When Hillary Clinton Suggested the RFK Assassination Could Happen to Obama As Reason to Stay in the Race.

Back in 2008 when she ran against Obama for the Democratic nomination,Clinton enraged, disgusted, and angered almost everybody when, in a Q&A with newspaper editors at the end of May before the last spate of 2008 primaries and still hoping to close a delegate gap between herself and Obama, Clinton was asked why she was staying in the race when it was clear Obama would finish with more delegates and Nancy Pelosi was publicly lobbying (or was it lobbing) the idea that even if neither finished with enough delegates for the nomination the one who had the most should win.

Hillary Clinton's answer was to remind them that Robert Kennedy had been assassinated in June,suggesting that,you know, anything can happen.Even an assassination. In other words,for Hillary Clinton in 2008, Robert Kennedy's June 1968 assassination was, like the slogan in the ads for the New York State lottery,an example of "hey you never know" suggesting the same could happen to Obama.

It goes without saying her answer both astonished and offended a lot of people.

It also goes without saying that  the negative fallout was almost immediate. And as soon as Clinton started feeling the heat from her assassination comment she  issued a familiar statement: she was sorry and "regretted it" something that has become a broken record in 2016. And if you want to believe this, Clinton said it was because Teddy Kennedy's cancer had been on her mind.Which goes right into the same folder as her private email server having been approved.

Invoking the RFK assassination to partly justify continuing her candidacy was not only politically incredulous on its own terms but obnoxious on human terms.To think of an assassination in self serving political terms is not only reprehensible it also underscores the tunnel vision of Clinton's blind ambition, her sense of entitlement and willingness to do or say anything to serve her personal political ambition and then try and justify it or apologize for it later. And, as we have seen in 2016 with her constant lying and obvious colluding to rig the nominating process against Sanders,when it comes to her ambition, nothing else matters.

Normal people dont think things like that. And given that she was running against the first legitimate African American presidential candidate and there was an undercurrent of unspoken concerns about some racist lunatic deciding to do a James Earl Ray,it  made her comment twice as obnoxious.

Some of her supporters over the last few weeks had floated the idea that Bernie Sanders should drop out though unlike Clinton in 2008 they didnt raise the spectre of assassination. Or considered the possiblity of assassination as an opportunity. 

They didn't count on Sanders winning 20 states and tying in 4 more out of 44 primaries so far making him more than just a major thorn in Clinton's side.But unlike 2008 Clinton hasnt suggested an assassination to get rid of him the way it obviously crossed her mind in 2008 with Obama. In fact what made Clinton's 2008 comments even more obnoxious and even worse, revealing of her character, is that given her ambitions she sounded like she almost keeping her fingers crossed. 

For Sanders, based on the obvious rigging that has been going on with both the DNC and news media supporting her, Clinton and her cronies seem to think they have other ways of taking care of Sanders.They are so brazen about the process being rigged they practically admit it with Clinton as well as campaign manager Robby Mook and Debby Wasserman-Schultz guaranteeing Clinton  will be the nominee.

Congressman Adam Schiff patronizingly suggested recently that its okay for Sanders to stay in, (big of you Adam) but that he should direct his fire at Trump not Hillary Clinton.

Unfortunately for Schiff, Clinton, and her supporters the Office of  Inspector General at the State Department didnt get the memo and issued a report so scathing on Hillary Clinton that even the usually docile, sheep-like establishment pandering news media were attacking her.

On MSNBC Mika Breszeinski could not contain her disgust for Clinton virtually calling her a liar,along with the usually timid Andrea Mitchell saying she wouldnt go so far as to call Clinton a liar but that what Clinton said  about her private email server being approved was not true. Even CNN's timid, pandering and ingratiating game show host Wolf Blitzer challenged Clinton in an interview on her previous statements about her server being approved as untrue.

The irony is that the "hey you never know" gambit Clinton was hoping for in 2008 when it came to an assassination may come to pass against Clinton. Based on the OIG report Clinton broke at least one law multiple times, the Federal Records Act ( "Act" means law not a rule)  but there is evidence in the report suggesting she may have violated many more laws including the unauthorized destruction of government records, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice with a senior staff member,obstructing a government agency in the official administration of its duties, a myriad of national security violations and more.

All of which indicates Clinton could be headed for serious legal problems.

The further irony is that Eric Holder said in a recent interview that what Snowden did was a public service but still illegal and because he broke a law he must still do prison time. Since nothing Clinton did in breaking the law and violating national security regulations was a public service, one has to assume the legal standards that apply to anyone else have to apply to her.

There is every reason to believe the FBI, knowing full well she is a candidate for president, hasnt interviewed  her yet because of that decision they must make, which is, if they have made a finding that Clinton violated one more laws, they must, by law, notify her before any interview that she is now a target of the investigation.

 Though still to many journalists shilling for Clinton that laughably, still might not be enough. Lisa Lerer of the AP wrote in an article after the Inspector General report came out that" if Clinton is indicted it could (my italics) damage her campaign". Really?

That Clinton is the one who might be on the wrong end of an unexpected event, though not the assassination of Obama she suggested in 2008 would be a Shakespearean irony.

Clinton and unprincipled Democrats in and out of congress supporting her, once counted on a rigged convention to hand her the nomination and which Clinton, characteristically still believes is the case
("Im going to be the nominee, that is for certain" she said only a couple of days ago, sounding very much like someone who believes the fix is in).

Bernie Sanders is finally talking publicly about the Democrats rigging the convention and nominating process which its clear they did and have been doing, and that doesnt bode well for Democrats or Clinton getting any Sanders voters most of whom actually despise Clinton and the DNC to begin with  for the ways they have rigged the process and cheated democracy. Which is exactly what an assassination does.

With Clinton presently  having a 270 delegate lead with 913 to be won, with California now 50-50 in the polls which usually means a Sanders victory, winning California and four other states might be something even corrupt super delegates cant overcome.  They might even secretly hope for a Clinton indictment to get them off the hook politically as a reason to flip to Sanders.Because no one in their right minds thinks Clinton is a stronger candidate than Sanders. Or that she has a better chance to beat Trump than Sanders.Clinton's nomination if it were to happen is all dirty back room politics and corporate money. And would probably take down the Democratic Party anyway.

With the irony of Clinton now facing the kind of " hey you never know" event she was gambling on in 2008 when she invoked the RFK assassination, any kind of surprise could end Clinton's chances. Chuck Todd  recently said Clinton couldnt even get confirmed as Attorney General.

Cheating democracy is exactly what an assassination does.It eliminates a candidate or leader and deprives people of the person they want to govern or deprives them of their choice. Sometimes character assassination can do that. The irony is that the candidate, Hillary Clinton, who brought up assassination in 2008 as a reason to stay in the race against Obama opening the door for her in 2008 is, with the help of the DNC, trying to carry out a different kind of assassination to accomplish the same thing by rigging the entire election and primary process against Bernie Sanders which in its own way does what assassinations do --cheats democracy, cheats the American people and cheats the democratic process by eliminating the opposition for that moment in time.

For Democrats What Happened in Vegas Won't Stay in Vegas.

There is nothing even handed about rigging and perverting democracy. And that is exactly what happened at the Nevada state Democratic Convention. But in the interests of being as even handed as possible, the videos here showing and describing what happened at the convention are two of the more lower key even handed explanations and presentations of facts, not emotion though its fair to say the outrage expressed by Sanders voters both at the convention and watching online is totally justifiable.

Sanders voters have every right to be outraged at what happened and outraged at Roberta Lange, who you will see in even the most even  handed objective light, presided over the convention like a corrupt member of the Politburo complete with her lacky behind her trying to get the crowd to support voice votes in what amounted to a one sided Hillary Clinton rigged convention. People can watch the videos and make up their own minds.

But there is not the slightest doubt the Nevada State Democratic Convention was rigged for Hillary Clinton by party chair Roberta Lange who is clearly a puppet carrying out marching orders from Debby Wasserman-Schultz in collusion with the Clinton campaign. And this is going to have far ranging repercussions for the Democratic party. It's not going to stay at the Paris Hotel in Las Vegas. The DNC can expect it to make its way to Philadelphia. And if they try and do anything to suppress it and the Clinton rigging continues that outrage will find its way to a place where outrage is best expressed, at the ballot box in November.

The Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz have been courting disaster for months with their rigging, cheating, lying and blatant voter fraud in at least 6 states. Not to mention Clinton's serial lying about Sanders record on guns and the auto bailout,her stealing Sanders positions and their fraud and dirty campaign tricks with super delegates all of which reached the boiling point in Nevada and they have no one but themselves to blame.

The dishonest news coverage of what happened have only made things worse for the DNC and Clinton. Dishonest pandering journalists like Erica Werner and Ken Thomas at AP and all the usual suspects on cable news, the useless Wolf Blitzer, Gloria Borger,Jeff Zeleny,John King  and the rest of the gang at CNN, Andrea Mitchell, Maddow, Chris Hayes and the rest at MSNBC, clearly in the tank for the Democratic party establishment,virtually ignored the rigging and focused on the reaction, more interested in not offending or upsetting their establishment political contacts.

It has been clear that the Democratic party and everyone associated with it have been hell bent on rigging the nomination for Hillary Clinton from the beginning and the fix was in from the start. Sanders was the wild card they never saw coming, an honest politician whose honesty and integrity and penchant for actually meaning what he says continues to befuddle them leaving them helpless over how to deal with him because most are so used to lying and dodging the truth and talking out of both sides of their mouths themselves in a world where "everybody does it" they assumed he was like they are and because he isnt, have no answer on how to handle Sanders and his voters who refuse to go along with their games.

And so they do the next best thing. They've resorted to cheating, lying, rigging and fraud to win. And somehow are stupid enough to think they will get away with it or paper over it with empty denials.

What happened at the Nevada convention was the kind of rigging of the democratic process that was commonplace at Tammany Hall and Boss Tweed in the 1850's. Except back then there was no Internet, no cell phone video, no social media and no one willing to talk. It did have some crusading journalists who tried to expose the fraud something completely missing today.

Instead we have corrupt party line journalists like Gloria Borger,Wolf Blitzer,Andrea Mitchell and others who turn a blind eye to what happened as a wink to their friends and contacts in power. Adding to it was a journalistic hack in Nevada named Jon Ralston who seems to have made his living as a journalistic water boy for the Democratic machine in Las Vegas. He supposedly was the source of a myriad of dishonest reports and tweets from the convention picked up by the usual collection of lazy mainstream journalists. Among the bogus reports was Ralston's wrong headed assertion that Sanders supporters threw chairs. Celebrity supporters of Clinton, equally ignorant and relying on false reports like Cher, parroted the report of chair throwing which Debby Wasserman-Schultz also parroted on MSNBC. There was no video to confirm it but a video of a man picking up a chair then putting it down was used by media to justify the chair throwing and picked up by equally dishonest journalists.

These are journalists who  have tried to reduce the complaints of Sanders voters to "conspiracy theories"  as Gloria Borger on CNN termed them, while turning their blind eye to fraud and dirty tricks that have been going on from the beginning, not even so much ignoring as colluding. Like super delegates who haven't voted in 32 years declaring for Clinton in February with non-binding at the moment "preferences" which not only count for nothing unless and until they are cast at the convention but have nothing to do with the 2383 in pledged delegates a candidate must win to gain the nomination through primaries.

It is only if and when that number cannot be met  (and Clinton will not meet it) that super delegates would be asked to vote. Something they havent done in 32 years but which CNN reporters like John King, Jeff Zelney, Wolf Blitzer and at MSNBC Chris Hayes, the over rated Rachel Maddow and Steve Kornacki  all ignore even when informed of the facts and the actual DNC rules.

They keep referring to Clinton's lead as "insurmountable" when the truth is her actual delegate lead is 280 with about 800 delegates still to be won, almost 500 alone in California.

When Jeff Weaver, Sanders campaign manager appeared with Wolf Blitzer, he questioned  Weaver for almost 15 minutes on trivia, like an angry phone call made by one of the Sanders supporters at the convention to Roberta Lange who helped rig the convention,asking  Weaver if he or Sanders owed Lange an apology for Sanders supporters getting angry.

Blitzer never once asked about or investigated the fraud that took place. CNN didn't book one guest or interview one Sanders supporter who was there not even former Ohio State senator Nina Turner who had appeared before on CNN, to ask what actually happened. Instead Blitzer characterized the phone call as " making threats against Lange's life" when it was no such thing. It was nasty, it  was angry, it berated Lange deservedly for her Politburo performance and yes the caller wished bad things on her but never once made a threat to take any action against her. What was said in that phone call could only be called a threat if Blitzer believed in voodoo. And maybe he does.

Blitzer also made an issue of Wasserman-Schultz statement that Sanders reaction to what happened was "totally unacceptable". Sanders for his part has refused to back down and refused to cave in to Blitzer's or Wasserman-Schultz's kow towing suggestion he should apologize. The only people who owe anyone an apology is Lange, the Democratic National Committee and CNN for their dishonest news coverage.

People are angry and they are going to stay angry. Dianne Feinstein is already invoking Chicago 1968 which has been brought up here a few times. And the Democratic National Committee can expect tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of Sanders supporters in Philadelphia for the convention to protest their dishonesty and fraud.

There is no reason to expect violence or for people like Feinstein who is clearly ignorant about history, to compare it to Chicago '68 based on the violence that took place there.The violence in Chicago in 1968 wasn't caused by protestors but by police.

Chicago in 1968 saw tens of  thousands of protestors, mostly young, the same age as many Sanders voters,  showing up to protest the Viet Nam war which was being conducted by a Democratic administration. The protests were all peaceful. The violence was started by the Chicago police and a Justice Dept investigation months after the event termed what had happened as a "police riot", Chicago police out of control and who were the sole perpetrators of and instigators of the violence.

There is no reason to think Philadelphia police would riot and be the cause of violence.  Naturally they have a duty to preserve the peace. But while there is every reason to expect hundreds of thousands of Sanders voters to show up to make their voices heard both inside the convention and out with signs and demonstrations, there is not the slightest reason to expect violence. So far the only real violence was perpetrated by a Clinton supporter, actor Wendell Pierce who was charged with assaulting a woman when he found out she was a Sanders supporter.

What the DNC can be sure of is if  they carry out their plan to hand Hillary Clinton the nomination in a process that reeks of the kind of fraud and dishonesty that's been seen from the beginning, if there is anything similar to Nevada its going to get ugly. Not violent. Ugly. Ugly for Clinton. Ugly for Democrats. And Ugly in November.

There was a chant at the Democratic convention in 1968 as the police cracked down and tried to silence the protestors, a chant that echoed around the world and a chant that will probably be heard in Philadelphia. The chant was,"the whole worlds watching".

Its something Debby Wasserman - Schultz, Hillary Clinton, the DNC and super delegates aiding and abetting the fraud ought to keep in mind. They've been committing fraud and perverting the democratic process from the beginning and the whole world will be watching again in Philadelphia. And  if there is anything in Philadelphia similar to what happened in Nevada they are going to be looking at a massive defeat in November, which also happened in 1968, since that is the best way to clean house and rid the Democratic party of the kind of blatant corruption and fraud that everyone has been seeing. And replace it in two years with  Democratic candidates who are more honest.

Ed Rendall, a Clinton supporter recently scolded Sanders supporters that they better behave themselves at the convention. Like everything else the DNC has done, he has it backwards. Its the Democratic National Committee who better behave themselves. And its going to start in June when neither Clinton nor Sanders will have the requisite 2383 pledged delegates and no super delegate will have actually cast a ballot. If Wasserman-Schultz acts like Roberta Lange and declares Clinton the "presumptive nominee" without a single vote being cast at the convention she and the DNC will have no one to blame but themselves for what happens at the convention and beyond. Which is going to do the Democratic party no good. They have three months to stop their fraud and get it right.

Sanders Revolution Inspires Supporters in Lewes, UK, One Time Home of Thomas Paine Who Inspired the First American Revolution.

'

Lewes, UK, is a small town of 16,000. It also is a place where Thomas Paine once lived from 1766-1774 and who many credit with inspiring the American Revolution after moving to the American Colonies.

Paine,whose name is taken for this blog, was a revolutionary thinker and writer whose treatise "Common Sense" laid out the justification for a Revolution against the British and King George. It was the most widely read piece of printed literature in all thirteen colonies next to the Bible,aroused the colonists and led to the American Revolution. It also inspired the Founders who based many of the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution on many of Paines practical philosophical ideas,not unlike many of Sanders' ideas and were springboards for many of the principles on which the country is based. 

A group of passionate Bernie Sanders supporters in Lewes assembled for this photo in front of the house where Thomas Paine once lived and it was sent to me by a reader. And like many others in the United States and abroad, they see parallels between Bernie Sanders and his political revolution and the ideas and ideals that helped sparked the original revolution of Americans who felt oppressed and unfairly treated by an handful of elitists in Great Britain that eventually led to the establishment of the United States.

The inscription on the house behind them reads:" In this house lived Thomas Paine, writer and revolutionary".

Which might be why Bernie Sanders, a revolutionary in his own right,has so many supporters in the small town of Lewes and why Sanders won the Democrats Abroad primary ballot over Hillary Clinton with 69% of the vote.It shows that Americans overseas are as passionate about Sanders candidacy as those in the States.

And like the townspeople of Lewes where Paine once lived, Sanders call for a political revolution is being heard all over the country and giving the Clinton campaign and their presumptions fits. 

And in July at the Democratic convention ironically being held in Philadelphia, Bernie Sanders revolution and those who support it will become even more visible giving Clinton and the party elites even bigger fits by standing up to forces of elitism and their disdain for the kind of free, fair and honest representation that people stood up against in 1776 and,as a growing revolution could come to fruition this July in Philadelphia as it did once before,240 years ago.

Hillary Clinton's "Sorry" Campaign.

Back in 1970 there was a hit movie that was to tear jerkers what Star Wars is to popular sci-fi. It was called "Love Story" and it was based on a best selling novel by Erich Segal. The big line from the movie which was repeated endlessly, satirized, plagiarized,joked about by comedians and put on everything from T-shirts to tea cups as it became part of the culture was "Love means never having to say your sorry".

If being president means never having to say your sorry Hillary Clinton might as well  go home now because Clinton has been the "sorriest" presidential candidate in history.

Hillary Clinton has had to she was "sorry" for things she said or did more times in 3 months than any presidential candidate in history and more than any politician has in a lifetime. And as a result has had to run the "sorriest" presidential campaign in political history.

She said she was sorry for setting up her own private email server (and no doubt she means it).

She said she was sorry to the Black Lives Matter group for saying " all lives matter" (inspirational isn't it?)

She said she was sorry for supporting her husband's 1996 Crime Bill which Bill himself says he isn't sorry for. 

She said she was sorry about Madeline Albright, one of her supporters,  saying young women who support Sanders instead of her deserve "a special place in hell".

She said she was sorry when another one of her supporters,Gloria Steinhem said the only reason young women went to Sanders rallies instead of Clinton's was to meet men.

She said she was "sorry" for NAFTA

She was sorry she referred to black criminals as "super predators" and that they "need to be made to heel". (a term used in training dogs)

She said she was "sorry" for praising Nancy Reagan and crediting her with starting the "national conversation" about HIV when she did nothing of the kind and Clinton received a torrent of criticism from AIDS activists for saying so which made her immediately backtrack and say she was "sorry".

Clinton has had to repeatedly said she was "sorry" about Iraq as if saying she is sorry somehow excuses what amounts to approving the worst commander-in-chief decision in history, a decision the country and the whole world is still paying for.

Her campaign surrogates had to back down and say "sorry" after questioning whether Sanders was  really arrested in Chicago  protesting segregation in 1961 after the Chicago Tribune posted a photo of Sanders arrest.

Other surrogates,especially the Mayor of Atlanta we're sorry for looking equally stupid in saying Sanders was late to the civil rights movement and they and the Clinton campaign had to back down and recant on  that too.

Clinton attacked Sanders on universal health care saying "no we can't" then recanted and supported it as an ultimate goal after a huge loss in a primary and  articles appeared showing Obama advocated universal healthcare during the 2008 primaries (before selling out the public option as president to the insurance lobby).

Clinton attacked Sanders as "not being a Democrat" then had to back down when shown the DSCC asked Sanders to help fund raise for Democratic senators and sent out an email titled "This is what leadership looks like" quoting Sanders on Republican obstruction of  the Supreme Court embarrassing Clinton and undermining her attack.

In New York Clinton was sorry for a skit she did with Mayor DeBlasio in which a joke was made of  DiBlasio being late to endorse Clinton because of running on CP time -- Colored People Time. 

And most recently Clinton was  sorry for comments she made about coal miners and the coal industry about putting miners out of work which had much of the state up in arms forcing Clinton to apologize again with one of the most insincere, disingenuous, convoluted nonsensical apologies ever uttered by a politician: "I do feel a little bit  sad and sorry that I gave people an excuse to be so sad or sorry". Like the coal miners of West Virginia were looking for an excuse to be sad and sorry.  (Clinton lost the primary to Sanders by landslide numbers) 

But just as illuminating are all the things Clinton hasn't been sorry for but should be. Like her political dirty tricks in collusion with the DNC with super delegates, rounding them up and getting them to declare in February, the first time in the history of the Democratic party that superdelegates declared anything before the last primary was over. The purpose was to artificially pad her lead during the primaries and sucker the same gullible inept mindless journalists Obama suckered on the Iran deal into including them hoping to dampen the enthusiasm of Sanders voters and his fundraising and to  grease the skids for rigging her nomination at the convention if it  becomes necessary by creating a false expectation of inevitability which the media has both swallowed and promoted. Happily going along with the charade is everyone on CNN and Chris Hayes,Maddow and their graphics departments. 

Clinton also isnt sorry for her blatant lying about Sanders not supporting the auto bailout when she knows he did and shameless lying about Vermont being the biggest source of guns committing murders in New York City when that was nowhere near true.

No one expects Clinton to be sorry for all the evidence of voter fraud on her behalf  in five states including New York where the Attorney General is investigating a purge of eligible voters wrongly removed from the voter rolls. And a statistical analysis of the NY primary results which gave Clinton a margin of victory 400% higher than the 52-48 exit polls concluded that the odds of it not being fraud were 123,000-1.

Given Clinton's almost unprecedented dishonesty, dirty tricks in trying to make her lead look bigger than it is, the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz doing all they can to rig the process in Clinton's favor, if Clinton were to get the nomination as a result of corrupt super delegate following party bosses and a corrupt process  there would very likely be a revolt of Sanders voters and protests that might look something like Chicago in 1968  without the police riot but with the same results for Democrats in November. Resounding defeat. And deserved. Which would give the DNC and Clinton even more to be sorry for. 

A good case can be made that not rewarding fraud and purging the Democrats of their political corruption like super delegates following the wishes of party bosses rather than their voters, cleaning house and starting over could make more sense in the long run for the future of the Democratic party. That future belongs to Sanders ideas and voters not Clinton's. Exit polls show Sanders destroys Hillary Clinton among voters 45 and under by 84-14 and among younger women 86-9. 

As for Trump, he is so disliked by congressional Republicans because they dont believe he is really conservative he would be obstructed his entire term anyway, maybe more by Republicans than Democrats. Nothing would get done. Which,given a Republican congress many Democrats would view as a good thing. Even stranger, there are Republicans in congress and GOP donors who are leaning towards Clinton because they feel she is more Republican than Trump, which her transcripts would no doubt reveal. Meaning defeating Clinton if she cheated her way to the nomination is a viable, even preferred option.  

That would pave the way for an honest Democrat and a new, honest, rejuvenated Democratic party to win in four years rather than have the DNC hand Hillary Clinton an undeserved nomination as the product of rigging, dishonesty, unethical fundraising and voter fraud which would only continue.

Which is not to say sanity and self preservation cannot prevail at the convention.Sanders can still win the nomination. Sanders is clearly the stronger candidate on every level. Take away Clinton's  369 delegates and 4 million votes which all came from the South as a result of Obama's influence on her behalf in a part of the country where his influence is greatest and Clinton is significantly behind Sanders in votes and delegates. Had Obama endorsed Sanders all those votes and delegates would be his. It had nothing to do with Clinton's strength as as candidate. As Elizabeth Warren said in another context Clinton didn't get those delegates and votes  on her own. 

Add to that the fact that those delegates are all in red states Democrats can't win in a general election and Sanders is clearly the stronger candidate because he beats Clinton almost everywhere else and in some cases by unheard of landslide margins of as much as 60 points. And is stronger against Trump.

As for superdelegates that preposterous undemocratic element of the Democratic Party, self preservation might save the day. Every super delegate in states Sanders won and by huge margins would be ending their political careers voting for Clinton. All incumbents,they would all lose primary challenges from a Sanders Democrat next time they were up for reelection.

Given all Clinton has to be sorry for, if  super delegates at the convention, especially in states Sanders won, corruptly hand Clinton the nomination which is the only way she can win, they can probably forget unity. Which means when it's all over, if Clinton does cheat her way to the nomination, the campaign song Clinton and the Democrats are liable to be hearing from Sanders voters  is  "Who's Sorry Now"? While Clinton and Debby Wasserman-Schultz might do a duet of "It's My Party and I'll Cry If I Want To". 

How Hillary Clinton Became the New Nixon. Transcripts and All.

From almost the beginning of his political career well into his presidency, Richard Nixon had a nickname bestowed upon him by the press that stuck. It was Tricky Dick. There was even a famous political poster showing a smiling Nixon with the words, "Would You Buy a Used Car From This Man"?

Nixon it seems always had a political trick up his sleeve and rarely played it straight. He was known for underhanded political tactics and he couldn't be trusted.

The same can now be said for Hillary Clinton who has demonstrated how easily it is for her to be dishonest, unscrupulous and as underhanded as Richard Nixon or for that matter Barrack Obama who might have told more lies and reneged on more promises than any president in history which makes Clinton's under the table political deal with Obama and her willingness to lie and be underhanded understandable.

Clinton's transformation began with her sell out to Obama to serve her own personal ambition. When Axelrod wrote in his campaign memo in 2008 that  Clinton "has no convictions and will shift positions based on political expediency" little did he know that would become even more apparent in 2016 with her 180 degree reversals on Obama. Clinton went from calling Obama a liar in '08 on his claim of being a law professor,said he was unqualified even to be Vice President, to unqualified praise of Obama and his largely failed policies and  her promise to continue them. This is in return for Obama's influence and control of the DNC to do what it can to rig the process for Clinton orchestrated by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Obama's hand picked chair of the DNC and has been so obvious that David Gergen said on CNN as far back as February that "its obvious the DNC is in the tank for Clinton".

The Sanders campaign knows it too.

Here's a look at some of Clinton's lies, policy reversals, underhanded tactics and political dirty tricks.

In 2008 when it was politically expedient Hillary Clinton told a campaign rally in Indiana that she was "pro gun" and talked about how her father taught her to shoot when she was a little girl.  In 2016  when it was politically expedient Clinton campaigned as anti-gun and tried to exploit the tragedy in Sandy Hook for her own political gain,something that might have made even Nixon cringe. She was also caught lying about Sanders and claims about more guns coming from Vermont used in murders in New York city than any other state.  It was poetic justice that her attempts at exploiting Sandy Hook got her nothing. The CT primary results ended up so close that even though she technically claimed it as a "win" she ended up splitting the delegates with Sanders almost 50-50 netting one more delegate than Sanders. Her attempt at using the heartbreaking murders to serve her political ambitions got her nothing. But revealed a lot about her character.

That Nixonian character was revealed further by her attempt to smear Sanders with a monumental lie about Vermont as the biggest source of guns used in murders in New York city. It was exposed as a lie by both the Washington Post and Politifact.

A closer look at her Vermont claim shows just how dishonest Clinton can be and how Nixonian, willing to stoop to any deciet to try and win.

In terms of the number of guns used in murders committed in New York city, the overwhelming majority of those guns, 1,375,came from New York city itself. Second on the list was Virginia where 375 guns were used in New York city murders.Vermont wasn't even in the top ten. In fact the number of guns used in New York city murders that could be traced to Vermont was 55 making Vermont number 15. So how did Clinton decide she could get away with her claim? Dana Bash weakly tried to pin Clinton down during a Democratic debate by asking how she justified that statement and Clinton refused to answer. Clinton tried to filibuster, going off in another direction on unrelated tangents.Three times Bash told Clinton "youre not answering the question" and three times Clinton went in circles avoiding the answer.

Later Clinton tried to justify her claim by using the term " per capita".It was as sleazy a way of trying to justify a dishonest attack on an opponant in recent memory. Clinton's lie was based, not on the number of guns but the number of people living in Vermont. Vermont has a population of only 612,000 compared to say New York with 20 million; So Clinton and her equally dishonest campaign manager Robby Mook,known for putting out phony campaign memos designed to be "leaked to the press" filled with self serving "analysis" and what is "mathematically impossible",decided they could make the statemen by using "per capita" as the justification,the number of guns divided by the small population of the state of Vermont.That is the depth of political dishonesty Hillary Clinton is willing to go and only re-enforces why the majority of Americans don't trust her. And what makes her so Nixon-like.

Hillary Clinton's politically expedient reversals from 2008 when she was running against Obama include Clinton calling Obama a liar, not once but twice for calling himself a law professor and presented evidence to refute Obama's claims. In 2016 pandering for votes in front of an African American audience she said what a great Supreme Court justice Obama would make  because "he has the credentials. He's a law professor."

And recently during a dust up between Sanders and Clinton over who said who was unqualified what went completely ignored by the news media and especially Rachel Maddow in an interview with Jane Sanders, was that in 2008  in answer to a question about whether Clinton would consider Obama as a running mate Clinton said Obama wasn't  even qualified to be Vice President.Yet in 2008 in  return for not contesting the 2008 nomination at the convention she made a deal and accepted the position of Secretary of State which meant carrying out the policies of a president she said was"unqualified".Again ambition ahead of principle.

Which plays right into Axelrod's assessment in 2008 that Clinton has no convictions and will reverse herself for political expediency. She has done just that on fracking, the XL pipeline,and TPP though Sanders is making that very difficult.

As for more dirty tricks, her super delegate count has been her way of fraudulently padding her delegate totals and  to sucker a lazy, dishonest and incompetent news media into presenting them as part of her pledged delegate total. Democratic party rules are clear that super delegate declarations or endorsements do not count, and would not count unless and until actually cast at the convention, something that hasnt happened in 32 years.

Something else has never happened. Never since super delegates were created in 1981 has any super delegates indicated a preference (and thats all it is since they are non-binding and noncommittal) before the end of the primary season. Never.

Only once before have super delegates indicated a preference before the convention and that was 2008 but not until the end of June and after the last primary. Clinton rounded up super delegates with the help of Debby Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC in January and February to get them to declare and obeying party bosses they did to make it look like Clinton's totals were far greater than they really were. And like these trained seals at CNN and MSNBC, these so called "journalists" include these "preferences" thrown at them along with the actual pledged delegates won in primaries and count them when showing Clinton's total. Also for their own self serving reasons in kowtowing to a party establishment they will want to be friendly with in the future.

There is also concrete evidence of a little something called voter fraud that has taken place on Clinton's behalf in NY, the 18th District in Chicago, Nevada, Colorado, Ohio, and South Carolina, something even Nixon didn't get his hands dirty with.

In New York the Attorney General is investigating what they are calling "irregularities" in  the NY primary including 140,000 people wrongly purged from voter rolls who were kept from voting. But there is more than that to investigate

The biggest "irregularity"  which signaled voter fraud were the exit polls in New York, the most reliable polling there is and conducted by one firm, Edison Research, who does the polls then licenses the results to various news organization including CNN, MSNBC, Fox and the three networks. Exit polls have been shown to be accurate within 3/10ths of a percent to the final vote totals. They are far more accurate than telephone polls.The exit polls showed Clinton winning a very tight race in New York 52-48 which would have not only been humiliating for Clinton but would have resulted in splitting the delegates with Sanders 50-50. That would have called her very candidacy into question. While the exit poll showed a Clinton win by 4 points, the  final result was Clinton by 16. A Huffington Post statistical analysis that the final results could have been that far off the exit polls and NOT be voter fraud was 123,000-1.

A close examination of  the fraud in four other states, South Carolina, Ohio, Nevada, the 18th district in Chicago and Colorado will be the subject of another piece.

Add to this a current federal investigation of  NY Mayor Bill DiBlasio one of Clinton's biggest supporters into DiBlasio's illegal fundraising that an investigator said has produced enough evidence to warrant a criminal prosecution and the closer one looks the uglier it gets for Clinton.This came on the heels of  the Sanders campaign filing a complaint with the DNC against Clinton herself engaging in illegal fundraising involving bundling and money raised at events that were supposed to go to down ticket Democrats but 80% of which went to Clinton. Every legal expert looking into it came to the conclusion that if it wasnt illegal it was definitely "unethical".

But what has been perhaps the most blatant comparison to Nixon are the Clinton transcripts of speeches made to Wall Street and the health insurance industry behind closed doors over the last two years for which she was paid $21 million in speaking fees. Clinton is determined to keep voters from seeing what's in them.

Making Clinton's stonewalling on her transcripts even more Nixonian has been Carl Bernstein saying on CNN that Clinton must release the transcripts.

Sanders has made an issue not just of the speeches but Clinton's refusal to make the transcripts public so voters can see for themselves what Clinton told Wall Street executives behind closed doors and how it compares with what she tells voters campaigning. It is as valid a campaign issue as income inequality or healthcare and something Clinton  wants to bury.

There are things we do know however. We know that Hillary Clinton, Bill, her campaign manager Robby Mook and closet most trusted staff have gone over every one of those transcripts and have concluded they are too damaging to Clinton's candidacy to be released.Nixon concluded the same which is why he released transcripts with the most damning passages redacted. It didn't work.

It's clear that if Clinton's transcripts weren't so damaging and damning she would have released them by now and made Sanders look foolish.So its obvious there is nothing in them that would do Clinton any good. Given her penchant for underhanded tactics and lies if those transcripts would have benefitted her in any way they would have been released long ago. But Clinton is hiding them and using one lame excuse after another to justify not releasing them. Each excuse makes her look worse.

One excuse: she will release them when everyone else does even though no one else other than Trump has made any speeches and it isnt known if he were paid for them or not. Besides, what Republicans do in their primary campaign to choose their candidate is none of Clinton's business. No Republican is going to do anything because Clinton says so. Saying she'll do it when everyone else does is so juvenile it wouldn't fly in Pre-K.

Her other excuse is she doesnt want to be "held to a different standard than everyone else". A news flash to Hillary Clinton: presidents are always held to a different standard than everyone else and so are those who are candidates. If Clinton doesnt want to be held to a different standard than everyone else she has no business running for president so she should get out now.

Ironically Clinton has released her tax returns so we can know what she was paid for these speeches but not what's in them.What does that say?

Sanders can make Clinton's refusal to release her speeches as damning as what would happen if she did release them. Its also amusing that everytime Sanders brings up the speeches and her refusal to release the transcripts she complains he is attacking her character.

Sanders is often asked what his path is to the nomination. One is winning the majority of pledged delegates. Nancy Pelosi is on record in 2008 saying super delegates are obligated to vote for the candidate who won the most delegates in the primaries. If Democrats did anything to try and change the standards for Clinton all hell will break loose in Philadelphia.

If nothing else, super delegates in states Sanders won and won by landslides should be obligated to vote for him. If they dont they will face certain defeat in primaries next time they run for ignoring the will of their voters and catering to party bosses to vote for Clinton. Sanders has rightly said he deserves the super delegates in the states he has won and if he gets them he can win..There will be more hell to pay if that doesnt happen.

Then there is Donna Brazile's statement in 2008 when it looked like super delegates were deserting Obama for Clinton that " if super delegates decide this nomination I will quit the Democratic party." If Clinton gets the nomination through shady political tactics especially through super delegates she didnt earn, Sanders voters will also quit the Democratic party and that will mean disaster for Democrats in November.

But there is one other scenario, admittedly remote but still hanging out there like the Sword of Damocles and one more reason Sanders will never quit and go all the way to the convention:  that somehow Clinton's transcripts gets leaked by someone. If that ever happened, once they became public Democratic party officials would probably tell Clinton to drop out. Every super delegate would run for cover. It would be similar to what Republicans did with Nixon when what was redacted from his transcripts were eventually made public through the tapes. They told Nixon he had to resign.

NOTE: A Politico investigation published today (5/3) revealed that the Hillary Clinton fundraising scheme mentioned above, the Hillary Victory Fund, was being used to circumvent campaign finance laws. The fund, whose creation and purpose was to raise money for down ticket and state Democrats is actually a virtual slush fund for Clinton, Politico describing it as " a money laundering conduit for Clinton". The scheme has seen all but 1% of the $61 million raised go to Clinton's campaign for her use and not the state parties they were intended.  It's a money laundering scheme trying to get around the law that has more in common with drug dealers or organized crime than someone wanting to be president.Which makes Clinton not so much the New Nixon, but a politician so unethical as to be looking up at him.