishonest dirty politics Mook and Clinton are trying to play and found willing stooges in CNN and Politico to help. 

During an interview on CNN with Anderson Cooper, Jeff Weaver,Sanders campaign manager was questioned about the intra-Clinton "memo"  and Weaver literally laughed in Cooper's face when asked about it and for good reason.

The memo is laughable. It was the most self serving piece of fabricated tripe one can imagine.  One that was clearly written with the intention of "leaking"  it to the media as some kind of objective assessment in the form of an "intra-Clinton campaign" memo to give it a phony air of authenticity. It reeks of desperation by Clinton in trying to create a false aura of inevitability to undermine and discourage  Sanders' supporters and fund raising by snookering gullible journalists into disseminating it as reality. And making them feel special.

Mook's campaign "memo" has the same honest and objective value as a "memo"  from the president of GM to their VP of sales "leaked" to the press explaining how great GM will do this year because of all the  crummy tail pipes that will  fall off  Fords and the lousy mileage Toyotas will get and how Nissan's warranty stinks and who would be caught dead in a Fiesta anyway? "It should be a big year for GM,  we are going to swamp the competition, they have no chance against us, but hold off on doubling the sales force just yet ". Then hope there are enough stupid journalists who will report it as "news". They did at CNN.

Mook's  "leaked" memo declares " it is mathematically impossible for Sanders to win". Which is why Clinton went on a starstudded fund raising blitz the day before the memo was "leaked".  To raise money for a campaign that's supposed to be "over".

What it really shows is Mook's ability at coming up with innovative ways of lying and deceiving for his client and hoping the news media will swallow it and behave like a collection of trained seals swallowing whatever is thrown at them . CNN and Politico did.  And Hillary Clinton approved that message.

If what Mook tried to pass off as reality was in any way true they wouldn't need to leak it to the media in the form of a Clinton campaign memo would they?  They'd just let nature take its course. Which is exactly what Clinton is petrified of. And why she is out fundraising .

This is how mathematically impossible it is for Sanders to win. Clinton is ahead of Sanders in early March by only 201 pledged delegates which are the only delegates that really count.  And that is after taking her best shot, the heavily Obama influenced south where African Americans vote at a percentage 5 times greater than the rest of the country and are more influenced by Obama than anywhere else.

That was Clintons so called "firewall". Well the firewall is gone now.  And the result is a 201 delegate lead with 35 states and the biggest prizes still to go.

Sanders showed on Super Tuesday that so far,  his breadth of support far surpasses Clinton's, virtually tying Clinton in Massachusetts losing only by 1 pt  in the vote and just about splitting the delegates with Clinton winning only 1 delegate more than Sanders. But in the states outside of the south, Minnesota, Oklahoma and Colorado, Sanders crushed Clinton by landslide numbers - she wasn't even competitive. And that doesn't include Sanders home state of Vermont. So Sanders strength ran from the northeast to the southwest and midwest. Clinton's was only in the south. Which Democrats won't win in a general election. At least Clinton won't. 

That is why we see a self serving fabricated Clinton memo intentionally "leaked" to the media saying its "mathematically impossible" for Sanders to catch up hoping to affect Sanders voters to get them to stay home. Hopefully someone in the Sanders campaign will call them on it.

How hard is it really for Sanders to catch up to Clinton's current 201 delegate lead? Or surpass it?

California alone has 400 delegates. And the Sanders camp seems to be very confident they can win California and unlike Clinton would never say so unless their internal polling told them that's true.

Though California is a ways off, a big Sanders win in that state alone could wipe out Clinton's  present lead depending on the size of victory. There are other big prizes before then too like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, Kansas, and other midwestern states and the Sanders campaign thinks they can win all of them. If they do  and by the same landslide margins as Sanders won on Super Tuesday, Clinton is gone.  Which shows how "mathematically impossible" it is for Sanders to win. The Sanders campaign thinks it will also be competitive in New York. A win in Clinton's home state, or even a competitive loss could eliminate Clinton if Sanders does as well in other parts of the country as they think .

The only thing that really seems mathematically impossible is whether Robby Mook or Hillary Clinton have enough brain cells that havent been totally corrupted by politics that would enable them to conduct an honest campaign that isnt rife with dirty tricks, phony internal memos, lying about Sanders' record and dishonestly padded super delegate counts. What also might be mathematically impossible is Clinton agreeing  to make the transcripts of her $21 million worth of private speeches public.

The story that Anderson Cooper and everyone else at CNN is missing is the Clinton campaign's attempt to  manipulate the nominating process with the help of the DNC. But they are really just not good enough as journalists to even notice.

There are 35 state primaries left. If Sanders wins 25 , Clinton goes home. If he wins 2o of the 35 Clinton probably goes home depending on how close the delegate count but Sanders goes to the convention with the delegate lead. If Sanders wins NY, California, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan and Ohio all states Sanders can win, Clinton goes home no matter what she does in other states and no super delegates will ever vote for her to rig the nomination.  If they tried it would bring the Democratic party to its knees and make Republicans look rational.

Super delegates, if they voted at all wouldn't dare alienate Sanders'  voters if Sanders went to the convention with the majority of delegates.  If they did, they'd lose the general election and make the Democratic party dysfunctional for the next four years. Sanders voters would stay home, not just destroying Clinton in a general election but all the down ticket Democrats running for congress and local seats.

It's hard to believe no one at CNN could see what Mook was trying to pull. Or maybe they did and didn't have the integrity to call it out for what it was, afraid to alienate Clinton's campaign people.  But if the Clinton campaign thinks its going to hold down Sanders' votes or fundraising the reality is Clinton will run out of gas and votes before Sanders runs out of money.

It says a lot about Clinton that she is more than willing to indulge in any dishonesty, any subterfuge tell any lie to succeed.

The math Mook and Clinton try and pass off as real would put the CEO of any major corporation in prison for stock manipulation. Which is exactly what Mook, Clinton and the DNC are trying to do --artificially raise the value of Clinton's shaky stock and try and devalue Sanders through fake documents and manipulation.  Which is why that memo  is not a reflection of Sanders mathematical impossibilities, but Clinton campaign desperation. And the impossibility of Clinton being politically honest. And  shows that the Clinton campaign and the DNC are not just lousy at math but ethics too.

Why Sanders Super Tuesday Was Far More Impressive Than Clinton's.

Bernie Sanders has a lot to crow about and Clinton a lot to worry about based on the results of Super Tuesdays primaries. The contrast in their victories were stark and what they mean for the future.

 

There was only one close race in the Super Tuesday primary -- Massachusetts which,  a bastion of Democratic party establishment which one might have thought would favor Clinton ended in a tie in terms of delegates won which is all that matters since the only point of the primaries is to win delegates. The actual margin of victory in terms of vote totals was Clinton edging out Sanders by a miniscule 1 1/2%, but in delegate totals it was a 50-50 tie.

 

That Sanders tied Clinton in a state that is about as establishment Democrat as it gets, in a popular vote total that was tighter than Nevada and ended up splitting the delegates 50-50 with Clinton was the much more impressive feat for Sanders.

 

But it got better for Sanders as the night went on and made Clinton less relevant

 

Clinton and Sanders took turns landsliding each other in the rest of the states. But Clinton's landslides were not only all in the south were Obama and his Democratic machine have great influence and the African American vote is 4 to 5 times greater than the rest of the country, but Clinton's wins in the south were all in Red states that Democrats have no chance of winning in a general election and haven't won in decades. And if any Democrat could pull off a win in one of those states it wouldn't be Clinton but Sanders.

 

Sanders landslide wins on the other hand were in Minnesota, Oklahoma, Colorado and Vermont along with his tie in Massachusetts. Sanders appeal was much broader than Clinton's showing his strength from his home state of Vermont and a tie in Massachusetts in the northeast, to Colorado and Oklahoma in the Southwest, and Minnesota in the mid west. Clinton's strength was all in the Obama influenced south. And now with Clinton having played her best hand, her so called "firewall" in the south,  the south is over. And Clinton's delegate lead over Sanders is very small. With 35 state primaries still to go. 

 

Clinton has yet to prove she has the kind of broad support a presidential candidate needs to win in November and is the better candidate. Sanders so far is showing he does have that broad support. Clinton's support is based on her running on a third Obama  term. Outside of the south that is not going over too big as a winning formula. 

 

For now the race is close and its anybody's nomination though Sanders is showing  so far that he is the candidate with much broader appeal. Without Obama and the Democratic party machine backing Clinton, the race would be over by now.

 

If that trend continues with Sanders showing strength everywhere else but the south which are Red states in the general election,  and Clinton is unable to get real support to beat Sanders soundly anywhere else but the south, if Sanders finishes with the majority of delegates he will win the nomination and easily.

 

Super delegates? Forget them.  The super delegate trials Clinton used to pad her delegate count is sleazy dishonest politics at its lowest and part of the agreed upon DNC collusion to do what it can to rig the nomination for Clinyon. Super delegates have never cast a vote in the history of the Democratic party, nothing they say now counts one iota, they are there only to break a hopelessly deadlocked convention if that should ever occur and otherwise have no vote. Donna Brazile said in 2008  at the convention Wyden it looked like Obama would lose a super delegate vote , that "if super delegates decide the nomination I will quit the Democratic party".

 

Pelosi weighed in back in 2008 also and said super delegates were "obligated" to vote for the candidate who won the most delegates in the primaries. They are not going to be able to move the goal posts now to accommodate Clinton. If they tried they would bring the Democratic party to its knees.

 

March 15 will show if the trend continues. If it does and further down the road,Sanders beats Clinton in Democratic states like New York, Pennsylvania, California and Florida,all distinct possibilities,  its over. Michigan and Ohio on March 15 could be a reliable indicator.

 

As for those super delegates if they actually had to vote for the first time in the history of the Democratic party, with Sanders finishing with any kind of majority of delegates, assuming they wanted to win in November they would vote for Sanders and whatever declarations were made  6 months earlier would be in a dumpster where they belong. Along with CNN's political coverage.

 

With Sanders showing the breadth of his victories across a wide swath of the country and with Clinton's victories concentrated in southern red states Democrats cant win in November, and a tie with Sanders in Massachusetts,  it adds up to Sanders Super Tuesday as a lot more super than Clinton's. Even though the Clinton campaign tries  to put on their happy face and pretend she will be the nominee. Not unless she can win it honestly . And no amount of bogus super delegate totals now will change that.