Hillary Clinton & the Media – Love-Hate Relationship – Would give anyone Pause to Seek Higher Office

Whether or not one is politically for or against Hillary Clinton’s policies, one has to admit that this particular woman has taken a beating from the press. Regardless of any changes in attitudes during the past 100 years towards women, the press, many of those members women themselves, berated Clinton for what she wore, her hairstyles, personal life, rather than report on her political life. This was especially true in 2008 when she won the popular vote in the primary, only to have it stripped away by her colleges in a super-majority vote at the Democrat Convention – giving all to one Barak Obama. It did not hurt Obama one bit that the press was more than devoted to the one-term state legislator, turned one-term Senator – they threw Hillary under the bus before it even arrived.

Therefore it is no startling revelation when Polticio runs a story on Hillary Clinton and her distaste for the “media” – quoting one associate: ““Look, she hates you. Period. That’s never going to change.”(Politico)

Herein lays the crux of the matter, anyone who is brave enough to enter the fray of national politics is either a quart short on reality or extremely dedicated – but of all the attributes and or less than desirable traits any one candidate may or may not have, the one thing is certain, the press, who has its own agenda, will lift them up or tear them down, depending on the movement and the talking points handed down by an editorial board.

Although one believes that Hillary Clinton would most likely be teaching at Harvard than running for the Office of the President again, it would mean to a woman who has devoted her life to that office, her husband, daughter and constituents, open for yet another shellacking by both the press, and this time an Obama weary nation who is looking for the next shiny new toy another term comes to mind – masochist. Seriously, hate is such a strong word, perhaps reasonable dislike of the entire bunch – right or left would be more appropriate to the situation.

Who is Elizabeth Warren – Former Republican turned Democrat?

Not knowing much about Elizabeth Warren, other than the fact that she was caught with her hand in the cookie jar, claiming a bit of Indian Heritage to qualify for a Harvard slot, and bested, on Obama’s coattails, one Scott Brown, not a great deal. For starters, one might associate the Jr. Senator from Massachusetts as being a rubber stamp for the Democrat Party, a lifelong Democrat, who frankly, would be another guaranteed vote for the Progressive left. However, a few recent articles, and not much research on a Tuesday morning revealed a bit more that just made Elizabeth Warren a lot more interesting. She is, based on the Democrat Party and its proclivity to come up with the next shiny new toy, projected to upend Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democrat primary, similar to the upending that Clinton sustained under Barack Obama. Warren is less known, and that unknown quantity can be remodeled, so to speak, to fit the “everybody” mold and then walk under the banner of the “First” right into the White House. The funny thing is, the Progressive left adores her, perhaps for her angst against big banks, and the legislation that allows them to run rampant, the brouhaha over high interest rates and student loans, and of course, the middle class, a group that is fast becoming extinct.

That said, she may just be one of those evolving politico’s who cannot quite find what’s right, or wrong, with a particular party, and has a bit of an independent streak. Here’s where that line of thought comes from:

Think Progresshas a piece in “Why Elizabeth Warren Left the GOP”, which was somewhat of an eye opener, and first thought was: Hillary Clinton, former Goldwater Girl (Goldwater – a Libertarian-Republican). The first note was about her GOP history, she was a registered Republican from 1991 through 1996, with no mention of previous party affiliation. Therefore, she was a registered Republican when the Clinton’s held the White House and the GOP both Chambers of the House – interesting schematic. She left due to what she perceived as a GOP affiliation with the big banks, but has since argued with the Obama administration as well. Think Progress.

In the same Think Progress article she refers to herself as an Independent, so one just had to look at the Congressional Record to see how well she played across the aisle.

Apparently, quite well, given the fact that on a quick review Warren sponsors and cosponsors, what appears to be equal amounts of legislation written by both Democrats and Republicans.

One has to be honest, if she was a free-market, Libertarian leaning Independent, she’d be perfect.

Of course, no-one is, and the obvious quick review does not answer questions on reliable voting with a certain party, or what ambitions Senator Warren holds regarding the 2016, that said, she is worth watching. It may be she sees the writing on the wall, and will wait until the following general election, but that’s and all this is speculation for the most part. As there is no mention of her party affiliation prior to 1991 (and she was of an age to vote, one would hazard a guess in the 1980’s), one might hold out hope that a pattern may develop – shopping parties like a thinking woman. If she were more “Liberty-minded”, and for the middle class, while hanging out with say, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul, alternately with Bernie Sanders and throw in a few Democrats, and be able to campaign on that – she would sail into the White House – no problems. Perhaps she should take another look at the upheaval in the GOP – should it change (historically) to a re-branded Liberty Party – it might be time for her to re-up. Just a thought.

Rand Paul and the Libertarian’s – What’s the appeal going into 2016? – Paul wins Maine Straw Poll

Rand Paul recently won the GOP Straw poll at the Maine GOP convention. (Politico). What that means in the most simple terms, is that the activist within the Maine GOP have a majority of Ron Paul supporters giving him both the college grassroots (where he has a good ground) to set up a solid shop for 2016 in the state. Right as of this morning, leading in hypothetical national polls is fine, but without ground troops; one might as well be throwing money into the wind when trying to put together a national campaign.

You need both –

Enter the “Wealthy” Libertarians as they would be dubbed by the New York Times:

“As he has risen in prominence as a Republican presidential contender, Mr. Paul is avidly courting a small but influential cluster of wealthy libertarians. His pursuit offers an intriguing window into an eclectic network of potential donors who have made fortunes in Silicon Valley start-ups and Wall Street hedge funds, a group that could form a vital donor base if he makes a bid for the Republican nomination. A tight-knit tribe of philanthropists and entrepreneurs, they have exerted enormous intellectual influence on conservative policy. But they have historically spent more on nonprofit groups and endowing college economics departments than they have on backing candidates.”

In other words, a Barry Goldwater, who ran as a Republican, and attracted college students and Middle America, including one young Hillary Rodham Clinton.(The Economist)

What is the appeal one might ask when one weighs the differences between the two major parties, and one individual who has a political ideology from a third party? The third party, Libertarians hold a variety of belief’s that appeal to both Conservatives as well as Liberals- they are, for the most part, anti-war, pro-woman’s rights, and complete fiscal conservatives –suggesting that without free-markets (Capitalism) one might as well pack it in. Smart spending versus Big Government wasteful spending has always been a bone of contention with the Libertarian. What Goldwater did not have was timing. Whereas Paul does – today’s millennial are disaffected and disappointed – there are fewer opportunities of the scale that would make younger people more independent and offer more mobility, rather than the current trend of living indefinitely with parents in order to pay off enormous student loans (that industry owned by the Federal Government as well), while finding temp work rather than a career for which they had prepared.

Therefore, as the timing is one which would welcome a state’s rights, free market thinker in the political arena, it may take some doing for the left (including the media) to scare the voter away from Senator Paul. Although odds are better than average that the Democrats will include a woman at the top of the ticket – the timing for that maybe off a bit. With a brand damaged by the Affordable Health Care act, among other lesser publicized “scandals” – the 2014 and 2016 elections will be held in the hands of Barack Obama, much in the same way as the 2006 and 2008 elections were credited to George W. Bush. (Note on that front, the RNC’s ability to front the weakest candidate possible in a given year where by any counts they should win handily, confounds logic. In the case of Bush, some blame has to be placed on the candidacy of John McCain, a Bob Dole for the present age. Romney is another RNC pick, and they are seriously dragging out the political dynasty of Bush once again, with Jeb. One can only hope that they play their cards correctly this time out and stay out of this General Election. It is time for a shift to Liberty minded “Jeffersonian Republicans” to take the reins. Paul is that person, it remains to be seen if his broad appeal to multiple factions opens the eyes of those in DC that cannot see beyond the beltway.