Hillary Clinton

Libertarians choose electability over purity, immediately reap rewards


If nothing else (and there’s a lot else), 2016 has been a story of the struggle between sanity and any number of other alternatives.

Republicans chose…well, you know. With the biggest, deepest bench of fresh-faced, experienced, diverse candidates in a generation, maybe ever, Republicans instead have chosen…again, you know. Not sanity, that’s for sure.

Democrats, forced to choose between a fire-breathing democratic socialist and a very experienced but very under-investigation stick of margarine. Everyone tells you it’s better than the alternative, but it’ll probably end up the opposite. Ironically, as the corruptocrat has neared her inevitable nomination, it’s the socialist who’s become more electable.


Libertarians faced a similar choice this past weekend at their national convention. Gary Johnson was the frontrunner for president, and Bill Weld his choice for vice president, both experienced former Republican governors. Ironically it was exactly their extensive experience that became a liability at the convention.

More radical delegates vocally opposed Johnson and Weld in favor of ideological pure and consequently less well-known candidates. One of those candidates, Darryl Perry, who actually favors the dissolution of the United States, argued that increased media exposure and election funding for the Libertarian Party would kill it.

In case you missed it, the presidential primaries are over


UPDATE: Trump has officially clinched the Republican nomination as of today.

It seems like it took five gruelling, facepalm-inducing years, but it was blink-and-miss-it news that the major party presidential primaries came to an all-but-official close this week. The result that we all predicted and dreaded six months ago: Trump vs Clinton vs …?

Although Bernie Sanders has not yet ended or suspended his campaign, the Democratic primary came to an arrangement this week that serves the same purpose. Hillary is less than 100 delegates away from clinching the nomination, and she seems content to coasting to victory.


That victory will officially take place with California, New Jersey, and the final round of state primaries next month. In the meantime, the Clinton campaign has shifted ad spending from the primary battle to the general election, now focusing on Donald Trump’s lifelong parade of horribles.

Feeling the Bern, Hillary Turns to Bill on Economy


Poor Hillary is feeling the Bern. It wasn’t supposed to be like this.

It was supposed to be a coronation, not a dogfight. Her primary battle with socialist curmudgeon Bernie Sanders was supposed to be political Kabuki theater, with her dispatching the hapless but loveable (insofar as one can be loveable while embracing an ideology responsible for the deaths of a hundred million people in the last century) Sanders in a display of feminist power, the glass ceiling of patriarchal oppression shattered once and for all. Finally, a Uterus-Enabled American at the pinnacle of power!

Her path to the Democrat nomination was rocky from the start, having won Iowa by a hair’s breadth (0.3%), and then getting blown out in New Hampshire by Sanders. She and Sanders have since then traded blows, with Hillary leading the contests 27-20. With the Democrat super-delegates firmly in her corner the process was rigged for her from the beginning, but her inability to put Sanders away makes for poor optics, as they say, leading up to the general election.

That might explain why she is starting to get gimmicky in an effort to shut down Sanders and lock up the nomination.

Her latest gambit came this past Sunday when Hillary, speaking before a group of voters in Kentucky, said that she would put her husband, former President Bill Clinton “in charge of revitalizing the economy, because, you know, he knows how to do it.”

“Abandon the Democrats!” — The rallying cry of defeated, marginalized progressives

Occupy Wall Street

For years Republicans wandered in the political wilderness with no leadership and no guidance. Barack Obama ushered in a new era of Democratic dominance and Republicans would be doomed without a unified message in opposition to Obama and his policies.

That’s the narrative the mainstream media attempted to portray.

But in the wake of the 2014 midterm elections, it seems the tables have turned. Republicans made significant gains in state legislatures, won governor’s races in traditionally Democratic states, increased their margin in the House, and re-took the Senate. This has caused much hand-wringing and soul-searching among Democrats and progressives within the grassroots.

Salon.com has been one of the loudest voices on the Left taking the Democratic Party to task for its cozy relationship with Wall Street. Bill Curry, former White House counselor for President Bill Clinton, tells progressives to build a framework outside the Democrats Party, much like the tea party’s relationship to the Republican Party. He writes:

Democrats are in denial regarding the magnitude and meaning of their defeat. It is a rejection not just of current leaders but of the very business model of the modern Democratic Party: how it uses polls and focus groups to slice and dice us; how it peddles its sly, hollow message and, worst, how it sells its soul to pay for it all. Party elites hope party activists will seek to lift their moods via the cheap adrenaline high of another campaign. For once, activists may resist the urge.

Please, no: Hillary vs. Jeb 2016 is already happening

Hillary vs. Jeb 2016

Please, no. It’s already happening.

The slow-moving train toward the inevitable candidacies of both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush left the station this week with the latter’s announcement on Facebook that he would launch a leadership committee in January to begin a possible run for the White House.

The Facebook note reads:

Columba and I are so proud of the wonderful adults our children have become, and we loved spending time with our three precious grandchildren.

We shared good food and watched a whole lot of football.

We also talked about the future of our nation. As a result of these conversations and thoughtful consideration of the kind of strong leadership I think America needs, I have decided to actively explore the possibility of running for President of the United States.

In January, I also plan to establish a Leadership PAC that will help me facilitate conversations with citizens across America to discuss the most critical challenges facing our exceptional nation. The PAC’s purpose will be to support leaders, ideas and policies that will expand opportunity and prosperity for all Americans.

In the coming months, I hope to visit with many of you and have a conversation about restoring the promise of America.

This, apparently, caught the Clinton machine off guard.

POLITICO reports on this “tortoise and hare” race:

Could Elizabeth Warren’s populist, organized Left steal the nomination from Hillary Clinton?

Hillary Clinton v. Elizabeth Warren

There have been rumblings for months that inevitable 2016 Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton isn’t the liberal champion Democrats need to defeat Republicans in the next election.

The New Republic, a liberal publication seemingly on the outs, published a lengthy piece in November 2013 about Elizabeth Warren — the populist liberal Senator from Massachusetts whose rising star in Washington hasn’t gone unnoticed by left-wing groups. TNR suggests the Democrat electorate will be comprised of two distinct factions:

Big money is betting on Hillary Clinton in 2016

Hillary Clinton

You know, for all the whining and complaining Democrats do over “big money” in politics, they sure do love to cash those checks when donors write them. In fact, during the 2014 election cycle, Democrats pretty much stayed competitive with Republicans overall, but in hotly-contested Senate races like North Carolina and Virginia, the Democrats far-and-away outspent the Republicans.

Even The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart took notice of the Democrats’ love of campaign money during this cycle.

So it’s really not surprising when billionaires like Warren Buffett write $25,000 checks to Democratic political action committees. According to Bloomberg Politics writer Lisa Lerer:

Hillary — not ‘truly well off’ — Clinton made $300k for one speech, FOIA request reveals

Poor Hillary Clinton

Over the summer, Hillary Clinton made headlines when she defended her husband’s commnets on their personal wealth. In June, the Washington Post reported:

In an interview with Britain’s Guardian newspaper, Clinton was asked whether she could be a credible champion for fighting income inequality in the United States despite her wealth.

“But they don’t see me as part of the problem,” she told the paper, “because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through dint of hard work.” The Guardian wrote that Clinton let off “another burst of laughter” in answering the question, suggesting that she found the question “painful.”

Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, have earned well over $100 million giving paid speeches and writing books since leaving the White House in 2001.

The National Journal reported that Clinton would likely be wealthier than four of the five former Presidents.

So why is this relavent now?

Democrats have found their scapegoat, and it’s not Barack Obama

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

President Barack Obama’s approval rating is falling faster than Usain Bolt can run. The latest poll from The New York Times and CBS News shows his foreign policy numbers in the tank, dropping to the lowest point of his presidency. His numbers on the economy haven’t really moved much this year, either. Meanwhile, the GOP’s favorability rating — once in the cellar — has almost pulled even with Democrats.

Yet, Democrats seem to be looking for a scapegoat who isn’t named Barack Obama. Sure, many party faithful will concede that this White House is a drag on Democratic House and Senate candidates. And they acknowledge that President Obama’s approval ratings could cost them control of the upper chamber.

But, in politics, everything rolls down hill. And, according to a recent report from Politico, it appears that a scapegoat has been identified in Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), who has led the Democratic National Committee since May 2011:

Gaffe-prone Hillary Clinton plans join Nancy Pelosi to raise money for House Democrats

Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will spend some time away from promoting her book, making hilarious gaffes, and earning $225,000 per speech to join House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to raise money for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC):

A Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee aide said the former secretary of State will join Pelosi in her home district this fall as part of Clinton’s midterm campaign tour. She’s also expected to headline fundraisers for the rest of the party’s major campaign committees, and will kick off her fall campaign schedule with an appearance at Sen. Tom Harkin’s (D-Iowa) annual steak fry next month.

DCCC Chairman Steve Israel (N.Y.) said Democrats are “thrilled and grateful” that Clinton plans to help the party as they fight to pick up seats in the House this fall.

“Secretary Clinton is an extraordinary force for our values and will relentlessly fight to jumpstart the middle class. We’re thrilled and grateful that she is lending her support to our shared goal of electing a Democratic House of Representatives that will put a stop to the endless cycle of dysfunction and shutdowns from this Republican Congress,” he said.

The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.