Tuesday, February 02, 2016

Hillary's embarrassing loss

Charlie Daniels once cried the devil went down to Georgia.  But the devil can apparently go up as well.  And yesterday she went up to Iowa.  Claim, though she will, that she won, she lost in every way that mattered.

Yes, we're talking the devil that you know Hillary -- Cranky Clinton, War Hawk, War Monger, liar supreme. The belle of Wall Street.

Yet with all that money poured into her campaign, where was the win in Iowa?


Yes, she finally claimed victory -- while the win may still be in dispute.  And she was flanked by Bill -- whose extreme weight loss only drew attention to Hillary's campaign trail weight gain -- and by Chelsea -- who grinned like crazy as she exemplified "I'm here because of my parents."  She never did accomplish anything, did she?  Not a TV broadcasting career, not anything.  Jenna Bush, for goodness sake, was more natural on TV than Chelsea.  And she didn't go the Amy Carter route of doing activism and charity.  Was her husband not included in the festivities because of all the allegations that Hillary used her time at the State Dept to enrich her son-in-law?


As things stand now, Iowa is, in Bernie Sanders accurate words, "a virtual tie."

And that's what Hillary's claiming to be a victory.

The news yesterday, George Soros poured how many million -- $60 million -- into one of the Hillary front groups?

And still she can't eek out a win.

Lucia Graves (GUARDIAN) points out:


 The chief argument against Sanders for his entire campaign is that he’s unelectable in a national election and, by extension, ineffective as a candidate or a statesman. He’s alternately been written off as a fringe candidate, an adorable elderly relative and more subtly, as a political tool for pushing Clinton the left.
But Monday night proved that he could win and, in proving it, he’s weakened Clinton by exposing her as something other than the inevitable candidate we had all but assumed her to be. Some Sanders staffers have argued Sanders definitely did win if you count raw totals and not state delegates; given the geographical layout of Iowa, that claim is likely if unproven. (More than a quarter of Sanders’ supporters come from just three counties – which awards only 12% of delegates; the caucus structure is thought to favor Clinton significantly).
Numbers aside, by sheer momentum Iowa was a win for Sanders – and that’s how progressive groups were framing it before the race was called. Democracy for America’s Charles Chamberlain – which had endorsed Sanders weeks ago – was calling the night’s results are “a huge win for Bernie” and “a major upset” for Clinton before Sanders even took the stage.

Even Clintonista Michael Tomasky (DAILY BEAST) rushing in to rescue Hillary does so with a piece entitled "How Hillary Survives The Iowa Disaster."



Tomasky's so unhinged by Hillary's loss that he writes:

Remember, New Hampshire is the state that saved Bill Clinton in 1992, and Hillary Clinton in 2008. There’s a debate on MSNBC this Thursday—remember, with Martin O’Malley having dropped out, it’ll be head to head—and the Clinton campaign will send dozens of surrogates into the state. In 1992, when Bill’s back was against the wall, they sent hundreds. If the Clintons move heaven and earth to try to bottle that old lightning one more time, New Hampshire voters might respond.

I'm sorry, I thought polling right now indicated Hillary would do in New Hampshire as Bill did in 1992.

Tomasky does remember that Bill came in second in New Hampshire, doesn't he?

They spun it as a win -- in the face of the first tawdry rumors of his active -- and outside of marriage -- sex life.  But he came in second.

With Martin O'Malley having dropped out of the race and Bernie leading in the New Hampshire polls, exactly where does Tomasky think Hillary's going to place?

Fifth?

Hillary was supposed to be the clear choice.

Now the Democratic Party's got to grapple with the fact that she's just not that popular.

Grapple with the fact that if she wins the nomination, it's going to be a long fight with the party using every trick in the book to pull her over the line in the general election.

If Ted Cruz (who came in first on the GOP side) ends up the Republican nominee, all the talk of Hillary with a Latino running mate becomes pointless.

What's the message there?

"Vote for Hillary so a Latino can be the hand maiden in waiting?  So a Latino can spend four years marking time?"

Ted Cruz would be top of the ticket.  That would negate Hillary tossing crumbs to the Latino community.

(That's also before you factor in several other elements unique to the Latino community in America.)

A Trump win could have helped her argue diversity.

A Ted Cruz win makes her just another entitled establishment figure who might toss a crust of bread out at a minority or two in order to woo some voters.

What's especially amazing is how little she -- and her supporters -- grasped the Iraq War effect.

Her vote for the Iraq War is still driving voters away.

That's not going away.

She's been insincere with her remarks and, last week, attempted to take back her ownership of her 'mistake' by blaming it on Bully Boy Bush.


New content at Third:





The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.












 

xxx
Posted by at