What’s that? Good point, we will assume that she is not indicted by a federal grand jury.
It’s also no secret that last week, Mrs. Clinton – the retro-fashioner of colorful, deco-era firefighter trenchcoats – stomped Bernie Sanders in South Carolina like 175 pounds of sour grapes in a vineyard vat. Speaking of wine, Mr. Sanders may need a couple more bottles after Super Tuesday when he is slated to lose as many as 11 states to the grand arbiter of what constitutes classified information.
Nevertheless, it remains unclear why Bill Clinton’s bimbo comptroller would want to return to the White House after leaving “dead broke” the last time. It is said that time heals, and it has been about 15 years since she had the opportunity to throw an official White House lamp at her husband, the Fred Astaire of intern balls. Could it be the passing of time has finally lifted the stain of numerous bimbo eruptions from the consciousness of the Clintons and their loyal followers?
Registered voters may not be feeling “the Bern” much longer, but the fervor of enthusiasm observed at most Clinton campaign stops is about as palpable as the excitement oozed by a slew of cabinet officers led by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 1998 while they stood in the rain outside the White House vouching for Bill Clinton’s honesty. Still, neither Clinton is ready to sacrifice their lust for megabucks paid to them by America’s wealthiest banks and corporations for giving patronizing speeches. Perhaps that explains the dwindling enthusiasm of Democratic Party voters.
It’s abundantly clear that in primary after primary, thus far, Democratic voters just aren’t showing up. Politically speaking, Clinton hit Sanders so hard in South Carolina that he’s fallen and he can’t get up, but the news is bad for Clinton, the Bern and the Democratic Party. Only 367,491 people cast a ballot for either Clinton or Sanders on Saturday which represents a 16 percent decline from the 436,219 people who voted for Clinton and Obama in 2008. So what? What does that prove – what difference does it make now, some eye-rolling Democrats may ponder. Here’s the answer: Factor in the 93,522 people who voted for John Edwards that year, and Clinton’s problem stands out like a campaign intern wearing a beret and a short skirt talking to Bill Clinton at one of Hillary’s relatively rare public appearances. This year, Democrats are only attracting about two-thirds of the primary votes that they did eight years ago.
While political pundits can chop and dice statistics to taste like anything, Hillary Clinton’s problem is not Bernie Sanders, never was. Sure, she is the poster-granny of dishonesty and hypocrisy she at once personifies and resolutely denies. Then there is the national security scandal over her home-brew server. But her biggest problems are those voids in campaign bleachers, the no-shows frustrated by the detachment of her words from her actions. The FBI is nipping at Clinton’s heels as a separate lawsuit by Judicial Watch continues to expose her inattention to national security through the use of her private unsanctioned, unsecured home computer to send and transmit classified documents while Secretary of State. It is the perfect storm of Clinton’s unlikeability, aversion to telling the truth and general poor performance in office and as a candidate that will defeat her in 2016. However, more importantly, it is a withering rebuke of the DNC. It is a political and ideological defeat manifesting itself in exceptionally poor primary turnouts that will likely lead to Hillary Clinton’s and the Democratic Party’s losses in November.
