Although I may not be doing this reporter any favors by pointing this out. Sorry?
Overflow area at the Hillary Clinton rally, sans overflow pic.twitter.com/0VSu0zpKAE
— Jennifer Epstein (@jeneps) June 13, 2015
This is… this is special prosecutor territory. For real. I hate saying that, because special prosecutors are awful – but then, so is this.
— David Freddoso (@freddoso) April 27, 2015
The first of many shoes has dropped in relation to the Clinton Foundation and its donors. This one is coming to us, courtesy of the New York Times: and it’s a “BOOM goes the dynamite” kind of situation. The keywords are “Clinton Foundation,” “Russians,” “donations,” and “uranium:”
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One [a company responsible for one-fifth of the uranium production in the United States] in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
Turns out that the inevitability train hasn’t actually left the station yet: “The main super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton is struggling in its early efforts to line up cash towards a fundraising goal of as much as $500 million, according to sources with knowledge of its fundraising.” The PAC in question is Priorities USA, and it’s apparently still trying to figure out what it name actually means; the Politico article notes that there’s a lot of disputation going on over strategy and goals. There’s probably also a good deal of internal speculation on whether David Brock’s abrupt resignation from the group yesterday was due to… well, it would be impolite for me to suggest that it was paranoia, so I shan’t.
Come, I will conceal nothing from you: Hillary Clinton will eventually raise enough money to allow her to run for President. The donors dragging their heels now will eventually pony up for her, if she becomes the nominee. And the Left will dutifully declare that they are, indeed, ready for Hillary. But they’re not very happy about it, are they? In fact, they sound a lot like we did in 2008 and 2012: all rah-rah in public (albeit without too much affect) and kind of resigned about it all in private*. Like… MoveOn (and savor THAT irony for a moment), they’re actually kind of ready for somebody else. Except that there’s nobody else. Continue reading Ready for Hillary… actually, could you come back in a few months?
Let’s just establish something right here, right now:
Self-proclaimed Clinton Democrats are struggling this election cycle, and not even their powerful namesakes may be enough to save them.
Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have tried to turn on their charms to help centrist Democrats in Kentucky and Arkansas. But as candidates in both states are slipping, help from the party’s preeminent power couple is falling short.
…the article goes on to claim that in 2016 Bill and Hillary Clinton may be regional powerhouses in the South anyway. And that’s something that is completely at odds with the actual truth, which is that the Clintons know full well that they’re not going to make a darn bit of difference in the South. And how do I know that? Easy. They’re going to Kentucky and Arkansas: two states where the Democratic candidate will lose and it won’t actually be the Clintons’ fault. Both Mark Pryor and Alison Grimes have run poor campaigns against Tom Cotton and Mitch McConnell: there’s no real demographic benefit that Hillary or Bill Clinton could give those two, and pretty much everybody knows it.