There was an uncomfortable moment during the post-Democrat presidential primary debate last week when FOX News’ Bret Baier asked Democrat National Committee (DNC) chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz whether the DNC would agree to have FOX News host one of the upcoming Democrat debates. Ms. Wasserman-Schultz declined to answer the question despite being asked multiple times.
There is a better chance that Ms. Wasserman-Schultz could become a runway model than there is that Democrat primary candidate Hillary Clinton (D) would ever agree to participate in a debate on FOX network using FOX News hosts and anchors – think Megyn Kelly, Bret Baier, and Chris Wallace. And make no mistake, Ms. Clinton is running the show. The DNC has been busily trying for several years to insure the coronation of Ms. Clinton as the Democrat nominee. So much so that they initially tamped down the number of debates to be aired and picked dates that would conflict with popular sporting and entertainment events such that few people would actually see any gaffes by Ms. Clinton.
So much so that they distrusted the Democrat electorate in the caucus and primary states to ensure that despite the popular vote, Ms. Clinton would win a majority of the delegates in each state. For instance, in the Iowa caucuses (or is it cauci – cockeyed), Ms. Clinton and her primary opponent Bernie Sanders (Socialist – VT) finished in a virtual tie in terms of votes cast – 49.9 to 49.6 percent and yet the caucus delegates were divided 23 for Ms. Clinton and 21 for Mr. Sanders, which is a distribution of 52 percent for Ms. Clinton and 48 percent for Mr. Sanders. But that isn’t the end of it. Under the DNC primary rules, every state has unelected “superdelegates, almost all whom are pledged to Ms. Clinton thus upending the popular vote and giving Ms. Clinton a runaway lead in Iowa. New Hampshire was the same. Mr. Sanders beat Ms. Clinton like a rented mule – by 20 percent. Yet when the superdelegates are included Mr. Sanders lost to Ms. Clinton by 15 to 13. Mr. Sanders got 60 percent of the popular vote to Ms. Clinton’s 40 percent and yet Ms. Clinton was awarded 54 percent of the delegates while Mr. Sanders got only 46 percent.
Laughably, Ms. Wasserman-Schultz defended the use of superdelegates by noting that the DNC did not want party leaders and officials to be able to interfere with grassroots activists during the primary contest. That Through the Looking Glass response suggests just the opposite of what is actually happening in the Democrat party where the party leadership is, in fact, lined up for Ms. Clinton and using its rules to thwart the grassroots activists and Mr. Sanders.
And that, quite frankly, is the reason that Ms. Clinton, using the DNC, will never appear for debate purposes on FOX News. Ms. Clinton will never appear in a forum that will ask the difficult questions about Benghazi (the questions that didn’t get asked by Congress because of the bizarre rules for questioning witnesses), about her illicit email account and servers, about the erased emails, about the relationship between her actions as Secretary of State and donations by multinational firms and foreign governments to her husband and to the Clinton Foundation, about the expenditures from the Clinton Foundation that were primarily for political purposes, about the missing files during her employment by the Whitewater Committee that prompted her firing, about the missing files from the Rose Law Firm on Whitewater, about the missing files from the IRS on Clinton’s “enemies list,” and about the missing files on Benghazi.
While the Republican presidential primary candidates have routinely appeared on television programs and debate stages hosted by some liberal media, Ms. Clinton and, therefore, the DNC have steadfastly refused to engage in interviews or debates hosted by FOX News. Some of the liberal outlets (think NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, and CNN) no longer even try to hide their disdain for anything conservative. The questioning in some instances was so loaded with innuendo, false accusations, and animus that the responding candidates had to point out all of the errors and biases of notables such as Jake Tapper, Dana Bash, and John Harwood before they could put the questions in perspective. And yet, despite the overwhelming liberal biases, the Republicans attended, and they will attend future debates sponsored by these same outlets.
In marked contrast, Ms. Clinton has appeared on exactly zero debates and/or interviews where she might be pressed for answers to the very questions that have given voters such a low approval rating for her and particularly her honesty. (It is insufficient to simply ask the broad question where Ms. Clinton is then allowed to parse and equivocate – rather it is the follow up “drill down” questions that are decisive.)
It has become popular amongst the political pundit class to suggest that they have underestimated Mr. Sanders. They haven’t at all. Should Mr. Sanders prevail against the stacked deck that Ms. Clinton and her allies who run the DNC have engineered and become the Democrat nominee, he will be buried deeper than Gov. Michael Dukakis (D-MA) (unless, of course, the Republicans nominate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) which will insure the election of the first Socialist president.) The fact of the matter is that these same political pundits have routinely overestimated the support and popularity of Ms. Clinton. It took only the Benghazi disaster and the destruction of 30,000 emails on a private server used for State Department business to remind voters of Ms. Clinton’s duplicity. It took only the disclosure of the fortune that she and former President Bill Clinton (nearly $200 Million) accumulated during her years as Secretary of State to remind voters that she is, and always has been, primarily a money grubber willing to use government to line her pockets. And when reminded, the voters seek an alternative, any alternative.
The latest Quinnipiac University polls show that 60 percent of American voters think that Ms. Clinton is untrustworthy, including 92 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of Independents, and 49 percent (a plurality) of women.
This carefully orchestrated Clinton campaign to rig the primary elections, avoid the tough interviews, and dissemble the truth leads to a simple truth. When Ms. Clinton says that it is a woman’s turn to be President, she really means that it is her turn and that women of character be damned. And that has become quite apparent – particularly to younger women.