BRANDON J. WEICHERT | THE WEICHERT REPORT
Hillary Clinton is the always-once-and-future president. She is, in the words of her most ardent supporters (especially those deep pockets on Wall Street, on K Street, in Riyadh, at the Kremlin, or in Beijing), the “most qualified person to ever run for president.”
Yet, Hillary has proven twice that she cannot win public office. Ever.
Whatever Hillary’s bona fides may be, it is clear that the public part of her career in public “service” is not her forte. Ordinarily, one could be forgiven for not being a very dynamic personality on the campaign trail. (Especially today, when one must take on rock star levels of charisma). Many times, it is wise to look at a potential political candidate for their entire track record, not just whether they press the flesh well enough (which her husband, Bill, is quite proficient at doing).
So, even when assessing Hillary’s other standout features, it is clear that she could not win a national election on her own–no matter how much time or money she spent doing so. After two disastrous bids at the presidency, the once-and-future-president may just be looking for a new method to end-run the system. Hillary hates the voters; she called us all “deplorable” in 2016, when it was clear that most Americans would not vote for her turgid campaign (again).
Hillary, the most brilliant and mighty of all Democratic candidates to have ever run–and not yet won–the White House was further humiliated by the fact that the pushy Manhattan real estate mogul (originally from Queens) bested her by appealing to same dregs that she had spent her entire career tricking, impugning, and harming!
And, let’s get real here, deep down Hillary has always known she could not win a free and fair election. This was a woman, after all, who was fired from the Democratic staff of the Watergate Committee for lying. She could not find her way down a straight, one-way street without GPS assistance.
I think, after all this time, Hillary may have figured out the secret to her (possible) success: getting someone else to run for president who may be more electable than her (which is not that hard) and then, once that person wins office, have him commit an Epstein (or dutifully resign) and hand power over to her.
If Hillary’s greatest problem is her own electability, then, why not simply do away with elections entirely?
This is precisely what former New York City Mayor (and über-billionaire) Mike Bloomberg has decided he will do. After appearing from nowhere in the middle of the Democratic Party’s primary election in 2020, Bloomberg has been throwing his considerable money around; attempting to, as Steve Bannon has said, conduct a “leveraged buyout” of the Democratic Party.
But, to what end? Why should Bloomberg care to involve himself in the hilarious mess that is the DNC primary this year, given all of his personal comfort, power, and wealth?
The revelation that he favors Hillary Clinton as his running-mate is telling.
It’s also an entirely New York affair.
Donald Trump, the divisive and headstrong Manhattan real estate mogul, long the butt of jokes among the Manhattan elite and the stuff of legend among the ordinary Joes of America; Mike Bloomberg, the Big Gulp grabbing billionaire who has claimed that people in the Midwest just “don’t understand” the need for transgendered bathrooms (because my kin are too stupid); and Hillary Clinton, the once-and-future president who got shamed bigly by Trump’s unconventional 2016 presidential campaign, are all wealthy and well-connected New Yorkers who have axes to grind with each other.
Bloomberg and Trump don’t like each other–in very New Yorker ways. Hillary doesn’t like Trump either. Hillary and Bloomberg know each other and he may even owe her for something the Clinton cabal did for him at some point in his painfully long career (we will likely never know–though WikiLeaks could probably help in this matter).
Regardless, Mayor Bloomberg and Secretary Clinton appear to be in cahoots with each other, to not only get “That Man” in the White House, but to steal the DNC primary away from the voters’ preferred pick, socialist Bernie Sanders.
You’re thinking this is crazy, right?
Just hear me out.
When Hillary Used Bill
Hillary Clinton was so convinced that she could not win political office on her own (her life’s unending ambition) that she decided to wed herself to a man, Bill Clinton, whom she knew was constitutionally incapable of keeping his marriage vows. The reason she did this was to best propel herself into the center of power.
Bill Clinton had the charisma (and was the required gender, back in the days when there really was a glass ceiling for women in public office). Hillary had the policy wonkery. Together, this unlikely duo formed a potent power couple. They were, for all-intents-and-purposes, co-president.
Bill did the campaigning and Hillary did the policymaking (except for Hillarycare, which was an unmitigated fiasco, like most everything Hillary ever does).
After the disastrous last few years of the Clinton Administration, Hillary maneuvered herself into the United States Senate–setting the Clinton family up for protracted wealth creation from blatant rent-seeking behavior.
Former President Clinton had, after all, lost his law license after it was proven that he had lied under oath about whether he was having an extramarital affair with his intern, Monica Lewinsky. And, supposedly the Clintons left office $16 million in debt from the legal fees that the Clinton impeachment brought about. Unable to earn as an attorney, and with public office paying meager six-figure salaries, the Clintons needed–wanted–something more.
So, naturally, when the Clinton’s tenure in the White House ended, they decamped from the Oval Office and set up a massive charity operation in the heart of Harlem (this was during the time when Bill Clinton was laughably considered by Toni Morrison to be America’s “first black president”).
Bill Clinton became a “statesman,” rehabilitating his flagging public persona, and playing nice with the world’s power and financial elites; ensuring that the Clinton family “got theirs.”
Bill Clinton, you see, fancied himself as a modern-day Cincinnatus: giving his remaining years after the presidency to “charitable causes” for the community (while collecting $13.7 million in speaking and writing fees his first year out of office alone). Just like Cincinnatus, also, Bill Clinton traveled on the personal sex jet of the notorious New York financier/pederast, Jeffrey Epstein (who most certainly did not hang himself while in prison last year), at least 22 times between 2003-2011.
When I Do It, It’s Not Illegal
While former President Bill Clinton raked in the cash and globe-trotted with oil sheikhs and Wall Street pedophiles alike, Hillary buckled down and worked on her own public career. She would run to become New York’s newest Senator in the 2000 election. Understand, though, that Hillary was not from–and did not live in–New York for any considerable period of time before she decided to run for that seat.
It was clear that some deal had been brokered between the Clinton cabal and the Democratic National Committee’s leadership to ensure that Hillary would be given a posh position in the Senate, despite the fact that she had no capability to win in a free and fair Democratic Party primary election there (or anywhere, for that matter).
She was effectively coronated in the Democratic Party’s New York primary for United States Senate in 2000.
To be fair, though, when it came time for her to win the general election that year, Hillary fared well: she trounced her Republican opponent, Rick Lazio, 55 percent to Lazio’s 43. Of course, the devil is in the details. And, the 2000 Senate race in New York was no different.
For example, many observers had long assumed that outgoing New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani would be the Republican nominee in 2000. That was the year, though, that Giuliani had a complete public breakdown. Whereas when he ran for New York City mayor in 1993, Giuliani was viewed as a serious and well-polished attorney; in the 2000 United States Senate race, he was seen as anything but. This was the year that Giuliani publicly separated from his wife and was revealed to be engaged in an adulterous affair with another woman.
His campaign, therefore, quickly fizzled.
Rick Lazio did his best under the circumstances. But, he was late to the party and at a deficit. Ultimately, Lazio was never fully able to realize his campaign goals of turning out higher numbers of voters in New York’s more conservative rural areas to offset the 74 percent support of New York City dwellers that Hillary enjoyed.
Hillary benefited from the internal weakness of the New York State Republicans (as the Clintons often managed to do throughout their storied political career). She had little opposition on her side of the aisle and had the connections and resources to basically purchase a Senate seat for herself. Her campaign in 2000 was castigated for its unapologetic and wanton reliance on “soft money” donations from private groups to keep her campaign going.
In fact, the 2000 Senate race in New York was the most expensive in the state’s history at that point in time.
As a United States senator, Hillary was mostly unimpressive. Although she did sponsor a bill to help the victims of the 9/11 attacks in New York City receive medical assistance from the U.S. government. Hillary also unquestioningly voted for the Iraq War in 2003–only to turn against that war (and deny her vote) shortly thereafter, by the time the war (and the Republican president, George W. Bush) had become unpopular among the voters.
Hillary was just waiting for her time; her moment to become not just the Svengali behind the farce that was Bill Clinton’s playboy presidency, but to be made the star of her own high-powered White House drama.
The election of 2008 was to be Hillary’s year. No one would dare to challenge her. She had the nomination locked up. Everyone owed her something and she had something on anyone who was of any importance on the national political scene.
Dropping her-g’s and marching on Selma, like so many great Civil Rights figures before her, Hillary vowed to flummoxed African-American audiences that, “I don’t feel no ways tired!”
Hillary proceeded to bludgeon those audiences with assurances of her superiority and false displays of her White Guilt, all in an effort to get the plebes to vote for her as president.
And, why did Hillary want to be president? Was it to inspire hope and change? To make America great again perchance?
No one really knows.
All that we do know from 2008 is that she was “ready” for the presidency and that she was better than George W. Bush–and certainly better than the other Republicans who were running against her then…despite the fact that, as a United States senator, Mrs. Clinton had consistently voted for George W. Bush’s signature policies (the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, and the 2008 bailout, for starters).
My friends at Roll Call argued in 2016 that she only voted with Bush 49 percent of the eight years she was in office. When you actually look at former Senator Hillary Clinton’s roll call votes, you see that she voted with George W. Bush 252 times whereas she opposed the maligned neoconservative president 259 times (big-whoop). On the issues that mattered to most people–especially Democratic Party voters–Hillary was on the opposite side of them.
It, therefore, was not hard for someone less well-known and less well-tailored for the stilted world of national retail politics, such as Barack Obama, to come along and completely upend Hillary’s best-laid plans. In this way, as a young man in his 20s watching Obama in the Democratic Party’s primary, I relished every second of his battles with Hillary.
It was like watching Stalin being challenged by Trotsky–and one could see that Hillary was desperately searching for an ideological icepick to jam in Obama’s head. Very early on, the Clintons thought they had found that ideological icepick with which to crush their Trotsky: racism.
The Clintons lashed out at Obama with their usual classiness: Americas “first black president,” Bill Clinton reportedly told the now-deceased Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) at an event in 2007 that, “A few years ago, [Obama] would be getting us coffee.” These comments were made at a posh club after Senator Kennedy indicated he would be supporting Obama’s campaign over that of his long-time friends, the Clintons.
Do you remember how the “birther” movement became most associated with Donald Trump? Well, Trump may have made it infamous in 2011, but it all started with Hillary Clinton, the woman who promised better race relations if elected in 2008.
Back then, the Clinton Campaign was losing to the upstart Obama; he had the magic that Bill used to have–and Obama apparently didn’t need to sleep with any “trailer park trash” to keep his magic going (at least that we know of).
Hillary’s supporters went about insinuating that Obama was not an American by birth. Sure, the campaign denied that they were engaged in such blatant race-baiting. It was, at best, or so they said, fringe actors with no real affiliation to the Clinton camp making such outlandish claims. But, of course, everyone knew that the Clintons were pushing the bizarre narrative.
What’s more, this was exactly the kind of craven mendacity that everyone had come to expect from the Clintons over the years. Most people probably would have been annoyed had the Clintons not stooped to such lows at some point to save themselves.
Although, unlike when Bill was the face of Clinton, Inc. in the 1990s, in 2008, Hillary could not manage the skullduggery very well. Whereas Bill could schmooze his way into–or out of–anything, Hillary came off as insincere and ineffective. With Hillary in charge of Clinton, Inc., their magic was gone…possibly forever.
It’s interesting, isn’t it, how those who are quickest to accuse their opponents of racism (when no racism usually exists) so quickly turn to racism whenever they are in a pinch?
That, by the way, is real racism. Not the stuff they accuse hapless Republican politicians, like former Virginia Governor George Allen, of having done.
Hillary Clinton ultimately lost the 2008 campaign, despite her inevitability.
She was given what was intended to be the useless consolation prize of becoming President Barack Obama’s Secretary of State (Obama is rumored to have considered Hillary for the vice-presidency but, given the trail of bodies that tends to follow in the Clinton’s wake, he opted to hand it off to the totally reliable Joe Biden).
As secretary of state, Hillary surrounded herself with “yes-men” from the Clinton Administration in the 1990s, basically forming her own mini-government at Foggy Bottom during Obama’s first term in office. Secretary Clinton championed more neoconservative and neoliberal policies that most Democratic Party voters hated. Thankfully for her, it did not matter what the voters wanted. As Secretary of State, she finally found a role that insulated her from public opinion while at the same time gave her the ability to exercise influence over policy.
Of course, her husband had opposed Hillary’s decision to accept the scraps that Barack (and Michelle) Obama were throwing her way. The former president rightly assessed that Hillary would have been smarter to have kept her sinecure in the U.S. Senate, where she could still influence policy, yet also remain independent and avoid any blame, should things go wrong.
But, Hillary could not help herself. She took the cabinet position and began a systematic influence-peddling operation of historic proportions. Not only did she support wholly unpopular globalist policies, but she also used her office as a cash cow for the highest-bidding multinational firms, lobbyists, and foreign governments to gain access to the upper echelons of the U.S. government.
Lying About Libya (And Other Grotesqueries)
It was her support for the Gaddafi operation, however, that caused Hillary the most heartburn over the long-term. Not because she looked back at her arrogant policies with regret. Oh no! In fact, Hillary believed that her support for toppling Gaddafi and watching Libya become a bastion of stateless terrorist groups, was not a big deal. In fact, she listed that as one of her greatest accomplishments as Obama’s first Secretary of State.
In September 2012, however, it became a very serious matter, when the U.S. consulate in the oil-rich port city of Benghazi was attacked by jihadists and four Americans–including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, were killed by al Qaeda.
It would later be reported by Andy C. McCarthy of The National Review that the reason for Ambassador Stevens’ presence in the unsafe port city of Benghazi was to negotiate the removal of Gaddafi’s weapons caches from Benghazi via Turkey. Once in Turkey, the weapons would have been offloaded and placed in the waiting hands of the plucky Syrian rebels.
Well, as it turned out, the intermediaries that Stevens was dealing with in Benghazi were al Qaeda. Sensing an opportunity to nab one of America’s highest-ranking civilians–a man in whom much trust was placed not just by the Obama Administration but by the Libyan people who were hopeful that American aid would be a way out of the post-Gaddafi chaos–the jihadists plotted to attack the inadequately defended consulate. They wanted to either kill or capture Stevens and his tiny entourage before they could flee to safety.
The jihadists got what they wanted: they humiliated the United States and brutally killed four Americans, including the ambassador.
The Obama Administration’s response was obscene.
First, they downplayed it.
Then, they obfuscated the situation by blaming an Egyptian-American filmmaker in California for having created the “spontaneous protests” that killed Stevens and the three other Americans at the consulate.
Obama’s Department of Justice even had the filmmaker arrested on trumped up charges, so as to calm the situation in the Middle East, and to keep the political narrative focused on their Republican opponents during a tight presidential election in 2012.
Finally, they frog-marched Hillary in front of the United States Congress where she proceeded to indignantly demand to know “what difference” telling the American people the truth about Benghazi made.
More than anything, Hillary’s boorish behavior in front of Congress convinced enough elected officials to intensify their quest for answers over the Benghazi fiasco. It was the Congressional Subcommittee on Benghazi that initially subpoenaed Hillary Clinton for all electronic communications of her office, so as to determine the extent of Hillary Clinton’s involvement in–and knowledge of–the events surrounding Benghazi.
Once subpoenaed, though, it was revealed that Hillary had been keeping a darker secret about her electronic communications. One that would ultimately prove to be part of the undoing behind her second, failed presidential bid.
Hillary Clinton’s E-Problem (“E,” for Entitlement)
From the start of her time as secretary, Hillary Clinton had compromised state secrets repeatedly by keeping a server in her private home and conducting official, classified State Department business for years on that unsecured server.
It has since been revealed that nearly every foreign country with a computer had, at some point, hacked into that server and gleaned untold amounts of sensitive, compartmented data. The reason Hillary kept the server was for her own venality: she never wanted to have to deal with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. If she had used State Department servers and emails, she’d have to reveal all of the “business” she was conducting as Secretary of State. If Hillary used the Clinton Global Initiative’s (CGI) emails and her private server at home, there’d be no way for the public to see her dirty laundry, as they saw Monica’s and Bill’s soiled blue dress during the impeachment (an understandably, deeply humiliating moment for Hillary).
We all know that, not only did the Obama Administration help to cover up her misdeeds, but it also engaged in what amounts to banana republic-levels of corruption to use the immense surveillance powers of the U.S. intelligence community (as well as those of the Five Eyes network, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United Kingdom) to spy on–and frame–the Trump Campaign, in order to bolster Hillary Clinton’s abysmal chances at the ballot box in 2016.
Fundamentally, though, most Americans understood that Hillary Clinton’s behavior was inappropriate. It confirmed the worst things that critics had long accused the Clintons–particularly Hillary–of doing: acting as though she were above the law. Hillary was entitled to whatever she wanted because she was better than we were. This was a dangerous and wholly off-putting trait for most voters.
Everything about Hillary’s second campaign for president went off-script. From the bizarre rollout at the United Nations (which sent a bad signal in itself); to her uncanny ability to insult ordinary voters at will, Hillary was not ready to lead.
Ah, but you see, we just weren’t enlightened enough to see her brilliance. And, we know she was brilliant because she and those who benefited from her position told us how smart she was.
If Hillary were so smart, though, how did she end up in so many pickles? If she were such an inevitable and well-prepared president-in-waiting, how could she not win the electoral college–the only vote that has ever mattered in U.S. presidential politics?
David Axelrod, no fan of Donald Trump, facetiously argued that, “It takes a lot of work to lose to Donald Trump.” Throughout the campaign, Hillary had waged a sclerotic and boring retail presidential campaign that would have made the 1960 Democratic Party proud.
When she wasn’t insulting voters in pivotal swing states, she was ignoring them.
Meanwhile, Trump played for every single vote in every state. It wasn’t potential Russian meddling in the 2016 election that caused Hillary’s defeat. Hillary simply was a terrible campaigner.
For goodness sake, Hillary could barely win the DNC primary in 2016!
She had to rig the entire primary process to prevent the socialist, Bernie Sanders, from winning it all back then. Once it was revealed that Hillary cheated Crazy Bernie out of the primary in 2016, coupled with the ongoing email server imbroglio, it was all but impossible for the Clintons to surmount Trump’s great challenge to their coronation in 2016.
After the election results came in and Hillary soundly lost the electoral college vote, CBS interviewed comedian Jon Stewart. During that interview, the interviewer implied that everyone who voted for Trump were nothing more than deplorable racists. Stewart, a lifelong Liberal in his own right, quickly corrected the anchor by saying that most of the voters who put Trump in office were ordinary blue-collar Democrat voters in the fabled “Blue Wall” states.
This wall of Democrat-leaning states were supposed to ensure Hillary’s victory in 2016 no matter what happened. These swing voters, turned off by Hillary’s behavior and disposition–to say nothing of her democratic-globalist policies–flipped parties and voted for Trump at the last minute.
But, as Stewart pointed out, these swing voters were mostly the same folks who voted for Bill Clinton twice and Barack Obama twice. How could they all be racists then? Of course, Stewart (and other Democrats) know that the majority of Trump voters are not racists.
The voters just don’t like Hillary. And they never will. For the sake of their wounded egos and getting some return on their long-term investment (a.k.a. sunk cost), America’s democratic-globalist elite must pretend as though racist rubes and Russian bots were the real reason behind Hillary’s second major failure at the national ballot box.
After 2016, many assumed that was the end of Clinton, Inc. The Democrats have spent the last four years doing everything they can to take out the Orange Man in the White House. Each time they hit Trump, they appear to make him stronger. What’s more, they harden the relationship between President Trump and his eclectic base of so-called deplorable voters. The only Democratic Party candidate who seems able to take on Trump, Bernie Sanders, is being cut off at the knees by his own party leadership. This is the same thing that happened to Sanders in 2016.
Several weeks ago, when the New York billionaire and former mayor announced his intentions to run for the Democratic nomination, Bernie rightly decried the move as having violated the DNC rules for the 2020 election. The joke is on Crazy Bernie, though, as the Democratic elite have never met a rule they didn’t have a workaround for. Again, the entire career of the Clinton co-presidency proves this fact.
Mike Bloomberg’s entry into the presidential race is a huge blow for the “Bernie Bros.” Few could understand why, exactly, Bloomberg was even bothering. Clearly, there is something more than his desire to be president. There has been a long-running feud between Trump and Bloomberg. They hate each other the way New York Mets fans hate the New York Yankees. It is petty and spiteful, signifying nothing. What is significant is Bloomberg’s introduction of Hillary Clinton as his potential vice-presidential candidate.
Hillary has known she was unelectable for most of her long adult life. She manipulated and maneuvered herself as best as she could without having to face the voters. But, in America, a politician seeking presidential office must always hold oneself before the rough-and-scoffing multitudes. The woman who once claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, simply cannot surmount the summit of American politics: getting enough electoral votes to matter.
But, she is simply too important to be left aging on the sidelines. Instead, she has found a short-cut to the presidency: Mike Bloomberg. His money and influence will push aside any of the other Democratic Party nominees, while slowly grinding down the hopes of Bernie Sanders to build a new Cuban Revolution here in the United States. As this occurs, Hillary will protect herself from unwanted criticism by serving as the number two for Bloomberg in the 2020 general election. The two billionaires, Trump and Bloomberg, will eat each other alive in the debates–while Hillary lays the groundwork for her administration.
Hillary assumes that Bloomberg will simply grind Trump down. Once he does, the Bloomberg-Hillary ticket assumes power. And, at some point in that time, Bloomberg simply goes away. Hillary assumes power; she is coronated. This is her way.
Of course (and this is something that Hillary has never fully understood), the best laid plans often collapse upon first contact with the enemy. Whatever play she is making with Bloomberg is entirely divorced from reality. Whatever happens in the DNC primary, Trump will obliterate Bloomberg, while continuing to throw bloody pieces of red meat to his base (people like me who have absolutely benefited under the Trump economy), ensuring the GOP vote turnout is much higher than the DNC turnout–especially if the Democratic Party’s base is yet again cheated out of their preferred candidate, Bernie, getting his shot at Trump.
Still, Hillary cannot help herself. Neither can Bloomberg help himself in attempting to take down his New York billionaire rival. Their vanity and treachery will be their undoing.
The next several months are going to be one wild ride. It’d be fun to watch if the stakes weren’t so serious. But, this is likely what Hillary Clinton is plotting. Because, for Hillary Clinton attaining power is not about helping the people; it is about the possession of the power. Such a personality is dangerous and should be resisted at every opportunity. She may deny it, and Bloomberg may downplay it, but the two Liberal New Yorkers are clearly conspiring to rig the DNC primary in their favor in 2020–and Hillary is likely engaged in one, long-term Machiavellian power play that will eventuate in her taking the Oval Office, by hook or by crook.