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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wow, you keep repeating the same mathematical falsehoods. Super Tuesday showed that Sanders has NO staying power in states that actually conduct primaries. You continue to hang your conviction on caucus contests that DO NOT fairly reflect Hillary Clinton voters and that represent a very small percentage of total delegates. Hillary Clinton has AT LEAST a 10% advantage in all the primaries up until now so unless Mr. Sanders can reverse that trend, yes, the math favors Hillary Clinton with or without the super delegates.
ReplyDeleteRemember when you thought CNN was lying about Clinton being untrustworthy. You should, it was only months ago. Now you decide Clinton is untrustworthy. http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/2015/06/cnn-polling-not-clinton-hit-new-lows.html
ReplyDelete"Super Tuesday showed that Sanders has NO staying power in states that actually conduct primaries. You continue to hang your conviction on caucus contests that DO NOT fairly reflect Hillary Clinton voters..."
ReplyDeleteSure, sure. Which is why Clinton spent 10 times the money and time in Iowa and Nevada as Sanders did.
"Remember when you thought CNN was lying about Clinton being untrustworthy."
ReplyDeleteWhat I said was CNN's POLL was dishonest and untrustworthy and manipulative and it is, and I stand by that. Their polling is shoddy, inept,and cant be and shouldnt be trusted.
What I am saying now about Clinton being dishonest and underhanded, fraudulent and untrustworthy not to mention having thrown her integrity out the window to run as a third Obama term in return for whatever rigging Obama and the DNC can do to get her the nomination is based on what I see and can substantiate with my own eyes not based on any CNN poll.
So far the states in which Hillary Clinton has won have been those not usually won by Democrats or have been won under the cloud of allegations of fraud and impropriety. Her voters are those much like in the south voting Republican. Poor people completely lacking the ability to vote in their own best interests. Super Tuesday has been lost by many candidates who went on to be winners including Barack Obama in 2008.
ReplyDelete