BloggeRhythms

Today’s items reflect undercurrents found outside the news making headlines, but seem to be having a much stronger effect than the press is reporting. 

First, an article from FoxNews.com titled: “After strong debate, Christie, Bush resume attack on Rubio” 

According to the text: “New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie roared into Sunday after a fierce debate performance hours earlier in which he slowed rising, fellow GOP presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, with the New Hampshire primary ahead. 

“He’s a good guy, but he’s just not ready to be president,” Christie told “Fox News Sunday,” after attacking Rubio for his inexperience in running government. “I felt justified because I’ve been saying this for a long time.” 

Then Christie expressed a point often made here regarding the current POTUS, in this case referring to Rubio. Christie said: “We don’t need another on-the-job training. I’m glad the American people saw (Rubio’s debate performance) before they made another mistake.”

However, while Christie's point was certainly well taken, the key issue of the article was made in its title. Because, obviously, Fox News and many others, haven’t given up on the governors as having a valid chance at being elected next November. 

On another subtle, but extremely important point, yahoo.com reports: “Russia's central bank said Monday it had revoked the licenses of two more banks as part of government efforts to consolidate the sector as economic troubles mount. 

“Russia's 67th lender by assets, Intercommerz had failed to adequately assess risks despite the poor quality of its assets, the central bank said” Then it added: “At the same time the bank was involved in dubious transactions.” 

Going on to say that: “Russian authorities have been trying to clear the banking sector of hundreds of fragile banks which are often found to employ doubtful or illegal practices,” yahoo continued, “The ruble's recent fall has exacerbated this, leading to dozens of bankruptcies in the sector.” 

So, what we have here is very likely a major ramification of the world-wide drop in the price of oil, one of Russia’s major sources of income. Furthermore, if those prices remain low, or drop further, that nation’s ability to finance it’s aggression shrinks moreso. Which means that, as has been mentioned here for years, if the current administration hadn’t caved to ill-informed environmentalists, Russia’s resurrection probably wouldn’t have even taken place to begin with. 

And then, a Facebook friend posted this today:

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, and Bill himself. 

Abby Phillip and Frances Stead Sellers @washingtonpost.com, write that: “On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, Hillary Clinton’s quest to become the country’s first female president has encountered an unexpected problem: She is having trouble persuading women, young and old, to rally behind her cause. 

“The latest sign came Sunday, when a new CNN-WMUR survey here showed Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont beating Clinton among women by eight percentage points — which represents a big shift from the results last week in the Iowa caucuses, where Clinton won women by 11 points. 

At the same time, according to David Lightman @mcclatchydc.com, “Sanders has surged among young people as few candidates have since the U.S. senator from Vermont was a college student in the turbulent 1960s. Sanders, 74, topped Clinton 84-14 among Democrats 29 and younger in Iowa’s Monday caucus. He’s got a 3-1 lead among those aged 18-29 in the latest NBCNews/WSJ-Marist New Hampshire poll.”

Thus, apparently, women don’t like Bill’s wife at all, and neither do young people. Leaving middle-aged and older men as her strongest base of support. Therefore, at this point, one would have to assume that the major reason that the male group appears to be in her corner is that no pollster has asked them about her yet.

But, if by chance, Bill’s wife survives to win the Democrat nomination, Reuters reports: “Kathleen Willey, a former White House volunteer who says Bill Clinton groped her in an Oval Office hallway in 1993 when she came to him tearfully seeking a paid job, said she had agreed to become a paid national spokeswoman for a group being created by Roger Stone. 

“Stone, a Republican strategist, said the group would become active should Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton's wife, win the Democratic nomination in the 2016 race for the White House. Clinton is currently the front runner. 

"This gives me more of an opportunity to get this message out to young voters who weren't even born or don't even remember what happened and to the women who have suffered," Willey told Reuters. 

“Willey said she will give interviews and speeches and appear in political advertisements to ensure the accusations remain part of the political discourse during the election campaign. 

"They're going to be confronted every day, on radio, on television, on billboards," Stone told Reuters, referring to the Clintons. He said he had reached a verbal agreement with Willey but cautioned that the group was still in the planning stages.” 

So, what’s truly startling about the preceding commentary, and most of those in the past is that, very little ever gets discussed in the press, or anywhere else, about Bill’s wife’s professional capabilities. Instead, her questionable history and lack of accomplishment make headlines. 

All of which seems to be proving that over time, group by group, major categories of voters eventually abandon her. Bringing us back to today’s point regarding the upcoming presidential election in general. People now appear to be waking up, paying attention, and realizing that the nation needs proven leadership at the top.  

Leading to the ongoing question: 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