In April of 2007 we began to publish. We did so because of our alarm that Barack Obama was treated with kid gloves by the Hillary Clinton 2008 campaign. We also noted that it was “progressives” and Big Media, not Republicans, that hated Hillary the most and attacked Hillary the most profoundly. We are now about a week away from our anniversary. We are as worried now as in 2007 about Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
It’s almost impossible to discount the reports that Hillary will announce Hillary Clinton 2016 tomorrow (maybe even today). It is a grievous mistake for Hillary to do so.
Why announce this early? We denounced the attempts by Obama henchmen for Hillary to announce last year right after the elections. We won that fight. Indeed, the news result from that battle was that Hillary would announce in July. We still think July is too early but it is better than April. Why the rush?
Barack Obama and his protection squads want Hillary to announce early in order to take the heat of scrutiny off him and onto Hillary. Obama and his minions also know that the earlier Hillary announces the more she will have to attach herself to Obama’s disastrous policies.
The paycheck hungry also want Hillary to announce early. For them it’s not about her, it’s about their paychecks and plumping up their bank accounts.
Impatient Hillary supporters also want Hillary to announce early. That is an insufficient and injurious reason to announce.
We hear the extra foolish reason given that, well, Hillary needs to get a campaign in place in order to answer attacks on her. This is entirely wrong.
In recent day several Republicans have PRAISED Hillary. Once Hillary announces that ends. The moment Hillary announces every Republican candidate for president will begin his or her announcement of candidacy with an attack focused on Hillary not Obama. In addition these Republican candidates will finally realize that the way to defeat and destroy Hillary is to attach her early and often to Barack Obama.
The way to destroy Hillary Clinton 2016 is to attach Hillary to Obama and Obama policies. Once Hillary announces even the dumbest GOP presidential candidate will stumble onto the fact that it will not be Benghazi, nor Lewinsky, nor any of the myriad issues that excite the Republican base that is Hillary’s Achilles Heel. Attach Hillary to Obama and Obama policies and it’s lights out for Hillary Clinton 2016.
But, Hillary Haters and Obama Cultists contend, doesn’t Hillary need to announce now to stave off attacks? No. Once Hillary announces she strategically places herself in a crossfire:
Think Clinton’s Having a Bad Time Now? Wait Until She’s a Candidate
She’s being scrutinized, but she’s not having to answer questions. That luxury ends the day she launches. [snip]
The twin controversies are prompting certain Clinton allies to lament that if she had only announced her presidential campaign earlier, her operation would be able to do a better job at damage control. “We’ve had our head up our ass,” one anonymous Clinton adviser told Politico.
But in reality, her decision to wait until April to launch a campaign has been an overall boon to her prospects—allowing her to avoid weighing in on numerous controversial issues that are dividing her party. Indeed, Clinton’s stalling tactics are a sign that she understands the political environment better than the critics realize. [snip]
Far from being unable to respond to the criticism, as a noncandidate she boasts an entire organization—Correct the Record, an arm of the Democratic opposition research firm American Bridge—that’s devoted to pushing back against her unfavorable coverage. [snip]
If she was a candidate, she’d be constantly grilled on the campaign trail over her conduct. She’s hoping that, when she announces in the spring, the furor over these controversies will have died down.
By contrast, prospective Republican presidential candidates have been grilled over Obama’s Christianity, support over a DHS funding deal, or inconsistencies over Common Core, even as Clinton has faced minimal scrutiny of her policy positions during the same period. [snip]
Meanwhile, Clinton has been able to dodge questions over her positions on issues at a time when there are growing divides within her party. She headed the State Department during its Keystone XL review, but has diligently avoided commenting on the merits of the pipeline’s construction. She hasn’t been pressed to take sides on liberal icon Elizabeth Warren’s pet initiatives—higher taxes on the wealthy, tighter banking regulations on Wall Street, and opposition to global trade deals.
Most significantly, she’s been mercurial about her position on an emerging nuclear deal with Iran that many of her party’s rank-and-file members are struggling to support. She hasn’t yet responded to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress, which warned of the dangers of the president’s diplomacy. She’ll eventually have to take sides, but she has the luxury of time in devising her position.
“Most likely, she’ll be muted. She’ll wait and see what happens with the negotiations. I don’t think you’ll hear her say something substantive for now, one way or another,” said one pro-Israel official with ties to Clinton.
For a sign of how difficult the issue is for Clinton, just look at the contradictory responses she gave when asked about the American response to Iran’s nuclear program. In an August 2014 interview with The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg, Clinton said, “I’ve always been in the camp that held that they did not have a right to enrichment.” But, as Goldberg wrote this week, the reported proposal being discussed is one that would “legitimate Iran’s right to enrich uranium” as a principle. After Obama pitched the benefits of his administration’s Iranian diplomacy in his State of the Union, Clinton announced her support to the president’s approach in Canada: “Why do we want to be the catalyst for the collapse of negotiations?” One month earlier, she told one of her top donors, Haim Saban, at the Brookings Institution that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” What gives? [snip]
“There’s no question she’s better off not being a candidate now. To me, that goes without saying,” said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. “As soon as she’s a candidate, she’ll find people who used to like her who don’t.“
This past week GOP presidential candidate and Bill Clinton impeachment manager Lindsey Graham says Hillary could have reached better deal on Iran:
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a possible 2016 Republican presidential contender, said the United States should put off a final nuclear agreement with Iran until after the U.S. election and said Democrat Hillary Clinton could get a better deal.
The South Carolina Republican sharply criticized President Barack Obama’s negotiating skills in talks to contain Iran’s nuclear program. The only candidate he mentioned by name as being able to do better was the Democrats’ presidential favorite.
Praise from a Republican presidential candidate on one of the biggest issues for 2016 and yet we’re told Hillary better rush to announce? Lindsay Graham is not the only Republican of stature to praise Hillary and/or Bill Clinton. Senator of Oklahoma Tom Coburn too:
“I think Hillary’s experience would make her a very effective president, I think, if she were to win,” Coburn said Wednesday during a meeting with msnbc reporters and editors in New York. “First of all, she’s been on the inside of politics for a long time, so she knows the inside game inside and out. She also knows the relationship game. Her husband was great at it.” [snip]
“She was a good senator,” he said. “She worked across the aisle. She kept her word. She became knowledgeable about a lot of issues while she was a senator. So she did that job well,” Coburn continued.
And while Republicans have focused on trying to discredit Clinton’s four years as the nation’s top diplomat, Coburn had almost nothing but praise and compared her favorably to her successor, John Kerry.
“I think history overall will probably show that she did a more than adequate job, with a couple of blips, as secretary of state. Better than the secretary of state we have now, for sure. So there’s nothing wrong with her qualifications,” he said.
Some Republicans who were once positive about Clinton’s tenure at State have since soured as she’s stepped back into the political arena and prepared for a White House bid.
It’s true that “Republicans who were once positive” about Hillary will now return to their necessary political positions. We certainly don’t blame Republicans for opposing a political opponent. That’s their job.
Up to now, Republicans (other than the wackadoodles like Rand Paul) have been on Hillary’s side. Contrary to what the uninformed believe, Republicans have been most kind and most helpful to Hillary:
Trading Favors: Why the GOP Is Helping Hillary Clinton
A deal in Congress would extend the Children’s Health Insurance Program, a key part of the Democratic frontrunner’s legacy as first lady.
Improbable as it may sound, House Republicans are on the verge of approving, without much fanfare, a major priority of Hillary Clinton’s.
When Clinton ran for president in 2008, she touted her role as first lady in “designing and championing” the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, which provided coverage for millions of children whose parents did not qualify for Medicaid but could not afford private insurance. At the time President Clinton signed the law in 1997, it constituted the largest expansion of government-funded children’s health insurance since the enactment of Medicaid in 1965.
On Tuesday, Republicans unveiled legislation that would extend CHIP for another two years, without spending cuts or changes of any kind. [snip]
Count on Clinton to tout CHIP again during her 2016 presidential run, especially considering the bipartisan effort it took to create it. Along with Bill Frist, the Republican former Senate majority leader, Clinton co-authored an op-ed last month in The New York Times urging Congress to extend the program. “This is an opportunity to send a message that Washington is still capable of making common-sense progress for American families,” they wrote.
Many Republicans have been more than fair to Hillary since 2009 after they saw the full horror of Obama. Hillary’s problem once again will not be Republicans who do what they should be doing – which is to attack without restraint the opposition candidate. Once Hillary announces honest Republicans will do their job. No more praise of Hillary. After an announcement Republicans will voice darker views of Hillary. So why should Hillary announce this early?
Big Media. Big Media wants Hillary to announce. Big Media wants to be able to attack Hillary without restraint. Big Media wants to attack Hillary and force her further to the left or be replaced by a leftist kook:
Clinton’s Rough Road Ahead
The liberal base and the media will work together to make sure she isn’t crowned as the Democratic nominee. [snip]
Journalists looking for a good story, whether it truly exists or not, will endeavor to find a challenger and create a David and Goliath narrative, even if it means building David up to the point when he could be a realistic threat to the front-running Goliath. If there are multiple candidates auditioning for the David role, the media will size up each contender and then hype the one that seems most plausible as the real threat to Clinton.
Finally, the ideologues, the true believers, those who endeavor to spurn the good for the perfect, will promote one or more alternatives to put pressure on Clinton to move to the left at the time she is trying to maintain her general-election viability while steering toward a center-left course. Someone will emerge to coalesce disenfranchised ideologues, hoping to reach a critical mass that will attract journalists’ attention.
It’s not journalism Hillary has to fear, it is the activists posing as journalists. The New York Times is explicit: Big Media will do the job of the activist left:
Who will push Clinton into shape? The deadness of the Democratic contest has led to a situation in which the political world is trying to create an artificial rival for the former Secretary of State. The New York Times, for example, has declared the press to be Clinton’s stand-in opponent.
“With no other powerful Democrats likely to run against her, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s toughest adversary for her party’s presidential nomination in 2016 has now become clear,” the paper wrote last week. “The news media,” the paper concluded, is Clinton’s only real opponent.
That is not a natural state of affairs; a candidate’s toughest adversary should be his or her rivals. And it is not the proper relationship between the press and candidates. Yes, that relationship can be adversarial, but a reporter is not an opposing candidate, and can’t act that way.
Big Media is a political party, as we wrote so long ago. What we wrote so long ago is still fresh as Tahitian air.
Big Media will attack Hillary as soon as she announces. For at least eight months, having no credible competitor, it will be Hillary bouncing around with nothing to do but answer Big Media attacks.
Understand that fact. Hillary will have nothing publicly to do for at least eight months because she will not have an opponent worthy of attention – as long as Hillary does not announce. The moment Hillary announces her primary opponent will be Big Media and Hillary will whittle herself away like a patient with tuberculosis at the Magic Mountain. Big Media can’t wait for Hillary to announce. Big Media is impatient. But Big Media and impatient Hillary supporters and Hillary job-seekers are not as impatient as Hillary Haters on the left:
The Left Is Building a Movement of Movements to Pressure Hillary
With Elizabeth Warren declining to run, progressives are taking matters into their own hands—with her platform, and her support. [snip]
This week, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee announced that a petition it launched calling for the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee to campaign on a populist platform has been signed by 5,000 current and former elected leaders, as well as Democratic Party officials, union leaders, and progressive activists. These include twenty-five members of Congress, such as Senator Harry Reid, Representatives Bonnie Watson Coleman, Alan Grayson, Donna Edwards, and Barbara Lee, plus former Senator Tom Harkin. The petition—which was posted below a page header that reads ReadyforBoldness.com, and rides above a shooting star—begins, “We want the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee to campaign on big, bold, economic-populist ideas that tangibly improve the lives of millions of Americans.”
Last week, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio called for similarly big, bold, economic-populist ideas, from a podium at Gracie Mansion. On Thursday, de Blasio announced that he, with a coalition of progressives he had convened, would in May put forward a template for how best to conquer inequality, and then ask presidential candidates to respond. (He said it would parallel the GOP’s 1994 Contract for America.) De Blasio and his allies in the project, progressive activists and lawmakers including Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Governor Dannel Malloy of Connecticut, offered no specific policy suggestions, but spoke of their “vision.” The mayor talked of changing the national conversation, of “making sure income inequality is at the forefront of the national discussion.” A reporter asked if Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, had been involved in the gathering. De Blasio replied that her team had not been a part, but that he expected every candidate, including Clinton—were she to decide to run, he was careful to say—to speak to the matter.
“Anyone who runs for president should talk about big economic ideas that will help rebuild the middle class.”
These Kooks will devote themselves to hammering Hillary the moment she announces. Then in November 2016 the Republican candidate for president will appropriately use every Hillary statement in favor of the kooks to hammer her on Youtube and all the various tools of the Internet age.
The Kooks want Hillary to announce early not only to attack her but so they will have time, time, to develop a candidate from the left. The sooner Hillary announces the more time the left has. Right now the candidates against Hillary are mosquitoes. Chaffee, Webb, O’Malley are too weak to win but they can rally the opposition against Hillary within the Obama Party sufficient to take her down or move her to the losing left fringe alongside them. The Left wants control over the party not necessarily a win in the general election.
Once Hillary announces it will be 2008 again. Once Hillary announces Big Media will attack Hillary. Once Hillary announces the left kooks will attack Hillary. Once Hillary announces the Obama Dimocratic Party establishment will attack. Harry Reid is ReadyToAttack now:
Top Senate Democrat joins push for populist campaign agenda
(Reuters) – The top Democrat in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday joined a grassroots effort from the progressive wing of the party to encourage presidential candidates to adopt populist policies as they begin their campaigns.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is among more than 5,000 lawmakers and party leaders who have signed on to the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.
Two weeks ago it launched a “Ready for Boldness” campaign that aims to ensure the eventual Democratic presidential nominee supports policies such as expanding Social Security retirement benefits, breaking up big banks and debt-free higher education.
All of the issues have been championed by Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, but she has said repeatedly she will not seek the party’s nomination. [snip]
“Being bold is the only way I’ve ever known how to win,” Reid said in a statement.
The PCCC has trained volunteers in the early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, who will attend town halls and campaign events to press Democratic candidates about where they stand on key progressive issues.
We’ll translate for you: there is an army of Kooks trained and operated by establishment Kooks primed and ready to attack Hillary Clinton for months until their candidate of choice rears his/her head to attack a weakened Hillary directly. So why exactly is Hillary announcing this early?