Unloved and unstoppable --- by republican neocon and zionist warmongers ... she's the next potus.
On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 6:46:36 AM UTC-5, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21697220-year-insurgents-americans-appear-likely-elect-establishment-grande-dame?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/unlovedandunstoppable > Unloved and unstoppable > > AMONG the millions of words Hillary Clinton has expended on the campaign > trail, these stood out. “This is not easy for me,” said the Democratic > front-runner, during a televised debate in Florida last month. “I am not a > natural politician, in case you haven’t noticed, like my husband or > President Obama.” A more straightforward answer to the question posed—why > do two-thirds of Americans mistrust you?—might have cited the many scandals > that have attended her three decades in public life. An FBI investigation > into her casual handling of classified information is merely the latest. > But if somewhat disingenuous, her response was, in its way, accurate and > revealing. > > She does not mesmerise on the stump, as Barack Obama and Bill Clinton did. > She is fluent and accomplished but icily controlled, as if stage-managing > her every utterance. Her grip on policy is ironclad; in hours of wonkish > debate with Bernie Sanders, the rival she beat handsomely in the New York > primary on April 19th (see article > <http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21697269-hillary-clinton-and-donald-trump-won-big-big-apple-march-titans>), > > she has rarely been caught out. But the easy charm Mrs Clinton displays in > private is seldom evident. “She tries so hard to be real she just seems > false,” said a 21-year-old student, voting in the Ohio primary last month. > His friends nodded; all were “feelin’ the Bern, definitely!” > > Her oratorical weaknesses contribute to Mrs Clinton’s reputation for > shiftiness. Where Mr Obama inspired with promises of a better world, she > rams home her argument like a trial lawyer. That can sound hectoring; it > also makes her look especially hypocritical when she changes tack. Her > decision to come out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) last year > would have seemed less cynical had she not predicted that the deal would be > the “gold standard” of trade agreements. > > These problems hurt Mrs Clinton even before a large part of the Democratic > electorate, enraged by the financial crisis and its aftermath, turned > against establishment politicians. A 68-year-old former first lady, senator > and secretary of state, with good friends on Wall Street (she pocketed > $675,000 for giving three speeches to Goldman Sachs in 2013), her candidacy > was always liable to face an anti-establishment attack. Still, Mr Sanders, > the 74-year-old conscience of Vermont, has made her struggle far more than > anyone predicted. > > When Mr Sanders announced his presidential run in a four-minute-long > speech to a handful of journalists, he did not look like a contender. The > rumpled senator, who for 25 years has been the sole self-declared socialist > in Congress, has gone on to win 17 states. In recent months his campaign > has raised more money than Mrs Clinton’s: $44m last month, mostly in small > contributions from millions of admirers. Most are young and white—like > those Ohioan students, one of whom predicted Mr Sanders would win because > he “didn’t know anyone who wasn’t voting for him”—or well-educated lefties. > These groups have felt the Bern by huge margins. Even women below the age > of 35 have done so, suggesting that the radical promise of a first woman > president is not such a big deal to those born after the 1970s. > > *Down and confused* > > Mrs Clinton owes her lead over Mr Sanders to older whites and to Hispanics > and blacks of all ages, who have backed her by a similar preponderance—but > with less obvious enthusiasm. A few days before the primary in South > Carolina, it was hard to find voters in Orangeburg, one of America’s > blackest cities, fired up by the candidate they were about to choose by a > 72-point margin. In 2008, recalled Sharon Marlon, who runs the city’s > Masters hair salon, you could hardly move for Obama yard-signs. “But where > are the Hillary signs? I haven’t seen one!” This apathy looks bad for Mrs > Clinton’s chances in a general election. The Democrats need a big turnout > if they are to win a rare third straight victory. > > Scandal-dogged, distrusted and divisive, a workaday campaigner with a > style and résumé at odds with her party’s humour, Mrs Clinton is not ideal. > Yet all this may hardly matter. She is almost certain to win the Democratic > nomination. Her victory in New York has extended her lead in elected > delegates to 237. She also has a large lead in “super-delegates”, the > Democratic top brass who have a vote at the party’s nominating convention > in July (see chart 1). To catch up, Mr Sanders would need to win about 60% > of the remaining delegates, which is almost unimaginable. The Democrats > divvy up their delegates in proportion to vote share and Mrs Clinton has a > lead in all the big remaining states, including Pennsylvania and California. > > Having won her party’s ticket, Mrs Clinton would probably face either > Donald Trump or Ted Cruz in November. Both men have consistently lost to > her in head-to-head polling (see chart 2). Predictwise, which looks at > polls, betting markets and bookies, puts her chance of becoming president > at more than 70%. Perhaps only an indictment arising from the investigation > into her use of a private e-mail server when secretary of state could stop > her. > > Her Republican rivals claim to expect one. Mr Trump says she faces “up to > 20 years in prison”. Mr Cruz, in his snider fashion, says that, instead of > the White House, “I’ve got slightly different government housing in mind > for her.” Within the next few weeks Mrs Clinton and a couple of her aides > are expected to be summoned for interviews with the FBI to ascertain > whether they “knowingly” mishandled classified information, or allowed that > to happen through “gross negligence”. If Mrs Clinton is indicted, it is > assumed she would quit the contest (leaving Democratic leaders to try to > block Mr Sanders much as their Republican counterparts are trying to nobble > Mr Trump). > > Republicans have a history of pinning imagined crimes on Mrs Clinton. The > e-mail case sprang from one such: on the basis of no evidence, many > believed Mrs Clinton had failed to protect America’s ambassador to Libya > and three co-workers, killed by jihadists in 2012. Mrs Clinton’s e-mail > arrangements emerged from one of several congressional inquiries into this > bogus scandal. Disdaining the usual protocols, she used a private system, > protected by off-the-shelf security systems, to send and receive > e-mails—2,100 of which, it transpired, contained classified information. > > This looks naive and high-handed—a familiar case of Mrs Clinton bending > rules to her convenience, her critics say. Her friends admit the trait, in > both Clintons, but excuse it as a response to Republican hounding. “It is > to stop those who would undermine them that they do things they shouldn’t > do,” says Leon Panetta, a former head of the CIA and Mr Clinton’s former > chief of staff. Contemptuous of her Republican accusers, Mrs Clinton for > too long refused to admit having done anything wrong. That made her look > arrogant and prolonged the controversy; the public’s trust in her, > impressively high when she was secretary of state, tumbled (see chart 3). > > Republicans compare her case with that of General David Petraeus, who > pleaded guilty to mishandling classified information last year. On the face > of it, that is absurd. Mr Petraeus knowingly gave top-secret intelligence > to his biographer (with whom he was having an affair). There is so far no > suggestion that Mrs Clinton knew her e-mails contained classified > information. The 2,100 in question were classified after the fact, often > against the advice of the State Department and mostly in the mild > “confidential” bracket. After a review of dozens of federal investigations > into similar cases, *Politico*, a newspaper, concluded it was “highly > unlikely” she would be indicted. > > *The fisted glove* > > If Mrs Clinton does make it back to the White House, as seems likely > despite her struggles, it will be for three main reasons. Mr Sanders has > done her more good than harm; the Democrats are more united than they seem; > and the Republicans are every bit as divided. > > The Sanders insurgency has forced Mrs Clinton to build her campaign > aggressively. Modelled on Mr Obama’s victorious efforts, it relies on a > loose structure of volunteers. Some worried that the graft required for > such an approach to deliver would not be forthcoming for a candidate so > much less inspiring than Mr Obama. It seems that it has been, though, > especially among African-Americans, a group which may have been made more > politically active by its decisive role in determining the outcome in 2008 > and 2012. Though there were few Hillary yard-signs up in Orangeburg, Mrs > Clinton’s activists had toured the city’s Baptist churches and were > confident of the rout they duly delivered. > > An adept debater, Mr Sanders has forced Mrs Clinton to sharpen her > message, especially on issues such as wages and trade that are likely to be > crucial in the general election. Mrs Clinton’s biggest scare, by far, was a > surprise defeat in Michigan on March 8th that reflected Mr Sanders’s > success in painting her as a jobs-destroying free trader. This evoked a > nightmare of Mr Sanders tearing up the rest of the rust-belt—or, supposing > Mrs Clinton survived that, of the protectionist Mr Trump doing likewise in > November. Both Clintons promptly descended on Ohio, Illinois and Missouri, > which were due to vote a week later, to advertise her more mixed record on > trade. > > Hillary versus Hillary: The 2008-2016 horse race > <http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/04/hillary-2016-v-hillary-2008> > > > There is little doubt she favours free trade. She was a cheerleader for > the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed into law by her husband, > and voted for several bilateral deals in the Senate. When in need of union > votes, however, she has been less enthusiastic—in 2008 she aped Mr Obama by > slamming NAFTA; in the Senate she voted against its Central American > equivalent. In a speech in Ohio, Mrs Clinton vowed to “stop dead in its > tracks any trade deal that hurts America and American workers.” The > onslaught worked. Mrs Clinton won all three states—including a majority of > those Ohioans who thought international trade had cost America jobs. > > Being seen to scrap has been beneficial in itself; a recent Gallup poll > suggests her supporters are becoming more enthusiastic. “I was for Bernie, > but what she’s said about equal pay for women has really swayed me,” said > Dana, a Harley-Davidson motorbike inspector in Wisconsin, ahead of its > primary on April 5th. Mrs Clinton lost that one. Indeed, going in to New > York, she had lost seven of the previous eight states. But her strategists > were pretty relaxed. Those defeats were in places with few big cities and a > lot of whites—in other words, those least representative of the Democratic > electorate. > > It is an indicator of her underrated strength that Mrs Clinton has largely > avoided lurching to the left after Mr Sanders, a manoeuvre that would > inevitably damage her in the general election. Many pundits claim > otherwise, but this is based on wishful thinking of two different sorts. > Those on the right want to see their long-held belief that she is a > dangerous leftie borne out. Those on the left, the more realistic of whom > always saw nudging Mrs Clinton leftward as the most they could hope for, > want to see that hope realised. “The Sanders movement has caused her to > reconsider her priorities, change her positions,” says Congressman Raúl > Grijalva from Arizona, a rare Bernie-backer on the Hill. But there is > little evidence for this. > > The prime, incontestable shred is Mrs Clinton’s flick-flack on TPP, which > would be hard for her to reverse. Yet if the Senate ratifies the agreement > this year, as it may, she will be spared the dilemma. She has said nothing > to rule out future deals, including TPP’s companion agreement, covering > trans-Atlantic trade. Otherwise, Mrs Clinton’s more leftist positions, for > example those on cutting student debt and expanding Social Security, are > more moderate than she often tries to make them sound. She has proposed > nothing that is likely to panic swing voters in November. > > Take tax. To pay for his policies, Mr Sanders would increase income tax > and introduce two new payroll taxes. The marginal rate paid by the richest > Americans, including federal and state taxes, would rise to 73% in the > average state. Mrs Clinton’s tax plan entails a 10% increase in the > marginal rate for those with income over $5m a year, bringing it to 43.6%, > and a minimum federal-income-tax rate of 30% for those earning over a > million dollars. Despite the post-crisis anxiety many voters feel over > bankers, wages and other left-wing targets, there is little in any of her > proposals to suggest she would stray from the pragmatic, pro-market, > centre-left territory of Mr Obama and her husband. > > The public seems to understand this better than the pundits. On a > left-right scale compiled by Crowdpac, a data firm, from the perceptions of > millions of political donors, Mrs Clinton has scarcely budged in a year. > She has much the same liberal rating as Mr Obama. This must be > disappointing for Mr Sanders’s fans. Even so, two-thirds of them already > say they will vote for her in November, and the number will surely rise as > the party closes ranks in the summer. There is already evidence of this. > “If she wins, we hope our supporters will support her,” said Mr Sanders’s > wife Jane on April 13th. “It’s nowhere near as rancorous as it was between > Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.” > > If not natural no matter > > This is the second factor in Mrs Clinton’s favour. Despite their > differences, Democrats are basically united. Most revere Mr Obama, who is > quietly backing Mrs Clinton, dislike Republicans and want power. In an > online poll of 400,000 Democratic voters conducted by Alan Grayson, a > congressman from Florida, hardly any said they were supporting either > candidate because they disliked the other. > > The third factor is that the Republicans are mustering for civil war. Exit > polls in Wisconsin suggested more than a third of Republican voters would > not back Mr Trump in a general election. No wonder Republican bosses are > trying to block him; yet if they do, a third of Mr Trump’s supporters say > they will not support any other Republican candidate. Mr Cruz would be a > less divisive figure, but perhaps only a bit; he is caustically right-wing > and hated by most of the party bosses. > > *Love the one you’re with* > > Some moderate Republicans already say they would hold their noses and pick > Mrs Clinton over either man. At a polling station in Milwaukee, a retired > marine who had just voted for John Kasich, the Republican in distant third > place, said he would vote for her over Mr Trump or Mr Cruz. More important, > either of those two would put fire into the bellies of apathetic Democrats, > enabling them to stretch their emerging advantage in the popular vote. > Although Hispanics have one of the lowest participation rates in the > Democratic coalition, it will still matter that eight in ten of them > dislike Mr Trump—and seven in ten loathe him. > > It has been long assumed that, even if Mrs Clinton does win the > presidency, a Republican-controlled Congress would prevent her doing much > with it. Yet some Republicans now fret that, with Mr Trump on their ticket, > they could lose not only the Senate but also their 30-seat majority in the > House of Representatives. This possibility, while still seeming > far-fetched, has some Democrats wondering what Mrs Clinton might do with a > freer hand than Mr Obama has recently enjoyed. > > She might well attempt nothing more dramatic than she has already > promised. In the best case for the Democrats, she would still face a > Republican filibuster in the Senate. Moreover, her own record there and as > secretary of state suggests pragmatism and a commitment to incremental > improvement, not radicalism and the grand gesture. “She is totally opposed > to not getting anything done,” says Mr Panetta. “She knows her limitations, > but she also knows how to empower others.” Her caution is partly informed > by the high price Mr Clinton and Mr Obama both paid for launching ambitious > measures, including on deficit reduction and health care, early on. Both > lost control of Congress after two years. Mrs Clinton might be expected to > eke out her political capital more gradually. > > It is a remarkable paradox that, in a year of populist insurgency, she, > the archetypal establishment creature, looks best-placed to win. If she > does, she suggested in a recent interview with *Business Insider*, > Americans will soon like her a lot more than they do now: “Because when I > have a position, whether it’s first lady, or senator, or secretary of > state, and I’m doing the work, I’m really quite popular.” Quite likely, we > will see about that. > > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNWd0bWkzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NjE2MjE4NDM-> > > > - New Members > > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/members/all;_ylc=X3oDMTJnZTVubzRjBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxNDYxNjIxODQz> > > 2 > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlY2Y3czByBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ2MTYyMTg0NA--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
