BloggeRhythms

Now that yesterday’s primary contests are over, the Democrat party finally has a presidential candidate. Except that it doesn't. Sanders has vowed to continue campaigning right up to the party convention next month. 

Regardless of what happens at that convention itself, however, two different articles this morning illustrate disturbing trends for both, the Democrat party in general and its highly questionable current candidate, Bill Clinton’s wife.

In a guest post, Joe Hoft @thegatewaypundit.com, reports that “Trump received 13,406,108 votes to date in the elections according to www.thegreenpapers.com.  

As a result Trump has more votes than any candidate in Republican history, shattering the previous record by 1.4 million votes even with 17 candidates in the race.

“George W. Bush had 12 million votes in 2000.  The Republican Party also set a party record this year in pre-convention state election turnout with over 28 million votes to date which is 139% of the record high voter turnout in 2008.  This increase in votes can be attributed to Donald Trump.” 

At the same time, as reported by Kyle Olson @theamericanmirror.com: “With 94.4% of precincts reporting, Clinton won 1,841,285 votes in California on Tuesday, compared to Bernie Sanders’s 1,416,742, Politico reports. 

“That’s nearly a 30% drop in total support from 2008, when she received 2,608,184 votes, or 51.47%. (Barack Obama got 2,186,662 votes or 43.16%.)” 

The same holds true for New Jersey where, while winning the state as she did in 2008, the 542,656 votes, or 63.35% of the ballots cast, is a 13% decline in support from her 2008 turnout. At that time, “she received 613,500 votes — or 53.76% of the total votes, compared to 501,374 ballots cast for Obama.” 

Thus, while Trump may be deemed despicable and loutish by many in his own party, the voting public seems quite favorably disposed to him at present. With that number growing rapidly every day. 

And then, on the other hand, it seems that familiarity does indeed breed contempt. Or at least significant dislike. Whereas in Bill’s wife’s case, her support not only keeps shrinking, the FBI hasn’t even recommended indictment yet.  

In the same vein, Nomiki Konst @foxnews.com, this morning, tiled her column: “Bernie Sanders kicked off a revolution. And it's just getting started”

Ms Konst writes: “Sanders supporters have continuously (and rightfully) complained about a system that has been built and manipulated to protect their anointed nominee. In fact, four hundred sixty-five of the 714 superdelegates went beyond their intended utility as a last minute insurance policy to determine the outcome of a contested convention. 

“Bernie Sanders has revolutionized the Democratic model of presidential campaigns. But that’s not all he’s done. Through a citizen-funded campaign he has electrified the base and attracted disaffected, first time voters and the much needed independents back into the party  -- all while being honest, courageous and transparent. 

“Bernie Sanders’ campaign -- crowd-sourced and unapologetically liberal -- has shown the Democratic Party something very important:

• No, a Democratic presidential candidate does not need to be a corporate puppet.
• No, a Democratic presidential candidate does not need to out-raise Republicans.
• No, a Democratic presidential candidate does not need to distance himself from the grassroots.”

Ms Konst concludes her case as follows: “Just remember, the only candidate in this race who consistently beat Republicans -- across the board -- all while mobilizing new voters was Bernie Sanders.  

“Democrats can no longer keep their blinders on. Despite having raised record amounts of money, the DNC’s strategies are flawed and ineffective  -- as evidenced by the loss of over 1,000 seats from the local to the national level since 2008. 

“These are the prescriptions that the Democratic Party needs to take to rebuild itself from the ground up. 

“There is much reform and debate to come at what many expect will be a contested convention in July. 

“The political revolution has just begun.  

Therefore, taken together, what the preceding news reports illustrate clearly, is that on both sides of the aisle, revolutions are taking place among the electorate. In the Republican’s case, the results are already known with Trump leaving the old, establishment-minded curmudgeons behind in the dust. And come July, an old Democrat curmudgeon may very well do the same thing at his party’s convention in Philadelphia.

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, who once again has taken hypocrisy and arrogance to new levels.

Sarah Westwood @cnbc.com, reports: “Hillary Clinton took a lot of flak on Monday after a report surfaced that the presidential candidate wore a Giorgio Armani jacket worth more than $12,000 during a speech in April about inequality. 

“Clinton, who was well-known for her vast pantsuit collection, has upgraded her wardrobe during her most recent bid for president to appear more relatable, according to the New York Post.”

 

The first thought while reading the short item was of Marie-Antoinette, the wife of France’s King Louis XVI. In 1789, when told that her subjects had no bread, supposedly sniffed, “Let them eat cake.” 

What’s most interesting about the comparison is that, according to history.com, “With that callous remark, the queen became a hated symbol of the decadent monarchy and fueled the revolution that would cause her to (literally) lose her head several years later.” 

The commonality here, of course, is the regal sense possessed by both women. The major difference being that one truly was royalty, while the others only a self-deluded wife of a former president of the U.S. 

Self-anointed royalty or not, recurring problems keep cropping up for Bill’s wife.  

Alana Goodman writes today in the Washington Free Beacon, that Bryan Pagliano, the State Department aide who “helped set up Hillary Clinton’s private email server asked a federal court to withhold details about his immunity deal with the FBI on Tuesday afternoon.”

A federal judge had ordered him to turn over information about an immunity deal he reached with the FBI in connection to the investigation of Clinton’s private email server. 

“Pagliano filed a motion to seal the document on Tuesday afternoon, which could keep details of the agreement shielded from the public if approved by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan.” 

Now, while any guess is as good as any other as to why Pagliano desires to keep his activities regarding the server secret, one certainly has to wonder as to why anyone would do that. And, naturally, regardless of the specifics involved, what’s being covered up isn’t likely very good for him and/or his former boss. Which means that, as far as the email scandal’s involved, the beat goes on and is getting louder. 

Bringing up the continuing question again: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?     

That’s it for today folks.  

Adios