Declaring Clinton’s Premature Victory

Exclusive: The mainstream media has run out screaming headlines and saturation TV coverage on AP’s tally that Hillary Clinton has nailed down the Democratic nomination, but the claims are misleading, reports Joe Lauria.

By Joe Lauria

Hillary Clinton needs to win 613 of the remaining 775 pledged delegates to clinch the Democratic Party nomination for president. That’s the math, though not what you’ve been seeing in the corporate media’s headlines.

With Clinton neck-and-neck with Sen. Bernie Sanders in the opinion polls for Tuesday’s California primary, where 475 pledged delegates are at stake, it’s very unlikely she’ll have the required 2,383 pledged delegates going into the Philadelphia convention next month. That means Clinton will need the votes of super-delegates, those unelected, pre-selected, party insiders chosen specifically to prevent a grass-roots insurgent candidate like Sanders.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders. (NBC photo)

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders. (NBC photo)

By a large margin, Clinton leads Sanders in super-delegates who have indicated how they intend to vote. But unlike pledged delegates, bound by the will of the voters, the super-delegates can change their minds right up to the convention night when they must cast their ballot.

That is not what the Associated Press misleadingly reported on Tuesday however. It has prematurely declared Clinton the Democratic nominee, even though she’s short of the required pledged delegates. AP and other corporate media are making a huge assumption that the super-delegates will stick with her until Philadelphia.

But Sanders has several strong arguments to get them to change their minds. First, he does much better against Republican nominee Donald Trump than Clinton does in every poll. Second, Clinton could still be indicted by the Justice Department before the convention for her mishandling of classified information on her private email server.

Third, at this point in the 2008 Democratic race, Clinton also trailed Barack Obama by a large number of pledged delegates, yet she refused to leave the race. She even floated the possibility that Obama could be assassinated, invoking the June 1968 slaying of Robert F. Kennedy on the night he’d won the California primary. There’s probably more chance of Clinton’s indictment than there was of Obama’s assassination.

Fourth, Sanders has very little baggage. There are virtually no scandals in his past. There is little that Trump’s opposition research can dig up on him compared to the library full of dirt they will get on Clinton.

Fifth, in a year of anti-Establishment fervor on both left and right it seems very risky for the Democrats to put up a quintessential Establishment figure like Clinton to face the populist Trump.

Given these facts, Sanders would be foolish not to lobby the super-delegates until that night in Philadelphia. And that’s why he’s staying in the race. Not because he’s bitter. Not because he wants to damage Clinton. But because he thinks he can still win.

You wouldn’t know it from corporate media, however. It smears Sanders with both news and opinion pieces that portray him as an angry, old egomaniac who stubbornly is staying in the race only because he wants to hurt Clinton out of vindictiveness, and thus help Trump. And it tries to portray all his supporters as angry and violent, ready to strike respectable people at anytime.

Even if he suffers a blowout loss in California – possibly made more likely by the AP’s report on Clinton clinching the nomination – Sanders has several strong arguments with the super-delegates that Democrats would have a much better chance with him in November. But his biggest obstacle may be something even more important to the Democratic establishment than winning the White House: protecting their privilege.

Sanders has stirred up masses of people who pose a threat to those privileges. His proposed policy changes could cut into the Democratic establishment’s entrenched interests. Trump’s rhetoric on the right has made similar appeals to suffering workers and formerly middle-class Americans. But Trump is a demagogue exploiting that sentiment, while Sanders may genuinely try to make reforms that could challenge the moneyed elite.

Sanders is a greater threat to elite Democrat’s class privilege than the billionaire Trump is. Trump is a better bet not to mess with the status quo and may even push for more government concessions to the rich.

Therefore it is unlikely, short of a Clinton indictment, that the super-delegates will listen to Sanders. And if she is indicted, there’s Establishment talk of inserting Joe Biden or John Kerry as the last-minute nominee.

And that could bring a self-fulfilling prophecy by establishment Democrats of a violent reaction in Philadelphia.

Joe Lauria is a veteran foreign-affairs journalist based at the U.N. since 1990. He has written for the Boston Globe, the London Daily Telegraph, the Johannesburg Star, the Montreal Gazette, the Wall Street Journal and other newspapers. He can be reached at joelauria@gmail.com and followed on Twitter at @unjoe.

image_pdfimage_print

49 comments for “Declaring Clinton’s Premature Victory

  1. Knomore
    June 8, 2016 at 00:58

    Here’s a link to more poll fraud information. Go down to the video that is headlined “California poll trainers” to get an idea of the byzantine machinations in process to mute the effect of Bernie Sanders and his supporters. Given how crass and open the election fraud has been, it would be fair to suggest that Bernie has won every contest against Hillary Clinton in this country in this election cycle — and that by huge margins.

    https://electionfraud2016.wordpress.com

  2. Bill Bodden
    June 7, 2016 at 18:52

    How the system is rigged in California: “How California is being stolen from Sanders right now” – Special bulletin from Greg Palast – http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=33e4ec877eed6a43863a4a92e&id=1759a8b488&e=2318e865f6

    • Knomore
      June 8, 2016 at 00:16

      Thanks for the link. I’m sure that’s how at least one part of it is working, but there’s doubtless more: This corrupt political machine is targeting every aspect of the voting process to make sure their candidate wins.

      Do you believe HRC is unaware of this? That they are cheating night and day to get her elected? This is her entitlement mentality and why we will be in such big trouble if, god forbid, she actually becomes President.

      This is also why all the chutzpah demonstrated by the MSM calling the election for her yesterday — even before today’s primary elections began. The country has gone off the rails and blatant, shameless corruption is everywhere.

      BUT: People are sick of it: This is a major reason why Bernie Sanders appears on the horizon as a bright new day. He is untarnishable.

  3. Robin
    June 7, 2016 at 18:17

    Actually the fact that they have basically coronated Clinton may work against them. In the fact that most of Bernie’s supporters are Millennials who distrust the mainstream media and will probably vote in large numbers just to make ’em wrong.

    Also it may discourage Clinton supporters from voting who incorrectly think that she already has the primary sown up. So why bother?

    In other words this obvious vote tampering by the media could actually backfire especially in a highly volatile state like California.

    I certainly hope the above is true and that California voters kick her butt and as a bonus shatter the media’s undeserved credibility.

    • Dennis Rice
      June 7, 2016 at 19:41

      Amen! (Sorry, just couldn’t avoid it).

  4. angryspittle
    June 7, 2016 at 18:05

    A lot can happen between now and the convention……..The GOP will have tons of material to slander Hillary. I have seen a couple already that are pretty devastating, her laughing at the death of Gaddafi for instance. And they’ve got plenty more to dig up.

  5. JS
    June 7, 2016 at 17:16

    Straight from the playbook of Bush v. Gore, where the Bushies set in motion an aggressive P.R. campaign to portray W. as the winner. We have seen Clinton’s campaign do the same, from the get-go. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

    The upside is that a fire has been lit and a coalition forged of progressives and independents that will dwarf the Third Way Democrats — this will be the last election where establishment Democrats will rule. Bernie is now the head of a tsunami of energized voters. His movement is bigger than anyone ever imagined it would be. Hillary’s average audience is 347 people; Bernie attracts tens of thousands.

  6. db05
    June 7, 2016 at 17:11

    A few weeks ago, I thought that Hillary would need Bernie’s supporters in order to win.

    Now, I strongly doubt that Trump’s candidacy will survive the GOP Convention. I’ll say it now — Trump will probably NOT be the GOP nominee.

    This changes the calculus within the Democratic Party. Now the Dem Establishment is considering the possibility that they don’t have to make *any* concessions to Bernie and the Progressives. With the GOP in free fall, they might believe that they can win on their own, without the Bernie voters.

    This would be a huge, turnout-suppressing mistake, and would severely hurt the chances of the Dems re-taking the House & Senate.

    But that’s not the goal of the Democratic Establishment. Their goal is to keep the corporate $$ flowing, keep the regulatory agencies captured, keep the revolving doors revolving, and to keep the Evil Republicans in place for cover, so American Workers can blame the Republicans for their misery.

    Sadly, as the GOP disintegrates, more corporate $$ is being offered to the Dems, and the GOP cover — using them as fig leaves — is more difficult to explain.

    The *last* thing these Democratic Party leaders want is to control the House & Senate! That’s why there’s no more of Howard Dean’s “50-State Strategy” — it was too effective. If the Dems control House & Senate, like they did at the beginning of Obama’s 1st term, they would need to step up and *act*, and be accountable, with no more excuses. And that exposure is their greatest fear.

    • SFOMARCO
      June 8, 2016 at 01:53

      “Now, I strongly doubt that Trump’s candidacy will survive the GOP Convention. I’ll say it now — Trump will probably NOT be the GOP nominee.”

      Why does Trump continue to self-destruct? Why did he disparage U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel? Doesn’t The Donald have layers of lawyers handling Trump U litigation?

      • dhinds
        June 8, 2016 at 21:17

        Delusions of Grandeur!

  7. Knomore
    June 7, 2016 at 15:58

    This “Clinton has clinched the democratic nomination” is the exact same kind of meme that was floated after 9/11 — Remember: Osama bin Laden; Osama bin Laden… and then after the MH17 air crash: Putin Did It! Putin Did It! Putin has Blood on his Hands; Putin has Blood on his Hands — even the vaunted Journal of Foreign Affairs which, if you’re not interested in reading a lot of propaganda, is a trashy journal, carried that headline.

    So it’s planted. We know it’s planted; it’s been decided on by the power elite well in advance — they are pulling out all stops to make sure Bernie doesn’t succeed.

    The big question is: Is the American populace — finally — after all these phony events and phony charges (WMD in Iraq another example) wise enough NOW to read between the lines and know that this is a signal to show up everywhere all the time, never give in, never give up.

    • Dennis Rice
      June 7, 2016 at 16:25

      “The big question is: Is the American populace — finally — after all these phony events and phony charges (WMD in Iraq another example) wise enough NOW to read between the lines and know that this is a signal to show up everywhere all the time, never give in, never give up.”

      In a word, “No.”

      The American people have no idea just how much they are manipulated. (I would not be surprised at all that if we had another 9/11, just how many ill informed Americans would still blame it on Osama BinLaden).

      • Knomore
        June 8, 2016 at 00:02

        Dennis, I both agree and disagree… Maybe the oldsters (and I’m one of them) don’t get it, but the young people, showing up by the thousands in California, certainly get it. And they will understand the situation very well when it becomes clear that despite all their enthusiasm, none (or very little) of it registers at the polls. I’ve never seen an election as corrupt as this one.

        And this is what we’re going to get if HRC becomes President of the US. Corruption so deep, so corrosive that you may not want to get out of bed.

        The lying MSM has got one thing right: Bernie has launched a movement and it’s up to all of us to keep it alive, keep it going and nurture it until it succeeds. Otherwise, there’s no hope for this country.

        • dhinds
          June 8, 2016 at 21:14

          Yep!

  8. J'hon Doe II
    June 7, 2016 at 15:37

    Igor Stravinsky >> Circus Polka: For a Young Elephant
    (Trump) – neophite.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOr_H3JqdDs

  9. Chuck
    June 7, 2016 at 15:15

    This was all done in order to attempt to reduce today’s voter turnout for Bernie. Obvious manipulation of the process.

    • Dennis Rice
      June 7, 2016 at 16:20

      Right.

    • db05
      June 7, 2016 at 16:53

      Yep.

  10. lizzie
    June 7, 2016 at 14:54

    As soon as Dick Cheney appointed himself to be the VP candidate, I knew that GWB would “win.”

    As soon as Sarah Palin was appointed as McCain’s running mate, I knew that Obama would “win.”

    Now, I’m waiting to see what happens next. Looks like the 2016 drama might be way more entertaining than any so far.

    Just heard that Obama has turned down a plea from Putin for a talk about NATO missile placements on Russia’s borders. We may not even have another new president. I keep remembering Kissinger joking that, although he could not run for president, he could legally be our emperor. And then there’s Karl Rove’s little lesson on realities of the Empire.

    So I will wait for the next scenes and the next act. George Soros’s fingerprints are all over that “violence” outside of Trump rallies. Was our “sacred Constitution” (description of S. Palin) suspended just after 9/11 and everything since just a big, long succession of “realities” being heaped upon us by some “Them”? And then, there sits Paul Ryan as third in line.

    “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” — attr. to K Rove

    I see so many potential scenarios here that I just can’t even guess, much less apply any reasoning (inductive or deductive) to this whole thing. I have this eerie feeling that it’s all quite unreal. And I think maybe it is. Our place is to study what “they” do, you see? The realities are coming hard and fast now — hard to keep up with, much less study “judiciously.”

  11. Joe Tedesky
    June 7, 2016 at 14:34

    Here is a super delegate who thinks she should get a raise;

    https://theintercept.com/2016/06/03/heather-podesta/

    Here is something worth a read;

    http://usuncut.com/politics/superdelegates-robbed-voters-primary/

    Personally I feel for our country, but as the saying goes, never give up!

  12. Peter Loeb
    June 7, 2016 at 14:30

    HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL

    Perhaps I am just an old pessimist. I am a little old, that’s
    true enough.

    In my gut, I think that HRC will win the nomination.

    I think many who read these words shudder and desperately
    seek ways to confront the USA should either Trump or HRC
    become President.

    As for Senator Sanders, I do not feel (that damnded gut
    again) that the USA is in a mood for any revolution or any
    movement or any “reform”. That transformative changes
    occur by exchanging one leader for another is as
    historian Gabriel Kolko once said “specious liberalism.”
    It is the illusion of romantic idealists. In the case of
    Mr. Sanders, his cheering multitudes do not form a movement.

    Many of Sanders’ programs did not work in the past
    as liberals and progressives love to imagine they did
    (see Kolko, CURRENTS OF MODERN AMERICAN
    HISTORY). Many of the programs have been
    courageously tried again and again (eg Conyers).
    The miraculous Scandinavian model is no longer
    as miraculous as we once wanted to believe. Much
    of it has been privatized.

    Whether the southern states with their minority vote
    are mathematically significant is at this point irrelevant.
    Sanders cannot understand living as so many African-
    Americans do as shown in #Black Lives Matter.
    Outside of the movement itself he only sees threat.
    He doesn’t understand a black father who calmly says to
    a radio interviewer, “When my son goes to the mall, I may
    give him a little extra money. I don’t know if I’ll see him
    again.” No ranting, raving…just life.

    I fear life under both candidates and fear for our world.
    I must confront reality and figure out how I intend to survive.

    —-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

    • Dennis Rice
      June 7, 2016 at 16:19

      Mr. Peter Loeb;

      Having just read your post, please allow this disillusioned romantic (idealistic?) from the Southern states (Georgia) to respond to your views.

      That Hillary Clinton will ‘win’ the Democratic nomination is without doubt; that having been decided by the Democratic National Committee years ago before the current campaign for president began. That the Democratic party system of ‘super delegates’ is intended that anyone who is not willing to sell his/her soul to the control of the Democratic party will be pushed aside as has Bernie Sanders. It is just another faction of the “money party.”

      That either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will become president does cause one to “shudder.”

      First, I am probably about your age. I, too, am not as young as I used to be.

      I will disagree with you that the country is not ready for “transformative change” and more “liberalism.”

      Bernie Sanders just happens to be the only politician WITH GUTS enough to bring such issues into the front of the current campaign, while Hillary Clinton is nothing more than a common political game player. (And alas, we have such silly, ill informed people who think “it is her turn” or “that’s it’s time for a woman” rather than their being able to look at the bigger puzzle of political and social issues).

      Our Hispanic population, whether legal or illegal, is here to stay. You can thank Wall Street corporations “too big to fail” and so anxious for continually increasing profits and anxious to exploit cheap labor for that; that is, if those minorities bother you being in this country. But they are important enough that all of the candidates want their votes.

      And we can look at “privatized” corporations as well, such as the pharmaceutical corporations, the communication corporations, the insurance corporations and others who have stuck it to the American people every chance they get (and let’s not forget their offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes).

      I have a shirt that reads, “I’ll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.” I get quite a few nice complements on it.

      We can say “Many of the programs have been courageously tried again and again” and didn’t work”, but should we forget those corporate and political leaders behind the scenes who worked hard to be certain they failed? And perhaps we should talk to those for whom those programs did work – my ancestors who struggled through the depression of the late 20’s and the 30’s.

      You under estimate Bernie Sanders and what he has, in spite of his intentionally being ignore by the mainstream media and the Democratic leadership, accomplished.

      He has not been beaten on a level playing field, rather, he has been beaten by a rigged system.

      Certainly, the country IS in a mood for change. Although they go in different directions, both Trump and Sanders supporters support that changes of some sort are wanted and needed.

      I have no intention of voting for him, but is this country and this government so weak that it cannot survive four years of Donald Trump?

      Does it really prefer (shudder) eight years of Hillary Clinton?

      Her campaign is not about being president. It is about HER.

      And l would suggest to you that she understands our Black population less than does Bernie Sanders.

    • Gozo
      June 7, 2016 at 18:29

      THE COUNTRY’S ALL RIGHT:

      Mr. Loeb presents an engaging summary of the discussion around here, and the current political situation. For the thoughtful and engaging read, thanks.

      As far as concerns about a potential H. Clinton presidency go, a dispassionate view says that the upside possibilities are substantially more-interesting and even likely to be more-positive than our worst fears. Both Clintons have records of concerted efforts for public good. Secretary Clinton has an impressive resume of having worked well with a wide variety of people, political and otherwise. Any innate differences between a masculine temperament and a female temperament may well work to America’s advantage. A person who presents such a cogent report as yours, has every reason and right to have his worst-case scenario happily fall by the wayside.

      Regards,
      (($: -)}
      Gozo!

      • Bill Bodden
        June 7, 2016 at 21:51

        Both Clintons have records of concerted efforts for public good.

        Can you cite any examples? When Bill was governor of Arkansas and Hillary was on Wal-Mart’s board what did they do for the public good? When they were first running for president in 1982 and rushed back to Little Rock to prove they were tough on crime and authorized the judicial murder of Rickey Ray Rector what did they do then for the public good? When they promoted the war in the Balkans what good did they do for the public good? When they supervised the sanctions on Iraq that cost an estimated half million Iraqi children their lives what did they do then for the public good? When Bill signed the Gramm-Leach-Blilley Act that ended the wise Glass-Steagal Act what did they do then for the public good? Want more? Read Diana Johnstone’s “Queen of Chaos.”

    • Peter Ehrhorn
      June 7, 2016 at 19:24

      Shame you didn’t give specific examples of Sander’s programs that did not work. As for Scandinavian countries, I think the fact remains their quality of life is high for everyone as opposed the the United States where the middle class is being squeezed. That is what happens when a country decides to promote death rather than life.

  13. John Puma
    June 7, 2016 at 14:10

    ….. “the claims are misleading” …..

    Misleading? In fact, the claims appear to election fraud.

  14. Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
    June 7, 2016 at 13:56

    I did say I watched that documentary on the CBC, and learned that information about Trump, but the CBC is also supporting Clinton. This morning I was watching the CBC, and one of the newscasters said Clinton has the nomination clinched from the number of delegates, which I learned from Secular Talk is not true. He said to the audience “but” Sanders thinks he can clinch the superdelegates, but saying it dismissively. Just in case you think he was just expressing his opinion, and they had no reason to call him out on it, no other opinion was shown, and he was the only newscaster speaking about the topic of the last Democratic primaries at the time he was talking. He was talking to a man who said the same thing – that Clinton has clinched all the delegates she needs to win, which is not true.

    While they said Sanders still has a small chance of winning (correctly), that doesn’t change what they said at the beginning.I got the impression, although they never said it, that they opposed Sanders’ policies. This is a blatant example of political bias (supporting Clinton) and deceit (lying about Clinton). Robert Parry was right in his article on Consortium News a few months ago – the media does NOT have a liberal bias, but a centrist bias, hence their support for Clinton. In Canada, there are people – and I’ve seen them on the Internet a few times, on two CBC comment sections and I think MSN Facebook comment sections, that say the CBC has a liberal bias, or at least imply it.

    Those people are idiotic.

    • Dennis Rice
      June 7, 2016 at 17:41

      Bias reporting is typical of the mainstream media in this country.

      It’s their way of controlling the “bewildered herd.”

  15. nmb
    June 7, 2016 at 13:44

    Hillary vs Trump = zero options for the American voters and the planet
    http://bit.ly/1PDrR5V

  16. Ziff
    June 7, 2016 at 12:47

    Clinton needed an excuse going into the convention as to why she lost CA, now she’s got the perfect one– “the media jumped the gun so my supporters thought they didn’t need to show up to vote.” No doubt those supporters would have put her over the top otherwise.

  17. Pablo Diablo
    June 7, 2016 at 12:10

    No more Clintons.

    • Michael S Goodman
      June 7, 2016 at 12:12

      That means Hillary, Bill, Chelsea, and little Monica!

  18. Michael S Goodman
    June 7, 2016 at 12:09

    I see a repeat of 1968 in Chicago this year in Philly.

    As in 1968, this internecine bickering will virtually hand the 2016 election to the GOP!

    • Peter Ehrhorn
      June 7, 2016 at 12:31

      I see this election as a major boost to the Libertarian party. Why would “conservatives” vote for someone with Zero experience when they could vote for a ticket with two past governors on it. Republicans are self destructing by disregarding experience and knowledge.

      • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
        June 7, 2016 at 13:43

        I despise Trump, but theoretically, he doesn’t need experience. He is the head of a large organization and the government is a large organization.

        Also, he is good at business deals, which would be good for diplomacy.

        You may think he won’t be good at diplomacy due to his behaviour, but a few days ago I watched a documentary on the CBC’s “The Passionate Eye”, a British documentary called “President Trump: Can he really win?” (made when Cruz was still running), in which his butler described him, surprisingly to me, as kind personally – also, he is well-mannered at dinners with businessmen which he wants to make a deal with. His butler described him as “like a chameleon”, and that he can adopt a persona of respect “just like that”. In other words, he can change from being rude to being polite in a flash. He said he could do that at diplomatic meetings. His rude behaviour does not mean he’ll be dangerous. What makes him dangerous is his policies.

        Mitt Romney’s owning a corporation was considered an asset in the last election, so Trump owning a company will also be considered an asset.

        • Peter Ehrhorn
          June 7, 2016 at 14:28

          Romney had some political experience. With the Donald, the republicans will be going with someone who has zero. I know past candidates have been criticized for their thin governmental experience. But at least they had some. They understand how government works. I am not sure the Donald truly understands that he will be a president and not a dictator. He will not be able to tell someone he is fired. I just don’t think the presidency is the place to get on the job experience. I think his initial contact with the speaker of the house shows this. He will not be totally out to lunch, I believe he is the best candidate the republicans had running but this is certainly not saying much. But this country will be in some tough times should he become president.

        • Peter Ehrhorn
          June 7, 2016 at 15:28

          Such an intelligent response. You must be a Donald supporter. lol

        • joev
          June 7, 2016 at 17:00

          Ravi – meaning ‘sun’ – methinks you got too much time in the sun!

  19. Bob Loblaw
    June 7, 2016 at 12:05

    Clintonistas have been saying that Bernie is dirty, like scandalous past transgressions will sink him.

    But I have not seen anything, it’s just been noise.

    • Michael S Goodman
      June 7, 2016 at 12:11

      He has so few, if any, skeletons to uncover.

  20. Terry Sneller
    June 7, 2016 at 12:03

    Hillary’s votes in the South are useless in the General, as those states will go Republican. Also, as I’ve pointed out in one of my articles (http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Unrealized-Time-Bomb-F-by-Terry-Sneller-Change_Election-Free-Media-Advertising_Election-Litigation_Election-Reform-160403-422.html), after the 2010 Census the Republicans Gerrymandered the bejesus out of their precincts/districts — which will now give Drumpf an enormous boost in the General AND in the downline vote — it will give him a Congress!

    Also, an indicted Hitlery doesn’t stand a chance … and then there is THIS new issue:

    Bernie Sanders: Clinton Foundation Is A “Problem,” Took Money From “Dictatorships”
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/05/bernie_sanders_clinton_foundation_is_a_problem_took_money_from_dictatorships.html

    • Peter Ehrhorn
      June 7, 2016 at 12:28

      Do you think the democrats have a chance in Utah? As for indictment, the Donald has done far worse than anything Hillary has done. Trump University is now the republican idea of an education.

      • Joe L.
        June 7, 2016 at 15:54

        Peter Ehrhon… So Hillary Clinton pulling off a coup in Honduras in 2009 and leading the charge for “regime change” in Libya which has set that country into total chaos is “less” of an indictment than what Trump has done? Are we living on the same planet or simply people from other countries don’t count? Both Clinton and Trump are atrocious candidates…

        • Jonathan
          June 7, 2016 at 16:44

          Well said

        • Peter Ehrhorn
          June 7, 2016 at 18:24

          I am not a Hillary supporter but to put someone into the presidency with zero experience and the personality of a dictator, well what can i say. I agree that Hillary needs to be controlled when it comes to foreign policy. I suspect however that her hawkish position is largely due to her being a woman who does not want to look weak to her opponents. Whether she continues that hawkish behavior into the presidency is not written in stone. Just remember it took the anti commie Nixon to open the doors to China. Sweet Hillary might just introduce peace into the world. One can always hope.

          • Joe L.
            June 7, 2016 at 19:54

            Peter Ehrhorn… Well I think Hillary Clinton, who already has an atrocious track record is the worst of the two and I do not believe that she would “soften” once she becomes President but rather her “hawkishness” would come full circle. I imagine a scenario where a President Clinton will start talking about Iran having WMD’s and coming up with a reason to invade it OR maybe North Korea OR even strong rhetoric towards Russia or China – which she has already displayed as Secretary of State. If Clinton becomes President she will be undeterred now that she is calling the shots. Why should we hope for a “peaceful Clinton” when we already have her hawkish track record? Clinton is the bigger danger, I wholeheartedly believe that. But overall both Clinton and Trump are awful, awful, awful candidates to become President and I shudder to think of what is to come.

          • Bill Bodden
            June 7, 2016 at 21:38

            One can always hope.

            But only a fool would bet that Sweet Hillary might just introduce peace into the world.

            From promotion of the war in The Balkans, through sanctions and war on Iraq, regime changes from Honduras to Syria it is impossible to estimate the number of human beings whose lives have been destroyed through violence supported by “Sweet Hillary.” It is testimony to the moral decadence of the United States that she and Donald Trump are the two leading candidates for president of the United States.

  21. Bob Van Noy
    June 7, 2016 at 12:00

    “Clinton Has Clinched, delegate survey finds” Those are the headlines of The Sacramento Bee this morning in advance of the opening off the polls. Simply maddening. I can’t remember the media ever being this pandering. I do think however, that Bernie Sanders will win the California Primary and throw a wrench into democratic politics as usual…

  22. June 7, 2016 at 11:51

    this is what democracy looks like? “..Pledged delegates ..not actually bound to vote for that candidate, thus the candidates are allowed to periodically review the list of delegates and eliminate any of those they feel would not be supportive..”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate

Comments are closed.