In 1969, a young Hillary Rodham wrote a 92-page college thesis for Wellesley College about “community organizer” Saul Alinsky. If you recall, Saul Alinsky wrote the infamous book “Rules for Radicals.”
While the thesis was said to be critical of Alinsky’s methods, we have seen her use these methods time and again. She knows them inside and out.
And perhaps Hillary’s most important advisor is husband Bill. Together they put Bill in the White House.
While Hillary has proven a less than successful campaigner, having lost in the primary to Barrack Obama and in the general election to Donald Trump, Hillary’s mastery of political strategy is world class, and her ability to use tactics and dirty tricks are unmatched.
Could it be someone else? In short, no.
By process of elimination, let’s talk about the others who might be able to pull strings and execute strategy for the Democratic Party.
Barrack Obama? While Obama was always a relative neophyte in the political arena, having been elected President after having served only a partial term as a Senator, he had some seriously wicked advisors. Bill Ayers, the former terrorist, David Axelrod, Chief Campaign Strategist, and Rahm Emanuel.
But Obama’s reign is over. He has little to gain and much to lose by directly playing the dirty tricks that have been played on Trump since before his election. Could he be concerned that all of his legacy of accomplishments are being reversed? I’m doubting this because the dirty tricks started before it was apparent that Trump would even win, much less be so brutal in dismantling Obama’s work.
Nancy Pelosi? Pelosi has more experience in political maneuvering in Congress than anyone in history. Like her or hate her, she has earned her place as Speaker of the House. But Pelosi has never run a national campaign, and since her constituency is almost entirely Democratic, she has never had to face a hostile electorate. She doesn’t have the tactical experience to be the ring leader. Is she in contact with Hillary? Knowing Nancy, she may be aware of a plan, but I’m thinking she is not part of it, her responses have been too inconsistent and her timing off at times.
Adam Schiff/Jerry Nadler? They are certainly pawns, but they have not been players of the game long enough. They would not have been involved in the pre-election attacks, since EVERYONE thought Hillary would win.
Chairman of the DNC? Debbie Wasserman-Schultz left the DNC in disgrace after having been Hillary’s pawn, helping to rig the primaries in Hillary’s favor, Tom Perez was basically nobody before he took over the Chairmanship of the DNC. Neither are considered overly bright, overly ambitious, or overly treacherous on their own.
Could they be Random Targets of Opportunity? Could the Russia Investigation, the Ukraine Investigation and all of the sub-investigation have been just targets of opportunity? In a word, no. We know the fabled “dossier” was fake, and we have seen the transcript of the Ukraine conversation, nothing there, and so far no investigation has found any crimes. The origins are obviously crafted, not spontaneous.
Some strategies we keep seeing.
1. Accuse the other side of crimes you have already committed. This is an age old strategy. This was done over and over again.
– Trump was accused of collaborating with Russians to influence the election, but Hillary Clinton is the one whose campaigned commissioned a fake report from the Russians.
– Trump was accused of strong arming Ukraine for personal gain, but it was Joe Biden who is on video strong arming the Ukraine to protect his son.
– Trump was accused of hiding things in his tax returns, but Hillary is the one who deleted 30,000 emails to cover her tracks.
– Trump was accused of having financial connections to Russian since he had considered putting a Trump hotel in Moscow, but in the meantime, Hillary’s Clinton Foundation was accepting huge amounts of money from tyrant, criminals and terrorists around the world, to the tune of over a billion dollars.
2. Produce a single controversial accuser, let it ride for a bit, and then have other sources appear magically as a chorus for the nearly discredited first source (even though none have any more credibility than the first). This is an example of an old propaganda rule. If you have multiple credible sources saying the same thing, enough times people will start to believe any unlikely lie. But even with unknown credibility or even lousy credibility, a lie may be believed if it comes from multiple sources and is presented many times. But timing is everything. The second source must arise just when the first one is about to be discredited, it makes for a complete, if temporary, reversal in people’s minds. This was true in the Stormy Daniels attack, we saw this with the Brett Kavanaugh attack, we saw multiple instances in the Russia investigation, we have just seen a second “whistleblower” arise in the Ukraine investigation, with no more information than the first.
If any of you recall, this is a strategy used on Bill Clinton back in the ’90s. Once he was under investigation, women claiming to have been harmed by Bill came out of the woodwork. Do you have any doubt that Hillary would be intimately familiar with the method?
3. Play the race card. This may not be just Hillary, but as an opportune tactic, it has been effective in keeping the pressure on Trump. I recently re-read a Vox report on Donald Trump’s ‘racism.’ If you assume innocent until proven guilty, none of the documented statements or actions were racist. Some of the hearsay statements would be racist, if Trump had actually said them, but that’s (all together now…) hearsay.
4. The useful idiots. The Democrats have control of a great many news sources,including the NY Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Google and Facebook. With sympathies on her side, it is easy to keep a chorus of support behind you. And with that support (remember, multiple sources, multiple times, credible or not), comes voter support (at least in the moment, sometimes it does not last long enough – see Election 2016…). Hillary knows how to play them like a fiddle.
5. Pick any action, assign the most sinister motive you can think of. We see this all the time. Here are a few:
– Trump attempted to be low key on the North Carolina violence, saying both sides were at fault. He was crucified in the liberal media as racist.
– Trump spoke with the leader of Ukraine attempting to investigate a crime, is accused of quid pro quo for campaign favors.
– Anytime Trump resists the insane efforts by Congress to attack him, he is accused of being afraid, or of trying to cover up. The “obstruction” charges are in the dozens now.
– Instead of acknowledging that Trump may want some privacy with his tax returns, he is accused of hiding great crimes that MUST be uncovered.
– He pulled out of the Paris Accords, an agreement that even the authors agreed will not solve the Climate Change problem, and he is accused of being “anti-science.”
Some fun questions:
1. Did Hillary suffer a massive breakdown after the election? Is she now the Joker, plotting to take over America, vindicate her defeat and somehow destroy the part America that didn’t vote for her the first time???
2. Was Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, who texted Sondland with the suggestion there was a quid pro quo, prompted to do so by Hillary’s network? Is he witting or unwitting? Do the American people now all know the term ‘quid pro quo’?
3. Are the tyrants and criminals who contributed large amounts of cash to the Clinton Foundation putting pressure on her to make good on her promise for favors?
4. Will a Hillary nomination destroy the leftist socialist movement? We know Hillary is a dirty capitalist (perhaps the dirtiest…) and Bernie won’t be back after he drops out of this race.
5. Hillary’s network is vast, apparently including James Comey, a number of in place whisteblowers, the whistleblowers’ attorneys (with whom she apparently has a lot of history), several FBI agents and CIA officers, Brennan, Schiff, maybe Nadler, and extensive contacts in the liberal media. Is there one place where the network is delineated? Does she have another private email server she uses to communicate with the network? (That everyone in the world is tapping except us?)
6. What surprises does Hillary have for Trump? You know she has several, and they will be big. Will she uncover a Trump sex change or something??
7. How will Hillary take out Warren (Although it looks like Warren may take herself out)? Remember Warren has zero experience at this level, and she can’t do treachery. It should not be too hard.
8. Who else, besides Biden, does Hillary have dirt on? Maybe not Trump’s political appointees, but perhaps some second layer deep-staters. How about Pelosi? Any judges? Some Attorneys General in various states? Foreign leaders (remember she had access to CIA reports for 4 years!)?
9. How does Soros fit in? He and Hillary have had numerous talks about foreign policy and he has contributed millions to her campaigns. How close are they? Who is the ‘boss’ in the relationship? Who is calling the shots?