Search Results

THE BLACK ESTABLISHMENT chooses Hillary Clinton.

WRONG TIME? Albright: ‘Special place in hell’ comment came at ‘wrong time.’

Former secretary of State Madeline Albright is softening her controversial comment that there’s a “special place in hell for women who don’t help each other” in a New York Times opinion piece released Friday afternoon.

Albright has received significant criticism for making the remark while campaigning for Hillary Clinton. In the op-ed, Albright said she now understands that she “came across as condemning those who disagree with my political preferences.”

“I have spent much of my career as a diplomat. It is an occupation in which words and context matter a great deal. So one might assume I know better than to tell a large number of women to go to hell,” she writes.

“I absolutely believe what I said, that women should help one another, but this was the wrong context and the wrong time to use that line. I did not mean to argue that women should support a particular candidate based solely on gender.”

She added that she’s made the comment a number of times in the past because she believes that “in a society where women often feel pressured to tear one another down, our saving grace lies in our willingness to lift one another up.”

Funny, Madeleine, I don’t remember you doing that for Sarah Palin, or Carly Fiorina, or any other Republican women targeted by the Democrats.

TOM MAGUIRE: In 2008 Hillary lost to “Yes We Can!”. Now she is going to win with “No We Can’t”?

SURPRISE! “RICHARD WINDSOR” IS A CLINTON FOUNDATION BOARD MEMBER: “Lisa Jackson, the former Environmental Protection Agency administrator who was caught using an email account under the pseudonym ‘Richard Windsor,’ sits on the board of the Clinton Foundation, the charity of Hillary Clinton, of HDR22@clintonemail.com fame.”

DAMN IT FEELS GOOD TO BE A CLINTON!

“Senator Cruz, this might be my favorite political ad of all time,” Jim Geraghty writes, though he asks if the ad works “if you haven’t seen the Office Space scene? Is it funny enough to watch Hillary and her aides destroying her server?” I think the message comes through loud and clear even if you’ve never seen Office Space — though the copier destroying scene is probably the film’s most viral* clip.

* Explanation of the 21st century usage of this word in case Hillary is reading.

UPDATE: Democrat operatives with bylines “Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd were appalled by a new Ted Cruz commercial attacking Hillary Clinton, labeling it ‘vicious’ and ‘rough.’” Because they’re all about sensitive feelings and safe spaces at MSNBC.

HILLARY’S SECURITY DISEASE INFECTS REST OF STATE DEPARTMENT, TOO: Foggy Bottom’s Bureau of Energy Resources was created during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. The bureau’s purpose was to be the department’s heartbeat for energy diplomacy and security issues. But Katie Watson of the Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group says State’s Inspector General found an amazing level of disregard for keeping sensitive and classified information out of the wrong hands. The laxity is so widespread in the bureau that nobody checks if secured government equipment is being taken out of the office at the end of the day.

USA TODAY EDITORIALIZES ON HILLARY AND WALL STREET: It’s hard to recast yourself as a populist after you’ve fed at the trough.

MOST ASTUTE TAKEAWAY FROM DEM DEBATE: Black Lives Don’t Matter to Clinton and Sanders–Only Black Votes. The self-proclaimed “Conservative Black Chick,” Crystal Wright, has an oped in The Telegraph that documents the vomit-inducing racial pandering of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton during last night’s Democrats’ debate:

Sanders’ solution to his black and brown problem is to break bread with Sharpton in Harlem. The good Reverend Al, who hasn’t given a sermon since I can recall, never met a racial riot or protest he didn’t want to incite.

How insulting to black people that Sanders thinks all he has to do is meet with a buffoon like Sharpton to secure the black vote. As I wrote in my new book Con JobDemocrats “don’t grant blacks permission to be free-thinking individuals”. We’re merely supposed to follow the orders of a profiteer like Sharpton.

Not that Sanders is any better than Clinton, who in 2008 spoke in a “black” accent at a campaign event at a black church in Charleston. Democrats in general take the black vote for granted and insult blacks as political dummies. . . .

The fact is Hillary will say and do anything to get elected and black votes matter to Hillary more than black lives ever will. It’s outrageous for any black American to vote for Hillary. They’d be voting for their demise. . . .

What’s so sad is the black vote can be won or bought so easily with these optical illusions from Democrats like Hillary and Bernice. No other race in America but blacks votes solidly for one party and allows themselves to be politically manipulated like stuff animals. . . .

There is a high price to be paid for leaving the Democrats’ plantation. Just ask Rep. Mia Love, Sen. Tim Scott, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, or any other prominent Republican black person.

Hillary and Bernie are overtly pandering to make sure that rank-and-file blacks remain firmly rooted to the plantation, picking Democrats’ divisive, dependent, racially-tinged cotton ad infinitum.

THE REPUBLICANS SHOULD TALK ABOUT THIS: Jonathan Macey: The Rise Of Crony Capitalism. “We may think that corruption is a problem of poor nations, but there is a great deal of crony capitalism in the United States. . . . A strong, independent judiciary is thought by scholars to be an antidote to both wholesale and retail crony capitalism. Evidence of this is somewhat mixed. The U.S. boasts a legitimately strong and independent judiciary, but crony capitalism certainly exists in this country, and appears to be on the rise.”

This could be a big issue for the GOP. Hillary can’t talk about crony capitalism because she’s neck-deep in it, and Bernie can’t talk about it because that would be a tacit admission that non-crony capitalism might be okay.

HILLARY’S NEVADA PROBLEM: Jon Ralston explains to Chris Cillizza.

I don’t consider those polls reliable or recent. The Clinton folks are saying it could be close and distorting Nevada’s demographics (suddenly we are as white as Iowa and New Hampshire!) because they are worried about the Bernie surge. And I think they should be. Team Clinton has an infrastructure advantage, and its staff here is first-rate and knows the state. Some worked here in ’08. They also arrived six months before Team Sanders, whose folks do not know the state nearly as well. But he is outspending her on TV — this may be changing — and same-day registration on Feb. 20 may allow a lot of new, Sanders voters to change the course of the election. Hillary knew a long time ago she would need a firewall in Nevada; that’s why she set up here so early. The firewall isn’t breached yet, but it may be buckling soon.

Clinton is relying on outsized support from minority voters in Nevada and South Carolina to put a stop to the Sanders Surge, but all may not be proceeding as she has foreseen.

HILLARYCO’S NEW LINE — BERNIE’S RACIST! Black Congressional Leader Says Bernie Sanders Has a ‘Very Troubling’ Record.

HARRY REID: BILL CLINTON STILL ‘KNOWS HOW TO FEEL OUR PAIN.’

Well, there’s plenty of it in the country, based on Hillary and Bernie’s debate remarks last night.

ANDREW MALCOLM: Dem debate: Fierce grilling except for emails, FBI, Top Secret, Benghazi, debt and….

Of the 16,000 words uttered by Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and moderators Gwen Ifil and Judy Woodruff, not one of them concerned Clinton’s deepening email scandal. Not one mention of the words email, e-mail, private server or FBI.

Not a single media question or opponent mention of the huge legal cloud hanging over the party’s presumptive nominee. Nor of the ongoing FBI investigation into unauthorized use of her unsecured private email server for government business, including loose handling of Top Secret documents endangering national security intelligence-gathering and covert operations.

Not any reference to the State Department Inspector General’s subpoena to the Clinton Foundation exploring possible connections between foreign government donations possibly trying to curry favor during Clinton’s four-year tenure as Obama’s secretary of State.

Oh, and not a single word either about Benghazi, the murder of four Americans there, the phony video excuse, the lack of rescue or reinforcement attempts and any Clinton responsibility for the well-documented poor consulate security. Nothing on tax or entitlement reforms. National debt.

A complete pass for Hillary Clinton. Whoosh! Home free. Other than that, it was a serious grilling about being female, admiring Obama, taxing the rich more, free stuff and other liberal issues.

It’s as if Judy Woodruff, Gwen Ifill, and PBS were just trying to help the Democrats or something.

OUCH: John Lewis on Sanders’ Civil Rights Activism: ‘I Never Saw Him.’

Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., hit Vermont Sen. Bernard Sanders’ past activism during the civil rights movement while throwing his support behind former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Lewis was participating in a press conference on Thursday announcing that the Congressional Black Caucus Political Action Committee was endorsing Clinton. In response to a question from Roll Call about Sanders’ previous work on civil rights, Lewis, a civil rights leader who chaired the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and spoke at the 1963 March on Washington, said he did not work with Sanders.

“I never saw him. I never met him,” Lewis said. “I was involved in the Freedom Rides, the March on Washington, the march from Selma to Montgomery and directed the Voter Education Project for six years. But I met Hillary Clinton. I met President Clinton.”

Lewis’ remarks contrast with Sanders’ frequent highlighting of his record on civil rights. Sanders’ campaign website bio shows him as an organizer for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee at the University of Chicago to see Martin Luther King — and incidentally, Lewis — speak in 1963.

Wait, Bill and Hillary were at Selma? Weren’t they kind of young? And wasn’t Hillary a Goldwater Girl then? My dad was at Selma and he never mentioned Bill and Hillary being there. And he would.

Related: John Lewis said he knew the Clintons in the civil rights era, but he didn’t always make that claim.

APPARENTLY WE SHOULD GET ON A BOAT* AND LEAVE AMERICA ASAP, John Podhoretz writes in the New York Post, after watching last night’s Hillary-Bernie debate:

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were essentially auditioning last night for the role of Snake Plissken. Do you remember Snake Plissken? He was the eyepatch-wearing hero of “Escape from New York,” the 1981 science-fiction picture in which Manhattan has become a prison and Snake Plissken is the only guy who can find the way out.

Only the America from which they want to liberate us is Barack Obama’s America. Oh, they don’t say as much. Hillary blames the Koch brothers. Bernie blames millionaires and billionaires and the campaign-finance system. They both blame the Republicans.

But let’s face it: It’s Obama’s world. They and we are all just living in it.

And what a world. “There is,” Sanders said, “massive despair all over this country.” Wages low. Millions in prison.

Bernie and Hillary are both admitting what a wretched failure Obama has been as president. Why would America want to give his party another four years?

* Or perhaps a starship, based on Hillary’s retro-futuristic final frontier-ready togs last night.

NOT LIVING UP TO THE HYPE: Bernie Sanders’ Political Revolution Is Off to a Slow Start: He has pledged to mobilize millions of new Americans to transform politics, but so far, Democratic turnout is down.

The first tests are in, and the signs of a revolution at the ballot box are scant. Rather than a surge of the previously disaffected, Democratic turnout was down in the first two states to hold contests in the nomination race—by 28 percent in Iowa and 13 percent in New Hampshire.

In Iowa, 172,000 Democrats took part in the party caucuses. The number in 2008 was 240,000.

In the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, 251,000 Democrats voted. The number in 2008 was 288,000.

In other words, the grassroots enthusiasm, vast small-dollar donations, and massive crowds at Sanders’ rallies so far hasn’t translated into historically greater voter turnout for his party.

Meanwhile, Republican voter turnout is up from 2008 levels—by 15,000 in Iowa, and 33,000 in New Hampshire.

The numbers pose a challenge to Sanders’ argument that he’d succeed where President Barack Obama failed in mobilizing Americans to transform the political process. It also may bolster one of the main lines of attack by Hillary Clinton—that Sanders is making promises he can’t keep.

To be fair, Bernie’s making promises he can’t keep, but Hillary’s making promises she won’t keep.

HOW MUCH DO YOUNG PEOPLE CARE FOR GRANDMA’S OPINION? Steinem, Albright Try Bullying Female Voters into Supporting Hillary.

THE VIEW OF THE WORLD FROM 9th AVENUE: One fun element of Democrat presidential primaries? Reading how much leftwing elites truly despise the base of Democrat voters. As John Nolte writes today at Big Government, “Prominent Hillary Clinton Supporter Smears Working Class Dems as Racist:”

Obviously frustrated by Hillary Clinton’s collapsing presidential campaign (her second in a row!), The Nation’s Joan Walsh, a frequent MSNBC contributor and high-profile Hillary supporter, took to her verified Twitter account Thursday to attack working class Democrats as racists.

“I wonder if Clinton’s troubles with white working class,” Walsh mused, “which she carried in ’08, have anything to do with the president she served[.]”

The insinuation isn’t at all subtle. Walsh is suggesting that white working class Democrats have moved away from Hillary because she served in the cabinet of a black president.

This is a bizarre strategy from Team Hillary, especially after the catastrophic results from New Hampshire Tuesday night, where Hillary lost the woman vote to 195 year-old socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

It may be bizarre, but this is what Democrat elites do; in April of 2008, in the midst of Pennsylvania primary season, Obama-supporting screenwriter-director Nora Ephron (who passed away in 2012) took to the pages of the Huffington Post to write a nasty screed titled “White Men:”

This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don’t mean people, I mean white men. How ironic is this? After all this time, after all these stupid articles about how powerless white men are and how they can’t even get into college because of overachieving women and affirmative action and mean lady teachers who expected them to sit still in the third grade even though they were all suffering from terminal attention deficit disorder — after all this, they turn out (surprise!) to have all the power. (As they always did, by the way; I hope you didn’t believe any of those articles.)

To put it bluntly, the next president will be elected by them: the outcome of Tuesday’s primary will depend on whether they go for Hillary or Obama, and the outcome of the general election will depend on whether enough of them vote for McCain. A lot of them will: white men cannot be relied on, as all of us know who have spent a lifetime dating them. And McCain is a compelling candidate, particularly because of the Torture Thing. As for the Democratic hope that McCain’s temper will be a problem, don’t bet on it. A lot of white men have terrible tempers, and what’s more, they think it’s normal.

If Hillary pulls it out in Pennsylvania, and she could, and if she follows it up in Indiana, she can make a credible case that she deserves to be the candidate; these last primaries will show which of the two Democratic candidates is better at overcoming the bias of a vast chunk of the population that has never in its history had to vote for anyone but a candidate who could have been their father or their brother or their son, and who has never had to think of the president of the United States as anyone other than someone they might have been had circumstances been just slightly different.

Hillary’s case is not an attractive one, because what she’ll essentially be saying (and has been saying, although very carefully) is that she can attract more racist white male voters than Obama can. Nonetheless, and as I said, she has a case.

Classy stuff — which also reveals much about what Ephron thought about the people who paid to see her movies. In her column today (at Salon, where Joan Walsh served as editor for many years, ironically enough), Camille Paglia spots another leftist dowager (her word) lashing out at the base:

Despite emergency efforts by Gloria Steinem, the crafty dowager empress of feminism, to push a faltering Hillary over the finish line, Sanders overwhelmingly won women’s votes in every category except senior citizens. Last week, when she told TV host Bill Maher that young women supporting the Sanders campaign are just in it to meet boys, Steinem managed not only to insult the intelligence and idealism of the young but to vaporize every lesbian Sanders fan into a spectral non-person.

Steinem’s polished humanitarian mask had slipped, revealing the mummified fascist within. I’m sure that my delight was shared by other dissident feminists everywhere. Never before has the general public, here or abroad, more clearly seen the arrogance and amoral manipulativeness of the power elite who hijacked and stunted second-wave feminism.

Oh I don’t know – that sort of arrogance is on rather prominent display every four years. It’s as if Democrat elites believe that their base care for little more than clinging to their racism, sexism, guns and religion. (Obama’s infamous crack in 2008 was in the context of trying to win the same Pennsylvania Democratic primary that inspired Ephron’s racist “White Men” screed above.)

So why all the anger from leftist elites directed at their base? Perhaps it’s because, as Ace of Spades noted in 2011, “Our elites are fixated on how disappointed they are with the tawdry public precisely because that allows them to avoid examining their own colossal failures.”

THE GROWING STENCH OF CLINTON CORRUPTION: The Washington Post is reporting that the “Clinton Foundation Received Subpoena From State Department Investigators.”

Investigators with the State Department issued a subpoena to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation last fall seeking documents about the charity’s projects that may have required approval from the federal government during Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state, according to people familiar with the subpoena and written correspondence about it.

The subpoena also asked for records related to Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide who for six months in 2012 was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation, Clinton’s personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons.

The full scope and status of the inquiry, conducted by the State Department’s inspector general, were not clear from the material correspondence reviewed by The Washington Post. . . .

The potential consequences of the IG investigation are unclear. Unlike federal prosecutors, inspectors general have the authority to subpoena documents without seeking approval from a grand jury or a judge.

But their power is limited. They are able to obtain documents, but they cannot compel testimony. At times, IG inquiries result in criminal charges, but sometimes they lead to administrative review, civil penalties or reports that have no legal consequences.

POWERBALL: A Federal judge today ordered the State Department to release all Clinton emails by Feb. 29. 

Until now, the State Department has been posting Clinton emails about once a month on its website. The plaintiff in the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit before [judge Rudolph] Contreras’ court, reported Jason Leopold of Vice News, has complained that the slow pace of production, with an additional deadline extension requested by the State Department, would delaying some of the most potentially explosive Clinton documents until after important early Democrat presidential primaries.

Politico notes that even the new court-ordered release schedule will deliver two batches of emails after the Nevada caucuses on February 20, and one batch after the Democrat’s South Carolina primary on February 27.

The State Department wanted to deliver one batch on February 13 and another at the end of the month; the court-imposed schedule will ensure more emails are released before each of the two upcoming primary contests. Unfortunately, some of the hottest Clinton emails will still be dropped just a day before the Super Tuesday primary.

Contreras remains very annoyed with the State Department. Politico quotes his order as follows: “The court expects that defendant will endeavor to avoid any additional delay. Therefore, it is FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall promptly bring any unanticipated problems to the court’s attention.”

Judge Contreras (himself an Obama appointee) is apparently under the odd impression that the Obama Administration is beholden to the rule of the law.

CHANGE: “Bernie Sanders Intrigues a South Carolina Town That Loves Hillary Clinton

HILLARY CLINTON WAS A NATIONAL SECURITY DISASTER AS SECRETARY OF STATE: That seems to be the emerging consensus among military intelligence experts willing to go on the record about the damage done to national security by Clinton’s use of an unsecured home-brew email server to do official business. Calling for Clinton to “step down” from the presidential race is Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn (Ret.), who was President Obama’s head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, according to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s Richard Pollock:

“Flynn and other high-ranking former intelligence officials told TheDCNF they are alarmed that some of the nation’s most highly classified documents contained in a secretive program called the Special Access Program (SAP) were transferred to Clinton’s unclassified home server.

“The documents ‘had to be moved off electronically or removed out of the secure site physically, then it had to be put onto an unclassified email system,’ Flynn said. ‘Someone who does this is completely irresponsible, but totally unaccountable and shows a streak of arrogance to the American public that is unworthy of anyone thinking they can run for President of the United States.’

“’This is unbelievable,’ Flynn said. ‘I don’t think anybody should be talking about her being potentially the next President of the United States.’”

PAGLIA: “Sexism has nothing to do with it

Despite emergency efforts by Gloria Steinem, the crafty dowager empress of feminism, to push a faltering Hillary over the finish line, Sanders overwhelmingly won women’s votes in every category except senior citizens. Last week, when she told TV host Bill Maher that young women supporting the Sanders campaign are just in it to meet boys, Steinem managed not only to insult the intelligence and idealism of the young but to vaporize every lesbian Sanders fan into a spectral non-person.

Steinem’s polished humanitarian mask had slipped, revealing the mummified fascist within. I’m sure that my delight was shared by other dissident feminists everywhere. Never before has the general public, here or abroad, more clearly seen the arrogance and amoral manipulativeness of the power elite who hijacked and stunted second-wave feminism.

Read the whole thing.

EVERYTHING OLD IS OLD AGAIN: Clinton has a major honesty problem after New Hampshire.

(Via Steve Green, who tweets, “Headlines from 1992.”)

WATERGATE’S CARL BERNSTEIN ON HILLARY: “The vast right-wing conspiracy didn’t put the server in her damn closet. She’s going to have to get by this thing, and she’s going to have to acknowledge a terrible misjudgment it seems to be here.”

Related: Spillage: Up to 30 accounts on Hillary server interacted with top-secret data.

More: “When Hillary accidentally hits Reply All, she doesn’t muck around.”

ONE ANCIENT COMMUNIST DESERVES ANOTHER: ‘Berned’: NBC Says Harry Belafonte Will Endorse Sanders.

Belafonte is 88, Sanders is 74; Hillary is 68. Democrat politics is just one big youth movement these days.

RUMOR HAS IT SHE WAS AS CLOSE TO THEM AS BILL TO INTERNS: Why Hillary wants to bury her ‘rah-rah’ Goldman speeches.

QUOTE OF THE DAY:

To young girls and women across the country, I say: do not let others define you. Do not listen to anyone who says you have to vote a certain way or for a certain candidate because you’re a woman. That is not feminism. Feminism doesn’t shut down conversations or threaten women. It is not about ideology. It is not a weapon to wield against your political opponent. A feminist is a woman who lives the life she chooses and uses all her God-given gifts. And always remember that a leader is not born, but made. Choose leadership.

Carly Fiorina Suspends Her Campaign, Blasts ‘Feminism’ In Farewell Statement.

Curiously though, no fire-and-brimstone eschatological statements that women would be going to Hell for not supporting her, or for choosing a different ideological path.

ANALYSIS: TRUE (Any way you slice it): Socialist New Hampshire women choose hell over Hillary Clinton.

BUILDING A BRIDGE TO 1995: Hillary Reaches Base With AOL Login Page Ad.

Earlier: Hillary Clinton Puzzled by the Phrase ‘Went Viral,’ and “Like with a cloth or something?”

If Hillary had an (R) after her name, these gaffes would be framed as her supermarket scanner moment, or her inability to use email. (If only.) We’ll know the media is as serious as they were in 2008 about taking her out when they start painting her as out of touch. Or as Stephen Miller recently wrote, “As painful a sight as it is to see a media that sold Obama as the essence of youthful charismatic hope reduced to selling what’s left of their integrity out to make the most uncool and aged candidates palatable, it works if there’s no pushback to it.”

In the meantime, as John Nolte of Big Hollywood likes to say, “Democrats sure got it good.”

THE NATION: BILL AND HILLARY “DECIMATED BLACK AMERICA,” trumpets socialist house organ in piece titled “Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote.”

Related: Bernie Sanders meets with legendary NBC journalist and Comcast spokesman Al Sharpton for breakfast in Harlem today. As one wag quipped on Twitter today, “Breakfast lasts 6 hrs ['cause] neither of them will make a move for the check.”

UPDATE: This just in from Hillary’s private airplane:

hillary_speaks_jive_2-10-16

 

 

YOU DON’T SAY: “Hillary Clinton has an honesty problem,” according to Chris Cillizza.

That point is driven home hard in the exit poll following Clinton’s 22-point drubbing at the hands of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. More than one in three (34 percent) of all New Hampshire Democratic primary voters said that honesty was the most important trait in their decision on which candidate to support. Of that bloc, Sanders won 92 percent of their votes as compared to just 6 percent for Clinton.

Ninety two to six. That is absolutely unbelievable — even given the size of Sanders’s overall victory in the state.

“Unbelievable?” Really?

YOU DON’T HAVE TO FALL IN LOVE, YOU JUST HAVE TO FALL IN LINE: “After Crushing Defeat, DNC Quirk* Still Gives Hillary More New Hampshire Delegates Than Sanders.”

* “That’s some catch, that Catch-22,” Yossarian observed. “It’s the best there is!”

HMM: Majority of NY Jews View Hillary Unfavorably, Would Vote GOP. Well, NYC Jews have been trending more conservative for years, because that’s who’s having kids.

DESPERATION: Hillary Hires Ex-Obama Aide In Bid for Youth Vote.

BRYCE COVERT: “Of course Hillary Clinton is a victim of sexism

Of course.

Clinton’s staggering loss in New Hampshire has nothing to do with her party’s hard leftward shift under Barack Obama, youthful enthusiasm for an anti-establishment opponent in a season of anti-establishment fever in both parties, voter preference for a local candidate, misgivings about her handling of Top Secret information as Secretary of State, her lack of accomplishments as SecState or as a Senator, or her own poorly managed campaign.

No, the voters of New Hampshire — largely the same voters who saved Clinton’s campaign with a convincing win over Obama in 2008 — suddenly noticed the Clinton is a woman and decided “We can’t have that!”

Of course.

HILLARY TROUNCED; TRUMP TOPS GOPs IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.

SUZANNE VENKER: Hillary Clinton, Gloria Steinem, Madeleine Albright & the sad sound of feminist desperation.

GRANDMA STILL LEARNING HER WAY AROUND STRANGE NEW TECHNOLOGY CALLED THE INTERNET: Hillary Clinton Puzzled by the Phrase ‘Went Viral.’

“You went viral?” Mrs. Clinton said to the man’s friend. “That sounds like some kind of disease.”

Earlier: “Like with a cloth or something?”

UPDATE: ‘Worth a thousand words’: One ‘disgraceful’ photo sums up Hillary perfectly. Bill Ayers approved!

ERIK WEMPLE ON HILLARY AND HER PRESS SYCOPHANTS: Corrupt journalism doesn’t pay. Nor does abetting it. And he names Marc Ambinder in the first sentence.

Former Atlantic contributing editor* Marc Ambinder is showing appropriate contrition for having participating in some dubious journalistic practices back in July 2009. As exposed by some Freedom Of Information Act documents secured by J.K. Trotter of Gawker, Ambinder was pursuing a copy of the speech that then- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was to make at the Council on Foreign Relations. So he emailed renowned Clinton advocate and spokesperson Philippe Reines.

The back-and-forth confirms anyone’s worst suspicions about access journalism. The transaction went like this:

• Ambinder asks for a copy of the speech;
• Reines says he’ll send it, with conditions;
• Ambinder writes back, “ok”;
• Reines lays out the conditions:

1) You in your own voice describe them as “muscular”
2) You note that a look at the CFR seating plan shows that all the envoys — from Holbrooke to Mitchell to Ross — will be arrayed in front of her, which in your own clever way you can say certainly not a coincidence and meant to convey something
3) You don’t say you were blackmailed!

• Ambinder writes, “got it.”

The story, it turns out, rated Clinton’s speech “muscular” and indeed made reference to the seating thing: “The staging gives a clue to its purpose: seated in front of Clinton, subordinate to Clinton, in the first row, will be three potentially rival power centers: envoys Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell, and National Security Council senior director Dennis Ross,” wrote Ambinder, completing his compliance with Reines’s conditions.

In a series of remarks to Gawker, Ambinder lamented making the deal.

Contritition after you’re caught is for form’s sake only.

THE TRUTH ALWAYS COMES OUT, EVENTUALLY: For habitual liars–like the Clintons– this is a very scary prospect. Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller opines, “This Might be Why Hillary Won’t Release Her Goldman Sachs Speech Transcripts.”

As Hillary Clinton resists calls to release transcripts from her paid Goldman Sachs speeches, details of those events are emerging, and they aren’t good for the Democratic presidential candidate.

“It was pretty glowing about us,” one attendee at an Oct. 2013 Goldman Sachs event in Arizona told Politico about Clinton’s speech, which earned the former secretary of state $225,000. “It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.” . . .

Clinton does have the ability to release the transcripts if she chooses.

Her speaking contracts — which went through the Harry Walker Agency — stipulate that the speeches be transcribed and that she retain rights to them.

She won’t be voluntarily releasing these transcripts. I am waiting for the audience-generated videos to emerge. I bet they’re worth a lot of money.

RELATED: Bill Clinton accuser Kathleen Willey to campaign against Hillary: “Willey is joining the Rape Accountability Project for Education PAC, or RAPE PAC, as its paid national spokeswoman, Reuters reported Monday. She will give public remarks and appear in political advertisements detailing claims of Bill Clinton’s past sexual misconduct.”

AUSTIN BAY: Hillary’s National Security Crime Needs a Special Prosecutor: Clinton’s calculated criminality undermines the law that sustains a free nation. “News cycle-driven Democrats swear Republican conspirators invented the so-called email scandal. Balderdash. This is a national security scandal with major implications. . . . Terrorists and rogue states are deadly threats. Effective diplomacy and reliable intelligence collection and assessment are our first lines of defense against both. Effective diplomacy and reliable intel require institutionally and legally protecting secrets—ie: classified information. Protection includes protecting reliable intelligence sources, from satellites to flesh and blood human spies.”

Hillary, remember, undermined this in order to avoid accountability for shady deals involving the Clinton Foundation and other forms of influence-peddling. Her actions were illegal, and her motives were corrupt.

WE’VE NOTICED, BILL: Bill Stumping for Hillary Clinton: ‘Sometimes … I Wish We Weren’t Married.’

WELL, THE DEMOCRATS SEEM TO WANT TO MAKE THIS ELECTION ABOUT GUN CONTROL: NRA to spend ‘significantly more’ fighting Clinton/Sanders, over $20M.

Supporters of the Second Amendment are declaring the 2016 the most critical to their rights because it is likely that the next president will appoint four new U.S. Supreme Court justices, warned the president of the National Rifle Association.

“In my view, all the chips are on the table in this election because the impact is who gets the Supreme Court,” said the NRA’s chief, Allan D. Cors.

Cors, in an interview with Secrets on the opening day of the annual Great American Outdoor Show here, the nation’s biggest, described Democratic frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton as passionately anti-gun and ready to change the makeup of the court and unleash the Justice Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on gun owners and limit imports through State Department rules.

“All of these things fall with whoever is president,” said Cors.

Indeed they do.

BLUE ON BLUE: Clinton attacks on Sanders make Dems nervous.

Hillary Clinton’s White House campaign is going negative against her left-wing rival Bernie Sanders — and a lot of unaligned Democrats think that’s a bad idea.

Her husband, former President Clinton, is leading the charge, hitting Sanders supporters as sexist on Sunday while accusing the Vermont senator of muddying facts.

The attacks come as Hillary Clinton faces a defeat — perhaps a heavy one — in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, according to opinion polls.

Clinton barely defeated Sanders in last week’s Iowa caucuses, and Monday brought rumblings of a possible staff shake-up.

The shift by the Clinton team to a more aggressive footing evoked memories for some of her 2008 campaign against Barack Obama, when Bill Clinton and other surrogates mounted attacks that were widely seen as counter-productive.

Clinton supporters worry that history might be repeating itself, and that the former president’s attacks could boomerang on his wife by turning off large swathes of the Democratic electorate.

“I know what’s happening: He is just pissed off,” said Democratic strategist Brad Bannon. “He hears the attacks. He saw how close things were in Iowa and he thinks they’re 20 points or whatever down in New Hampshire, so he blows up.

“When he speaks reasonably and in the true Clinton style, he is very effective,” Bannon added. “But when he goes crazy because he’s pissed off about the thing, that hurts her.”

Bill Clinton’s aggressiveness, those in the orbit of the Clintons say, is rooted in at least two factors.

First of all, the former president has believed for some time that the campaign has not been vigorous enough in countering Sanders’s populist rhetoric.

Secondly, Bill Clinton was conspicuously unhappy with the Iowa result, allies maintain — despite the campaign’s desire to put a brave face on the outcome and Hillary Clinton’s remark on caucus night that she was breathing a sigh of relief.

One ally said Bill Clinton was “peeved”; another, more colorfully, described his mood as “rip shit.”

Or something that rhymes with that.

WHEN HISTORY RHYMES AT SALON:

“Hillary’s race against time.”
—Headline, Salon, March 12, 2008.

“It’s almost over for Hillary: This election is a mass insurrection against a rigged system.”
—Headline, Salon, this past Sunday.

 

QUESTIONS NOBODY IS ASKING: “Does America Need More Hitler Humor?”

Still though, give the Atlantic some credit for consistency;  in an item published there in 2007, the year before Andrew Sullivan discovered his true calling as America’s foremost uterus detective, the excitable one wrote a blog post whose headline described GWB as “The Weimar President.” As I asked at the time in response, “I can only guess that Andrew believes that President Bush is an elderly figurehead leading a weakened but relatively benign quasi-socialist administration suffering the ravages of hyper-inflation and that Hillary, Obama or whoever his successor is, is the next Hitler, about to install a terribly malevolent war machine and concurrent massive welfare state?”

Glad to see that the Atlantic is keeping the theme rolling as another socialist with aspirations of nationalizing the economy is rising in the polls.

IDENTICAL HEADLINES, EIGHT YEARS APART:

hillary_campaign_shake-up_tweets_2008-2016_02-08-16-1

In many cases, consistency is a very good commodity in a politician; but not when it involves consistently sucking at retail politics.

MIDNIGHT DIXVILLE NOTCH VOTE: Bernie Shuts Out Hillary, Kasich Tops GOPs.

ONLY NOW, AT THE END, DO THEY UNDERSTAND: Democratic Party bosses finally figure out that Hillary is a toxic candidate.

MICHAEL WALSH: FBI Makes It Official: Hillary Rodham Clinton Is Under Investigation.

Or as Iowahawk tweets, “Joe Biden goes to garage, takes cover off his Trans Am.”

REMEMBER, SOCIAL-JUSTICE WARRIORS ARE THE ANGRY PEASANTS WITH PITCHFORKS, MASQUERADING AS THE VOICES OF MORALITY AND REASON: Elizabeth Nolan Brown: How Maryland ‘Neomasculinity’ Blogger Roosh V Became an International ‘Pro-Rape’ Villain; A case study of collective catharsis through call-out culture and moral panic as meme.

The bottom line, though, is that “not a single woman has been hurt by me,” says Roosh. “I’ve never been accused of rape, I’ve never been charged. No follower of mine has read something of [mine], and then gone on to rape, because I know if they did hurt a woman it’d be all over the news.”

The whole thing calls to mind two more male writers: Matt Taibbi, probably best known for his work at Rolling Stone, and Mark Ames, who now writes for outlets such as Pando. The pair worked together at an English-language newspaper in Russia in the late ’90s and subsequently published a book about the experience called The Exile: Sex, Drugs, and Libel in the New Russia. Within this book, there are scenes of the mostly-male Exile editors sexually harassing their administrative staff—going so far as to tell secretaries they must sleep with them to keep their jobs—and Ames threatening to kill his pregnant Russian girlfriend if she doesn’t get an abortion. The men never claimed it was satire or nonfiction. In explaining, Ames was prone to saying things like “Russian women, especially on the first date, expect you to rape them.”

Despite this, Taibbi and Ames have continued to flourish as leftist writers, and as far as I know no feminist groups or Canadian mayors have tried to prevent either from visiting the country. Perhaps they’re just lucky to have come of age in a different Internet era. Perhaps it helps that their politics and progressive credentials are otherwise right. . . .

As much as we might hate to admit it, Roosh is a journalist. His main site, Return of Kings—one of the hubs of what’s sometimes called the “Manosphere”—and its forums get two million visits per month. As neither Roosh nor any writers or readers of Return of Kings were under suspicion of criminal behavior, it is at the very least bizarre that law-enforcement officials would feel the need to comment and keep an eye on their gathers. And it’s probably the kind of thing we should condemn, those of us interested in freedom of speech, press, movement, and association.

People will object that these groups were “pro-rape” meetups. But outside media misinformation, there was nothing about the proposed happy hours to suggest they had anything to do with rape.

Well, if he were — seriously, not satirically — writing “pro-rape” manifestos in the name of Islam, his right would be zealously protected by the same people who subjected him to a high-tech lynching.

And, meanwhile, Bill Clinton, who has actually been accused of rape, is out campaigning for Hillary.

BUT IT WOULD MAKE TOO MUCH SENSE: Pressure on Lynch to Step Aside in Clinton Email Probe.

If the FBI finds sufficient evidence to launch a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton or one of her top aides for mishandling classified information, Lynch’s Justice Department will have to decide whether to press ahead.

Even if no evidence of wrongdoing is found, Clinton’s many critics are unlikely to take the word of an appointee of President Obama’s and will doubt that justice has been served.

Already, top Republicans are calling for a special prosecutor to be brought in and evaluate the situation.

No. 2 Senate Republican John Cornyn (Texas) took to the floor of the Senate last week to call for a special counsel to be appointed “because of the conflict of interest by asking Attorney General Lynch to investigate and perhaps even prosecute somebody in the Obama administration.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) agrees that Lynch ought to consider a special counsel, a representative said, to reassure the country that decisions are made “without regard to any political considerations.”

The Justice Department, however, has so far declined the request.

“This matter is being reviewed by career attorneys and investigators and does not meet the criteria for the appointment of a special prosecutor,” department spokeswoman Melanie Newman said in a statement. . . .

Maybe this explains why Hillary is “one hundred percent confident” that nothing will come of the FBI investigation.

The current federal regulations relating to the appointment of a special counsel state that the Attorney General “will” appoint a special counsel when:

he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.
But hey, I’m sure that Lynch can be impartial. After all, just because she received her first appointment as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York thanks to the nomination of then-President Bill Clinton, and her second stint as U.S. Attorney and elevation to AG thanks to President Obama (who told 60 minutes that her use of an unsecured email server did not endanger national security), this doesn’t reasonably suggest that Lynch would feel pressure to deep-six criminal charges against the Democrats’ equivalent of the Queen.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
move-along-now-nothing-to-see-here

SHAKEUP AT CAMP CLINTON: “Having learned apparently nothing from her top-heavy, expensive, and ultimately doomed 2008 campaign, Hillary Clinton is set for a shakeup just like the one following her first unexpectedly bad Iowa result eight years ago,” Steve Green writes in his PJM Column.

And when Hillary’s lost Politico’s sycophantic Glenn “Badass” Thrush, you know she’s hit an iceberg.

LORD, MAKE ME VOTE FOR HILLARY — BUT NOT YET: “Bernie Sanders’ Female Supporters Want To Break The Gender Barrier… Just Not Now

“I’m a 65-year-old woman. A Democrat. I’ve always voted Democrat,” said Maryclaire Heffernan, a Sanders supporter from Candia, New Hampshire. “It’s a tough one. I voted for Obama twice. So I’ve already not voted for Hillary once … If Hillary is the nominee I would absolutely support her. However, I am concerned about where we are and think if we don’t think big, we have to stop thinking around the edges or holding the edges in place.”

“I do feel bad about it,” she added, a tinge of pain visible on her face. “And I have dear friends who would kill me for saying that out loud.”

At Sanders’ rallies here in New Hampshire, you meet plenty of women just like Heffernan.

There’s just no denying the hotness of Bernie’s appeal.

POLITICO: HILLARY’S CAMPAIGN ON VERGE OF A SHAKEUP: It sounds like a disorganized mess. Write Glenn Thrush and Annie Karni, “Ultimately, the disorganization is the candidate’s own decision-making, which lurches from hands-off delegation in times of success to hands-around-the-throat micromanagement when things go south.” Also:

from the beginning, there have been deeper issues simmering within the cheerfully-decorated Brooklyn headquarters — and much of that had to do with a disconnect between the candidate and her campaign. Over the summer while her campaign was bogged down in the email controversy, Clinton was deeply frustrated with her own staff, and vice versa. The candidate blamed her team for not getting her out of the mess quickly, and her team blamed Clinton for being stubbornly unwilling to take the advice of campaign chairman John Podesta and others to apologize, turn over her server, and move on. The entire experience made her a deeply vulnerable frontrunner out of the gate, and underscored a lack of trust between Clinton and her operatives, many of whom were former Obama staffers that she didn’t consider part of her inner circle of trust.

Read the whole thing.

 

DEPENDS. DO YOU WANT HER AS NANNY-IN-CHIEF? Can We Forgive Hillary Clinton For Her Past War On Video Games?

It was one of the hallmark proposals of Clinton’s Senate era, that selling violent games to the underage should be criminalized. Together with Senator Joe Lieberman, the two crafted the Family Entertainment Protection Act.

There were five major proposals to the bill, including:

A prohibition on selling games to minors, where retailers could be heavily fined for selling M or AO games to those under 17
An independent analysis of the ESRB’s ratings system to figure out if it was actually accurate
Authority for the FTC to investigate misleading game ratings
Authority for consumers to register complaints with the FTC for misleading game ratings
An audit of retailers including possible “secret shoppers” to see if underage kids can buy M or AO games from stores

While this bill was being proposed, Hillary Clinton went on the warpath about violent games. This was after Columbine and before Virginia Tech, but right in the middle of the great “Grand Theft Auto” panic, where that series was constantly coming under fire as essentially the sum of all fears for those concerned about violent games. . . .

And here’s what she said when she was asked the famous “are video games art?” question:

“Art is subjective; it’s in the eye of the beholder. I think video games can be fun. They can teach eye-hand coordination and strategy and they can introduce children to computer technology. And there is no doubt they are intricate and sophisticated technologically. I’m not in any way trying to do away with video games. I’m strictly concerned with a small subset of games that are harmful to children — those that are excessively violent and sexually explicit. I want to make sure children can’t obtain these games without their parents’ consent.”

And here, just laying it bare:

“We need to treat violent video games the way we treat tobacco, alcohol, and pornography.”

Which I guess means that she’d crusade against those, too, given the chance.

THE DECEIVING OF MADELEINE ALBRIGHT. At NewsBusters, Tom Blumer writes:

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin referred to Madeleine Albright’s somewhat well-known saying, found on a Starbucks coffee cup, that “There’s a special place in Hell for women who don’t help other women.” At the time, Albright, who served as Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, huffed: “Though I am flattered that Governor Palin has chosen to cite me as a source of wisdom, what I said had nothing to do with politics.” She naturally followed that statement with an intense political attack on Palin and GOP presidential nominee John McCain.

Now that Democrat Hillary Clinton is running for president and is in danger of losing the New Hampshire primary by a substantial margin, Albright has decided that her statement has everything to do with politics, and that women who don’t support Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy and vote for her deserve that “special place in Hell.”

This morning Larry Klayman’s Freedom Watch linked to Jeff Jacoby’s 1997 Boston Globe article, “The Deceiving of Madeleine Albright:”

I have much esteem for Albright as a public official. She is assertive and principled, a welcome contrast to the timid Warren Christopher and the arrogant James Baker. A loathing of appeasement is her foreign policy rudder. “The mindset of most of my contemporaries is Vietnam,” she has said. “My mindset is Munich.” Those are the words of a potentially great secretary of state.

But something rings false in her reaction to the news that her family was Jewish. Was this really a bolt from the blue? Did she honestly have no inkling until this month that the Nazis murdered three of her grandparents, her aunt, her uncle, and her 11-year-old cousin Milena?

“A major surprise for me,” says Albright. Yet for years, it turns out, people had been sending her letters with information about her family. Four times the mayor of her father’s hometown in Bohemia had written to her, enclosing detailed material about her parents and grandparents. Albright never replied; her aides say she was too busy to see the letters. Perhaps she was.

Read the whole thing.

And Zero Hedge asks if “There’s a special place in Hell for women who don’t help other women,” then why didn’t Hillary support Zephyr Teachout in 2014 “also a ‘progressive,’ as ‘first woman governor’ of New York? Seems appropriate for someone asking for support on the basis of “first woman president.” Perhaps Clinton thought Teachout was the wrong woman to be the first woman governor of NY.”

Say, I wonder if CNN will ask Hillary about that — nahh, actually, I don’t.

UPDATE: “Time for Team Hillary to break out the gender card for young liberal women who prefer Sanders,” just as Team Obama played the race card against her in 2008.

KEVIN WILLIAMSON: Mrs. Clinton’s Ode To Serfdom.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is not qualified to be president of the United States of America, because she doesn’t know what the United States of America are.

Terry Shumaker, former U.S. ambassador to Trinidad (I wonder what that gig cost him) and current abject minion in the service of Mrs. Clinton, quotes Herself telling an audience in New Hampshire: “Service is the rent we pay for living in this great country.”

There is a very old English word for people who are required to perform service as a rent for their existence, and that word is serf. Serfdom is a form of bondage. Americans are not serfs. We are not sharecroppers on Herself’s farm or in vassalage to that smear of thieving nincompoopery in Washington that purports to rule us. We don’t owe you any damned rent.

The American proposition is precisely the opposite of what Herself imagines: The U.S. government exists at our sufferance, not the other way around.

Analysis: True. But our erstwhile ruling class needs to be reminded of this rather forcefully. Plus:

Herself’s invocation of serfdom is the logical extension of “You Didn’t Build That”-ism, the backward philosophy under which the free citizen is obliged to justify his life and his prosperity to the state, in order to satisfy the economic self-interest, status-seeking, and power-lust of such lamentable specimens as Elizabeth Warren, a ridiculous little scold who has never done a single useful thing in her entire public life.

The American model is precisely the opposite: Government has to justify itself to us. . . . They owe us service: services they routinely fail to perform.

We’ve got jihadis shooting up California while the government doesn’t even bother to track visa overstays or properly scan entrants from Pakistan by way of Saudi Arabia (because what could possibly go wrong in that scenario?) in spite of being legally obliged to do so. Instead, the powers that be in Washington are literally masturbating the day away when they aren’t busy poisoning veterans to death with dope. These people—these people—are going to lecture us on citizenship? How about you skip the homilies and do your damned jobs?

Or just go home, and trouble us no more.

DEAD BROKE: “Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.”

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON ON HILLARY AND THE SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF.

At this point, what difference does it make?

hillary_stunned_banner_2-7-16-1

BILL CLINTON UNLOADS ON BERNIE SANDERS:

For weeks, former president Bill Clinton has been the doomsday device of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign — a mighty weapon capable of doing great good or harm to her campaign — so held in reserve until absolutely needed.

Now, as Hillary Clinton — who barely won the Iowa caucus last week — seeks to seize momentum from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in his own backyard days ahead of the New Hampshire primary, that moment of truth has come. The former president, uncharacteristically quiet in recent weeks even as Republican contender Donald Trump called him “an abuser,” struck out at Sanders Sunday, according to reports from Bloomberg, Politico and the New York Times, while campaigning for his wife in New Hampshire, leveling charges that the senator is hypocritical and that some of his followers are sexist.

The former president appeared to get the most mileage out of his criticism of “Bernie Bros” — the name given to some supposed young male supporters of the Vermont senator. Bill Clinton did not use the term — but he offered quite the critique. As Politico noted, Clinton accused these people, some of whom have been denounced by Sanders, of sexist behavior online.

That last line is rich with irony — but so is the entire story. Bill Clinton never wavered in his support of President Obama, even as Obama moved their party hard to the left, undoing virtually all of Clinton’s policies from the ’90s. Hillary has been forced to embrace those policies, but not even she can move far enough left to thwart the avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders.

The Sanders candidacy is the inevitable result of the Obama presidency, which the Clintons helped to advance every step of the way since Obama’s coronation in Denver eight years ago.

Much like Hillary has always enabled Bill’s sexual appetites, Hillary now risks being denied her own coronation — after spending eight years enabling the machinations of a far-left President.

THIS IS SOMETHING TO WORRY ABOUT, ACTUALLY, NOT JUST TO DERIDE: Joel Kotkin: Millennials heed the siren call of socialism.

The biggest story this election season is not Donald Trump or the fortunes of the two winners in Iowa, the unattractive tag team of Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton. For all their attempts to seem current and contemporary, these candidates – and Trump as well – represent older, more established elements in American life, such as evangelicals, nativists and, in Hillary’s case, the ranks of middle-age women, seniors and public-sector unions.

The biggest and most important development has been the massive support among the new generation of voters for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and his open embrace of socialism. In Iowa’s Democratic caucuses, which ended with Clinton and Sanders in a virtual tie, young people opted for Sanders at an almost inconceivable rate of 84-14. In 2008, Barack Obama won this segment, claiming only a 57 percent majority.

So we are seeing the embrace of an openly socialist septuagenarian by a generation that, within a decade, will dominate our electorate and outnumber baby boomers as soon as 2020. That should put more conventional politicians, and business, on notice. Whether you are a Republican, a free-marketer or, even a Democratic-leaning crony capitalist, be afraid – be very afraid.

For the first time since labor leader and presidential candidate Eugene Debs in the early 20th century, Americans are flocking in big numbers to a politician who rejects the efficacy of capitalism and seeks to create a new, notionally fairer, system. Now, as then, the reason to support socialist ideas – some of which were implemented during the New Deal – lies with the palpable failures of capitalism. Polls of millennials show consistently that economic issues, such as jobs and college debt, are their dominant concerns.

Well, decades of long-marching through the institutions are bearing fruit for the left. Time for a counterassault.

CULTURE OF CORRUPTION:

Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks.

Scott Johnson comments: “There’s a joke in there somewhere — probably more than one — but I am afraid the big joke is on us.”

SHE ONLY HAS TO DO IT NINE MORE MONTHS: Hillary can’t dodge Goldman Sachs questions forever.

WHEN HILLARY GIVES THOSE SPEECHES TO GOLDMAN-SACHS, DOES SHE ADDRESS SEXISM? Trader exposes sexist horrors of the Wall Street ‘frat house’.

WE’RE NOT RENTERS.  THIS LAND IS MY LAND: Mrs. Clinton’s Ode to Serfdom.

Terry Shumaker, former U.S. ambassador to Trinidad (I wonder what that gig cost him) and current abject minion in the service of Mrs. Clinton, quotes Herself telling an audience in New Hampshire: “Service is the rent we pay for living in this great country.”

OUT: BERNIEBROS. IN: HILLARYCRONES: Old Women Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright Scold Young Women Backing Bernie Sanders.

CIRCLING THE WAGONS FOR HILLARY: Press finds sexism in Dems who support Sanders.

Well, as they say, Nobody circles the wagons like the “liberal” media.

TONIGHT’S GOP DEBATE IS ON ABC — THE ANYBODY BUT CARLY NETWORK:


Why does the House of Stephanopoulos hate women not named Hillary Clinton so much?

UH OH: COLBERT KING IN THE WASHINGTON POST: Clinton email scandal: Why it might be time for Democrats to draft Joe Biden.

Kinda destroys Hillary’s claim that this is just a bunch of VRWC FUD.

Meanwhile, Joe’s tanned, rested, and ready.

I’M SO OLD, I REMEMBER WHEN DEMOCRATS ONCE BELIEVED IN THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Madeline Albright: ‘There’s a special place in hell’ for women who don’t back Clinton:

“A lot of the younger women don’t think — that think it’s been done. It’s not done. And you have to help. Hillary Clinton will always be there for you,” Albright said. “And just remember — there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”

Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers all likely agree with that last sentence.

WELL, HILLARY DID TAKE SEVERAL WEEKS OFF: New research shows why rest after a concussion is critical.

THEIR POLICIES DON’T BEAR DETAILED ANALYSIS: Sanders and Clinton Get Substantive. That’s Where They Go Wrong.

In previous debates, we got bogged down in the need for a new Glass-Steagall. Since the old Glass-Steagall hadn’t actually gone away, and no specific aspects of the theoretical new one were described, this had the ethereal, almost theological flavor of monks discussing how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. To put it in math-esque terms: The possible set of policies included in the phrase “new Glass-Steagall” was so large as to include nearly all possible outcomes, good and bad.

Last night, on the other hand, Clinton decided to stop mucking about with vague promises to bring Wall Street to heel. Instead, she claimed that she was a financial regulator of rare foresight and rarer steely will, hated and feared by the denizens of New York’s financial district. Presumably we are supposed to see that $675,000 she was paid by Goldman Sachs to make three speeches less as a warm gesture between close friends, than as the bags of gold left outside the city gates for the Visigoth king who is threatening to sack the place.

“But what I want people to know,” said Clinton, “is I went to Wall Street before the crash. I was the one saying you’re going to wreck the economy because of these shenanigans with mortgages. I called to end the carried interest loophole that hedge fund managers enjoy. I proposed changes in CEO compensation.”

Finally, specifics! And yet — this was a somewhat surprising claim. Those of us who were writing about financial regulation in 2007 do not recall Hillary Clinton as a fiery crusader against the financial industry. We remember her as being — like all New York senators — rather friendly to the place.

So I went looking for the support for this remarkable statement. Politifact rated a similar statement as true, based on some speeches she gave in 2007, and a plan she put forward in 2008. It is hard, however, to read this collection as a “warning that Wall Street is going to wreck the economy.” It would be more properly termed “Grousing about consumers who can’t afford their bubblicious subprime mortgages,” and vague remarks about transparency and oversight.

Well, Politifact.

HOW MUCH WORSE COULD IT BE RIGHT NOW? Bernie Sanders will ‘absolutely’ change US-UK defence relationship if elected president. Sanders campaign says US tired of ‘defending the rest of the world’ as surging candidate closes gap with Hillary Clinton in national polls.

Imagining the very worst, immediately after entering the Oval Office, I could see him taking a bust of Winston Churchill that’s been in the White House for years, and mailing it back, just to symbolically flip England the bird. Then just to childishly pour salt in the wound, he’ll give the queen an iPod full of his speeches. He’ll claim he’s too exhausted to host the prime minister. Then he’ll declare that in reality, France is our strongest ally, and keep up the socialist virtue signalling by constantly referring to the Falklands as “the Maldives.”

Oh wait

ASHE SCHOW: Yes, Hillary Clinton, you are part of the establishment.

During Thursday night’s Democratic debate in New Hampshire, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont told the audience that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton represents “the establishment.”

His evidence for this was the backing she had gotten from some major political figures in Vermont.

“She has the entire establishment or almost the entire establishment behind her,” Sanders said. “That’s a fact. I don’t deny it.”

Not such a big deal, but Clinton’s response should have floored the audience. Not only did she, yet again, play the gender card and remind the audience (seriously, does she think her voters are stupid?) that she is a woman, but she claimed her gender meant she was not part of the establishment.

So vagina-Americans can’t be part of the establishment now? Who knew?

SO, THE FIX IS IN? Hillary Clinton ’100 percent confident’ FBI won’t find wrongdoing.

Hillary Clinton said Thursday she’s “absolutely” certain the controversy over her personal email server when she helmed the State Department won’t blow up her presidential campaign and “100 percent confident” the FBI probe would find no wrongdoing.

Speaking at Thursday night’s Democratic primary debate, Clinton blamed Republicans for seeking to gin up controversy, likening the email controversy to the GOP’s investigation around her response to the 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya.

“Before the emails it was Benghazi and the Republicans were stirring up so much controversy over that, and I testified for 11 hours and answered their questions,” Clinton said. “They basically said ‘yeah we didn’t get her, we tried, that was all a political ploy.’ “

Poor Hillary. People are always conspiring against her. Everywhere and all the time.

IF SUBSTANCE COUNTED WE WOULDN’T HAVE OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT: Hillary won the debate — if substance counts.

TOM MAGUIRE: Hillary-bashing on Goldman omits the Mitch McConnell connection. “First, forget about Jack Nicholson – she really was channeling her inner Mitch McConnell, who made exactly that argument on the Senate floor while opposing Sen. McCain on campaign finance reform . . . Secondly, how many Democrats are going to buy Hillary’s nuanced view that every Republican and possibly one or two Democrats are captive to their donors but she is not?”

JUST IN CASE YOU WONDERED, IF YOU DON’T SUPPORT HILLARY IT’S BECAUSE YOU’RE A MISOGYNIST OR SOMETHING: The sexist double standard behind why millennials love Bernie Sanders.

DEMOCRATS IN DISARRAY: Is an Audit on the Way for Iowa Caucuses?

Iowa Democrats are facing increased pressure to re-examine Monday’s incredibly close and uncomfortably messy vote, especially after the Des Moines Register called for “a complete audit of results.”

But party leaders say it may be hard to recreate what happened at hundreds of small precinct gatherings, where voters can arrive supporting one candidate and leave backing another.

In an editorial published late on Feb. 3 and in today’s print editions, the state’s newspaper argued, “What happened Monday night at the Democratic caucuses was a debacle, period. Democracy, particularly at the local party level, can be slow, messy and obscure. But the refusal to undergo scrutiny or allow for an appeal reeks of autocracy. The Iowa Democratic Party must act quickly to assure the accuracy of the caucus results, beyond a shadow of a doubt.”

Delays in reporting vote totals on Monday night prompted the state party to reach out to the campaigns to help register the tally. While 100 percent of precincts had reported by the next day, critics of the process pointed to reports of under-staffed precincts and inconsistencies and were calling for the party to take a closer look, including releasing raw vote totals in Hillary Clinton’s razor-thin victory over Sen. Bernard Sanders.

Sam Lau, communications director for the Iowa Democratic Party, said the structure of the caucuses make it difficult to recreate exactly what happened.

How convenient for Hillary.

WHY DO DEMOCRATS HATE THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS SO? Obama to propose $10-a-barrel oil tax.

Should be fun hearing what Hillary has to say about this, since in the spring of 2008, she “lined up with Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, in endorsing a plan to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for the summer travel season:”

(Curious how high American gas prices were in that period after Democrats retook both houses of Congress in 2006, and before the oil industry adopted the policy of “drill, baby dill,” to coin a phrase from the fall of 2008.)

 

 

QUESTION ASKED: Who decided to investigate Colin Powell and Condi Rice’s emails?

“Get back to us when you find Powell’s unauthorized, personal home-brew email server with its own domain. Attorney and writer Gabriel Malor had another concern: What was the State Department doing investigating Powell’s email while blowing off a court-ordered deadline for Clinton’s emails?”

Related: “In a stinging new article, Jeb Babbin outlines how 16 different intelligence agencies must have known about Hillary Clinton’s private email server. So far not one of them has publicly objected.”

THE IDEAL SPOKESPERSON FOR THE HILLARY CAMPAIGN: Lena Dunham: The Manchurian Girl.

UNEXPECTEDLY: Clinton struggles again among younger voters.

WHAT GOP CANDIDATES DID IN HIGH SCHOOL IS FAIR GAME, BUT THIS IS OLD NEWS: Politico: Feds fight disclosure of Hillary Clinton Whitewater indictment drafts.

LOST IN TRANSLATION: Hillary Clinton’s grandchild is the crème de le résistance.

Probably should have checked that phrase with John Kerry first.

WAPO: Hillary makes Her Wall Street Problem Worse. “The most problematic part of her answer came when she insisted something that is demonstrably untrue: ‘They’re not giving me very much money now, I can tell you that much. Fine with me.’” To be fair, most of what Hillary says is demonstrably untrue.

CLOSING IN: Hillary Clinton’s Security Clearance Is Under Scrutiny.

FEEL THE BERN!

bernie_sanders_attacks_hillary_2-3-16

As the above tweet illustrates, Camp Bernie is following the model that Obama’s minions used so successfully in early 2008: Treat Hillary as the de facto Republican in the race. Whether that approach works when most of the MSM is on Hillary’s side this year remains to be seen, however — but the far left Democrat base certainly ate it up in 2008.

IT’S NOT A SCANDAL, IT’S A CRIME: More Clinton emails to be labeled ‘top secret,’ lawmaker says.

A Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee warned on Wednesday that the Obama administration will declare that additional emails from Hillary Clinton’s personal server have been classified at the highest level.

“The press has reporting there’s been 22 emails. There’s actually more than that,” Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) said on Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom” on Wednesday.

“They do reveal classified methods. They do reveal classified sources and they do reveal human assets,” he added. “I can’t imagine how anyone could be familiar with these emails, whether they’re sending them or receiving them, and not realize that these are highly classified.”

Stewart told the Washington Examiner there are seven additional emails that will be marked as “top secret,” in addition to the 22 emails that were revealed last week.

The State Department last week acknowledged that additional emails could be classified at the top secret level, but declined to confirm Stewart’s claim on Wednesday.

“As you know, there’s more emails that we still need to be released through the Freedom of Information Act,” State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters. “I’m not aware of any additional specific classification issues, so when we have more and we’re in a position that we can talk about the next tranche, we will.”

Confirmation that there were more highly classified emails on Clinton’s server would only add to the controversy that has chased her Democratic presidential campaign. Criticism has mounted that Clinton’s “homebrew” email setup may have jeopardized official government secrets.

Remember: She used her “homebrew” email setup in a deliberate effort to avoid political scrutiny of her actions. And, presumably, she did that because her actions were shady, and quite possibly illegal. As a result, the country’s secrets were exposed to our enemies, and people may have died.

SEEN ON FACEBOOK, REPORTEDLY ON A TELEPHONE POLE IN CHAPPAQUA:

HillaryValentine

BOB WOODWARD: Hillary ‘shouts,’ needs to ‘get off this screaming stuff.’

To be fair, I think that’s a simple screwdriver adjustment in the newly-installed Human Emulation Module.

WHAT A DIFFERENT A DECADE AND A HALF AND A (D) AFTER THE NAME MAKES, Betsy Newmark writes:

James Taranto points out that Hillary’s supporters are definitely more willing to paint her squeaker of a win in Iowa based on winning coin tosses as a victory than they were to characterize George W. Bush’s squeaker of a win in Florida in 2000.

Among known tosses, then, Mrs. Clinton has a net gain of five delegate equivalents, more than double her lead of 1.8. Maybe there are unreported Sanders tosses that even things out, but at any rate the designation of one or the other candidate as the “winner” comes down to pure randomness.

Which won’t stop Mrs. Clinton’s supporters from insisting their woman won. Last night Peggy Noonan tweeted: “I’m sorry but a 50-50 race on Democratic side is not, if she wins, a Hillary win. This is a draw. The fight continues. No HRC validation.” Which prompted this response from Democratic strategist Donna Brazile: “Let’s not set new rules in the middle of the game. A win is a win. They will fight this out next week and beyond.”

Donna Brazile was not saying “a win is a win” in Florida in 2000, when George W. Bush really did have more votes than her man.

As  Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal wrote on the tenth anniversary of 9/11, “The accord that emerged in the post-attack period had no chance of standing up to the most powerful force in American life now: party politics. For activist and professional Democrats, the most ignominious day in their collective political lives occurred a year earlier—the Florida presidential recount.”

But hey, for somebody who desperately needs to kick off her campaign win to both avoid painful memories of 2008 and to keep her bid for coronation alive, all those memories — all that rage over November of 2000 — must be discarded. It’s yet another reason why, as Jonah Goldberg writes, “Hillary Clinton’s asterisk-heavy victory in Iowa might have been the narrowest of wins for her, but it was arguably the worst of all possible outcomes for the Democratic Party.”

WELL, HE’S A FOX GUARDING THE HENHOUSE: I’m referring to President Obama, who has a constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law, making him the chief guardian of the rule of law.

Obama’s track record on fulfilling this constitutional duty has been consistently abhorrent–the worst in history–so perhaps this is merely another transgression that will trigger a collective yawn from the mainstream media. But nonetheless, Andy McCarthy cogently explains “Obama’s Growing Conflict of Interest in the Clinton Email Scandal.”

[C]lassified information so pervades the thousands of pages of e-mails communicated through and stored on Mrs. Clinton’s unsecured, homebrew server system that the court-ordered disclosure process has ground to a halt. . . .[I]t turns out [her emails] were so threaded with classified information that the State Department and intelligence agencies have fallen hopelessly behind the court’s disclosure schedule: The task of reviewing the e-mails and redacting the portions whose publication could harm national security has proved much more complicated than anticipated. Thousands of remaining e-mails, and any embarrassing lapses they contain, will be withheld from voters until well into primary season.

So egregious have the scandal’s latest developments been that a critical State Department admission from last week has received almost no coverage: Eighteen e-mails between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama have been identified, and the government is refusing to disclose them. The administration’s rationale is remarkable: Releasing them, the White House and State Department say, would compromise “the president’s ability to receive unvarnished advice and counsel” from top government officials.

Think about what this means. Not only is it obvious that President Obama knew Mrs. Clinton was conducting government business over her private e-mail account, the exchanges the president engaged in with his secretary of state over this unsecured system clearly involved sensitive issues of policy. Clinton was being asked for “advice and counsel” — not about her recommendations for the best country clubs in Martha’s Vineyard, but about matters that the White House judges too sensitive to reveal. . . .

If the administration is refusing to disclose the Obama-Clinton e-mails because they involved the secretary of state providing advice and counsel to the president, do you think those exchanges just might touch on foreign-government information, foreign relations, or foreign activities of the United States — deliberations on which are presumed classified?

Will anyone in the press corps covering the White House and the State Department ask administration officials whether this is the case? .  . .

To summarize, we have a situation in which (a) Obama knowingly communicated with Clinton over a non-government, non-secure e-mail system; (b) Obama and Clinton almost certainly discussed matters that are automatically deemed classified under the president’s own guidelines; and (c) at least one high-ranking government official (Petraeus) has been prosecuted because he failed to maintain the security of highly sensitive intelligence that included policy-related conversations with Obama.

From these facts and circumstances, we must deduce that it is possible, if not highly likely, that President Obama himself has been grossly negligent in handling classified information. He discussed sensitive matters on a non-government, non-secure e-mail system that could easily be penetrated by foreign governments (among other rogue actors). By doing so, he left an electronic- and paper-trail that was outside the government’s tightly secured repositories for classified information. He also personally indulged, and thus implicitly endorsed, Clinton’s use of private e-mail to do government business.

Law enforcement investigations are supposed to proceed independent of political considerations, but I’d wager few people believe the decision whether to indict Mrs. Clinton will be made by Attorney General Loretta Lynch alone. It will be the president’s call. In making it, he may face a profound conflict of interest. A prosecution of Clinton might expose that Obama engaged in recklessness similar to Clinton’s, albeit on a far smaller scale. Moreover, Clinton would likely argue in her defense that the president, who is ultimately responsible for safeguarding classified information, not only authorized Clinton to use private e-mail but knowingly used it himself in order to communicate with Clinton.

I’m not so sure about the “far smaller scale” conclusion. But that aside, gosh, I’m shocked that an inexperienced, insouciant, and narcissistic President would be so careless with our national security. And so corrupt.

TENURED THUGS AND THIEVES, as spotted by Kevin D. Williamson of NRO, who writes:

Professor Melissa Click of the University of Missouri criminally assaulted an undergraduate student and, though local prosecutors were slow to move on the case — there was video of the incident, and the facts were not in question — she eventually was charged with third-degree assault. She will not be convicted of a crime, and, so far, her tenure-track position is safe.

Ironies abound. Click, a professor of Lady Gaga studies (no, really), enjoyed an appointment in Mizzou’s journalism department, which for mysterious reasons is highly regarded. The undergraduate she assaulted was a student journalist going about his proper business, covering a campus protest of which Professor Click was one instigator.

The subject of that protest was, in part, “white privilege,” which the protesters held up in contrast to the purportedly rough and unfair treatment that African Americans, particularly young men, receive at the hands of the police.

Which brings up the obvious question: What do we imagine would have happened to a young black man who criminally assaulted a white female college professor — and then, as Professor Click did, attempted to instigate mob violence against her? On campus? On video?

At the New York Observer, Cathy Young explores “The Totalitarian Doctrine of ‘Social Justice Warriors,’” which she abbreviates as “SocJus” throughout her article. (“The callback to ‘IngSoc’ from George Orwell’s 1984 is not quite coincidental,” she adds):

There is a word for ideologies, religious or secular, that seek to politicize and control every aspect of human life: totalitarian. Unlike most such ideologies, SocJus has no fixed doctrine or clear utopian vision. But in a way, its amorphousness makes it more tyrannical. While all revolutions are prone to devouring their children, the SocJus movement may be especially vulnerable to self-immolation: its creed of “intersectionality”—multiple overlapping oppressions—means that the oppressed are always one misstep away from becoming the oppressor. Your cool feminist T-shirt can become a racist atrocity in a mouse-click. And, since new “marginalized” identities can always emerge, no one can tell what currently acceptable words or ideas may be excommunicated tomorrow.

Or as Jonah Goldberg warned in Liberal Fascism:

This is not to say that there are no racist conservatives. But at the philosophical level, liberalism is battling a straw man. This is why liberals must constantly assert that conservatives use code words—because there’s nothing obviously racist about conservatism per se. Indeed, the constant manipulation of the language to keep conservatives—and other non-liberals—on the defensive is a necessary tactic for liberal politics. The Washington, D.C., bureaucrat who was fired [in 1999] for using the word “niggardly” correctly in a sentence is a case in point. The ground must be constantly shifted to maintain a climate of grievance. Fascists famously ruled by terror. Political correctness isn’t literally terroristic, but it does govern through fear. No serious person can deny that the grievance politics of the American left keeps decent people in a constant state of fright—they are afraid to say the wrong word, utter the wrong thought, offend the wrong constituency.

Jonah’s book was published eight years ago last month — and in the years since, the number of items that campus crybullies find offensive has accelerated exponentially. Which brings us to another evergreen reminder of today’s age:

exjon_racial_healing_12-17-15

The gender healing of the Hillary era will be equally heartwarming to observe.

MANY MORE SUCH VICTORIES, AND HILLARY CAN LOSE THE GENERAL: Out of Iowa: Two wide-open races — and some chicanery.