Based on early polling — Underdogs Sanders and O’Malley each might have a chance at victory in Iowa — Depends on continued impact of “Clinton Cash” and other scandals
Likely Democrat caucus goers are concerned that Benghazi, the Secretary of State’s use of the Clintons’ private email server, and “Clinton Cash” revelations will continue to loom over Mrs. Clinton — While Hillary and the Clinton Campaign have resisted addressing the scandals and repeatedly dodged questions from the media
Even some Clinton supporters in Iowa believe caucuses will be hard fought — “We Democrats are a bit addicted to controversy and to conflict and to competition...”
A Breitbart News report indicates that “[r]oughly 66 percent of likely Democratic caucus goers say one of the scandals looming over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign could hurt her if she were to become the Democratic Party’s nominee in the 2016 general election....” (See “Iowa Poll: Underdogs Sanders and O’Malley’s Path to Victory Leads Through Clinton Cash” by Alex Swoyer, 6/1/15, Breitbart News/ Government
[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/01/iowa-poll-underdogs-sanders-and-omalleys-path-to-victory-leads-through-clinton-cash/]).
The Breitbart piece goes on to say that, “... [t]hat 66 percent number—if used effectively by just-declared former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley or Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont—could prove catastrophic for the ex-First Lady, former U.S. Senator, and the nation’s former top diplomat....” That’s according to Tony Leys reporting on a new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll of 437 likely Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa conducted by Selzer & Company from May 25 to May 29, with a margin of error of 4.7 percent (See also “Iowa Poll shows big Clinton lead, but also some worries” by Tony Leys, 6/1/15, The Des Moines Register [http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/06/01/iowa-poll-democrats-hillary-clinton-controversies/28279617/]).
Even though many Democrats might not be bothered by the scandals personally, they have expressed concerns about the political effects, which could be exploited by the opposition in the general election.
Meanwhile, O’Malley and Sanders both seek to outflank Clinton on the left. In a written piece that’s gotten some other media attention, Radio Iowa noted that both Sanders and O’Malley are drew sizable crowds as they traveled in and through Iowa on Sunday and Monday, last week (See “Crowds turn out to see Clinton challengers Sanders, O’Malley in Iowa” by O. Kay Henderson, 5/31/15, Radio Iowa blog [http://www.radioiowa.com/2015/05/31/crowds-turn-out-to-see-clinton-challengers-sanders-omalley-in-iowa/]).
According to the Radio Iowa report, “[t]he two Democrats who have formally emerged to challenge Hillary Clinton for their party’s 2016 presidential nomination visited Iowa this weekend. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders attracted overflow crowds in Ames and Davenport, then Sanders capped his three-day trip with a Saturday night stop in Kensett, where more than 300 people greeted him....”
Elsewhere. “.... O’Malley delivered [a] subtle dig at the kind of events Clinton has held as he chatted with reporters in Des Moines Saturday night. O’Malley also answered 16 questions from the crowd of more than 200 people who’d crammed into his Iowa headquarters to hear his message. John Kaiser of Des Moines is retired but still active in the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades and he was there to see O’Malley. Kaiser’s ‘not real happy’ with the way Clinton has handled questions about U.S. trade negotiations.... Des Moines attorney Jerry Crawford, a long-time supporter of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, expects both O’Malley and Sanders to ‘run hard’ in Iowa — and he said Sanders already has become the “darling” of “philosophical purists” in the Democratic Party.... ‘We Democrats are a bit addicted to controversy and to conflict and to competition and so it was inevitable that this would happen,’ Crawford said during a weekend appearance on Iowa Public Television’s ‘Iowa Press’ program....”
4 comments:
Hillary is sinking in the polls when nobody is running against her
RESPONSE: THE "IT'S ALREADY TIME FOR THE BIGGEST UN-REPORTED STORY ABOUT A VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY" EDITION
THAT HILLARY CLINTON LINE GOT BOTH CLINTONS THROUGH THE WHITEWATER-LEWINSKY TROUBLE, IN SPITE OF BILL'S CIVIL PERJURY AND FORMAL IMPEACHMENT BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (WHICH, BY THE WAY, DID NOT LEAD TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE GOP AT ALL)
Hillary Clinton is still trying to get her sea legs for the 2015-2016 campaign; and so far, it looks like the 2015 Hillary Clinton can't handle major league pitching.
As a result, the Clinton campaign has come out in a hunched over defensive crouch that allows all comers to poke at and bait her -- sort of like a scene in the Hunchback of Notre Dame.
The "vast right wing conspiracy" Hillary spoke of referred to the impeachment of Bill Clinton. She was right about that. It was a contrived case about sex.
The issues about the money in the Clinton foundation are not contrived or petty.
RESPONSE: THE "ARGUABLY CONTRIVED -- ARGUABLY PETTY" EDITION
MANY ASPECTS OF THE CASE WERE CONTRIVED -- THE FOCUS OF THE CASE CERTAINLY MADE IT SEEM PETTY
Unless Monica Lewinsky were in on the "contrivance" it's hard to see how the case was "contrived"; unless you believe the great right conspiracy could influence a relative of a Democratic Chairman to seduce a Democratic President in a very low-brow sex farce; and then inculpate him in a sort of perjury-trap in an unrelated civil matter, whose circumstances were closely monitored by the court.
After the Lewinsky story broke, remember when, at a press conference standing next to Hillary Clinton, the President of the United States denied certain sexual allegations with this: "...I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false.... "; or the full assembly of cabinet level folks in the Rose Garden when each told the world that they believed the President's denial of wrongdoing or any cover-up. Now, that was a contrivance of the highest order. How could they possibly know ? -- But of course, it was Bill Clinton's contrivance.
Afterward, basing impeachment charges on whether Bill Clinton did or didn't truthfully answer deposition questions in a civil litigation about having "sexual relations" unrelated to those involved in the litigation and as narrowly defined by the court and the agreement of those in the civil litigation certainly would seem to have been petty, when weighed against continuing an elected presidential term. However, after the failed impeachment on various specifications of obstruction of justice and perjury, Bill Clinton was found to have been in contempt of court for his false testimony; he was suspended from the practice of law for five years; and he has never again returned to being a lawyer. To most people that is neither petty nor insignificant.
Post a Comment