2016 – Hillary Clinton and the Path to the White House, Paved with Dreams of PAC’s and Impossibilities

1st term Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren - What are the Odds? - image from fanpop.com

In the hoopla leading up to 2008, Hillary Clinton was seen as the predominant front-runner for the Presidency - one could hear only accolades from the left, and derision from the right regarding the former First Lady – New York State Senator. The theme was “inevitable” – until one Barack Obama came out of the blue, and the Democrats found they had a division in their party – those centric Democrats who felt comfortable with the Hillary Clinton, and those Progressive Democrats who wanted more spreading of the wealth, so to speak. The rest, as they say, is history.

Fast forward eight years, and the season of Presidential candidates is once again, beginning. According to the logic of Washington politics within the major parties, the nod, or nomination, normally goes to one of the political class who was an “also-ran” – as if that individual had to wait a turn to become the top candidate. The Republican’s featured John McCain, who ran against George W. Bush, in the 2000 campaign, as the top dog in the 2008 campaign, and in 2012, Mitt Romney (who ran in 2008), got “his turn”. The Democrats varied from this theme in 2008, but, again, there were the growing divisions in the party as to the Progressives and the Moderates (which in the grander scheme of things are more modern-day Republicans.)

Today, Hillary Clinton is target number one, the anointed predecessor to President Obama, the war of words is on – from the right, and the left. The right (or the RNC) is complaining, loudly and in video, about two major networks who are making “Hillary Clinton films”, prior to the 2016 elections (Bloomberg), and the New York Times ran a surprising piece regarding “unease at Clinton Foundation or Finances and Ambitions” delving into the mix of politics and philanthropy. What one has yet to hear, but should any day, is the obvious fashion critique of the not-yet announced candidate Clinton.

Howe ever, it may be fair to point out that the schematics of both parties have changed radically over the past ten years, and it is in no way a given that Hillary Clinton will be the candidate of choice. It is a better bet that someone who is more in the line of the Occupy Wall Street ideology will emerge as the token woman – thinks new MA Senator, Elizabeth Warren.

On the right, the also rans from 2012 should be the focus, as the Republican Party is less likely to break the mold, rather preferring to go down in flames rather than accept what might be considered a strong candidate. In Iowa, one finds Rand Paul, and the second place 2012 primary opponent, Rick Santorum. Santorum is more in the mold of the standard Republican, although he does go right of center with his Catholicism, and would, under no circumstances make for a solid national candidate. Yet, there is a nagging persistence, looking at the field that also includes Rick Perry, (another candidate that, love him or hate him, will not fly out of Texas), and God forbid, New Gingrich – there’s little to write home about. There has also been speculation that a Bush, as in Jeb, may enter the fray – back to the political dynasty that would have, decades ago, been acceptable.

Not unlike the split within the Democrat Party, there is also a split between the Republican standard GOP and those fiscal conservatives, either Tea Party or Libertarian that have risen prominently in the past few years. Ted Cruz comes to mind, which may be why the sudden interest in his eligibility to run for President in the first place (See Ted Cruz Speculation on 2016). One might wonder why that all matters, when in the grander scheme of things, Hillary Clinton is the anointed one?

Not having the proverbial crystal ball, one might be safer suggesting that the individuals who will run, may include the aforementioned, yet, there are those who are sitting quietly with advisors, and financiers, contemplating the logistics of a run for the U.S. Presidency, and those on the right and the left have no idea of who “they” might be.

The biggest question one should be asking – who in their right mind would want the job in the first place? The national debt is out of control, foreign policy is a minefield, and the ratio of those on the dole versus those who are employed is somewhat blurred. The entire nation needs a “revival”, fiscally, educationally, and yes, morally – (as in how much waste and fraud can what is left of the working class be acceptable?) – Who’s up to the task of fixing the nation? That’s the first question; the second question is who are the major parties going to allow to be President. – That’s the question that has yet to be answered.

Listening to a pundit suggest that the White House is the key to all power, one might suggest that control of the Senate and the Congress would be more important, where there is more of an opportunity to employ a real public servant, one with no dynastic ties, or family who profits from K-Street.

As to Hillary the odds are tenuous at best.

See, Huffington Post - Elizabeth Warren Vs. Hillary Clinton

Ted Cruz Speculation on 2016 – Bonus – Meets with Evangelical’s – GOP Pay Attention

Photo from PBS.org article here

Ted Cruz was recently in Iowa where he met with a crowd of 1000 evangelical leaders, according to the Texas Tribune. The fact that he also had spent time in with another group of conservative pastors in Iowa speaks volumes; (Texas Tribune) especially is he had been accepted.

Should Cruz end up in Colorado – where the power lays – meeting with 30 to 50 of those influential pastors, the GOP should get out o f the way of what one might call “destiny” – Whoever is able to motivate that particular group, which would hand them enough voters in any given election to upend whoever the opposition might run – is historical (See 2004 election (Kerry & Bush). The fact that there are millions who sit out and do not vote (See Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota, etc.), while the opposition pushes votes into the urban center – 200,000 here, 500,000 there, the opposition party easily wins.

It may not be Cruz, it may be another, but whoever it is, stop bucking those crazy evangelicals for the good of the nation and understand that they hold the key to winning elections.

They sat out the 2008 election, and they sat out the 2012 election – everyone with a pulse understands what the consequences are in that respect. Call me crazy, and there may be some validity there, however, it does merit a bit of “investigation” as to why votes are available in the millions yet, the candidate barely has a pulse nearing the finish line? One might have heard - perhaps not - the Evangelicals who felt that Mormonism is a Cult, and could not, would not, in all conscious pull the trigger, amounted to a 20,000,000 deficit in votes – one might suggest that’s worth paying attention to whom the church leaders are enamored of.

Just as a reminder, view the video below – if one thinks it’s not worth paying attention to, even after the facts.

Focus on the Family – with Sean Hannity



Although the good Dr. was speaking for himself – he went on to describe a scenario where there was no one that would be acceptable and that the rise of a progressive would help the country in the long run, as people would be desperate enough to vote for the “right”candidate. Mind boggling, but after 2012 it surely explains a great deal.

Trump Questions Cruz's Eligibility to Run for President - Is Cruz Eligible?

From The Digital Journal:

Real estate mogul and former Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump appeared to be gearing up for 2016, suggesting Senator Ted Cruz's Canadian birth would make him ineligible for the White House.

Getting ahead of the 2016 presidential election season, Donald Trump has again expressed his concerns about the birth origin of presidential contenders, airing his positions on Senator Ted Cruz's Canadian origins on ABC's "This Week."

Asked if Senator Cruz was a viable candidate for the White House, Trump readily shared his opinion. “If he was born in Canada, perhaps not,” Trump said. “I don’t know the circumstances. I heard somebody told me he was born in Canada. That’s really his thing."

Apparently , Trump is busy sowing the seeds of doubt, as any serious consideration of a Presidential run was lost in the 2012 election for those in both political spectrums who were “also rans” should understand that nothing short of a miracle would transform them into Presidential Candidacy material a second time.

Cruz, who was, indeed, born in Canada, was there with his American Mother: from The Washington Post:

Cruz was born Rafael Cruz in Canada, where his Cuban father and Irish-American mother had moved for the 1960s oil boom. They had met at an oil exploration business in Texas.

As a teenager, his father fought for Fidel Castro against Fulgencio Batista. “They didn’t know Castro was a Communist, what they knew was that Batista was a cruel and oppressive dictator,” Cruz said earlier this year.

After being imprisoned and tortured by the Batista regime, the elder Rafael Cruz came to America on a student visa with nothing but $100 sewn into his underwear. He made his way through the University of Texas by washing dishes.

Eleanor Darragh, Cruz’s mother, was a working-class Delaware native who studied math at Rice University. Cruz once told a tea party group that his mother refused to learn how to type, so that when men asked her to type things up for her she could say, “I would love to help you out, but I don’t know how to type. I guess you’re going to have to use me as a computer programmer instead.”

Cruz was raised in Houston (all he remembers about Canada: “It was cold.”) In high school he was part of a group sponsored by the Free Enterprise Institute that learned the Constitution by heart and traveled the state giving speeches on conservative ideas.

Read balance of article here at the Washington Post

There have been questions raised about the eligibility of those who would consider a run for President as recently as 2008, with Trump being the most vocal about President Obama’s origins. (Not that Cruz has even hinted that he would run, being in Iowa, is always considered a big clue, yet determines very little in the grander scheme of things.)

Suffice it to say, that the Senator, who has a long pedigree vis a vis the Constitution, would know whether or not he, indeed, met eligibility requirements.

Recall the questions regarding John McCain’s eligibility for the Presidency – he was born in Panama, to American parents – which, trumps – Trump(New York Times)

Print or Online – Most not reading the news – Cites Gallup 6% get news from Print.

Reading Proficiency Scores from National Center for Education - Read them and weep.

From CNBC an article titled “Newspaper bane: Nobody reads the stories”, speaks to the problems facing newspapers today – lack of readership in the most realistic terms. The article cites the Gallup Poll’s confidence in institutions polls, where only 1 in 4 American’s trust newspapers(CNBC) However, one might also point out that few trust broadcast news, which is actually now tied with lack of trust (Gallup).

What the article does speak to, rather than the fact that No one is reading a newspaper, is the fact that few are reading CNBC’s web articles – past the 3rd paragraph – and mention the process of skimming, rather than reading. Perhaps what might be the problem is the lack of reading skills nationwide due to the amazing public schools system – the majority of students in grades 4 to 8 are at below proficient or basic reading skills, with few at advanced according to the National Center for Education Statistics. When one understands that 79% of the 8th graders in Chicago Public School Systems cannot read, (CNS News), the writing is one the wall, so to speak, as to why newspapers, or any printed material, online or otherwise, is getting a pass by most American’s.

As Broadcast and Prints speak to the development of the “low information voter” – it may behoove them to investigate why the public schools systems are so staggeringly lacking in the ability to teach students the basics of reading. Perhaps it is not the internet so much, but the fact that individuals cannot read proficiently. If one is looking to parents to read to their children, perhaps one might want to consider that the young parents are also lacking reading proficiency. The downturn in American Education and student performance began in the 1970’s – the first scores that were found to be underperforming and the decline of American’s education dominance globally.

Also consider, audio books, cliff notes, and all that jazz.