Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

Our Angel's Corner archive is here.

FEBRUARY 9,  2016

NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY –  It's over.  And the two big words to come out of New Hampshire are...South Carolina.

11:05 P.M. ET:  So Bernie bested Hillary by about 20 points in a state whose black population consists of Joe and Letitia.  His victory was expected, his margin impressive.  However, Bernie's acceptance speech was straight pie-in-the-sky socialism.  We're gonna do everything, and it won't cost you a dime.  I'm not sure America will buy that.  The Democratic and Republican primaries in the next big state – South Carolina – are on different days.  The Dems vote on February 27th.  That will be the big test, a diverse state.  I don't think anything will be truly proved until South Carolina votes.

On the GOP side, a similar deal.  Trump got 34% of the vote.  Impressive, but a candidate has to get 50% actually to win the nomination.  The anti-Trump vote is still divvied up.  The GOP votes in South Carolina on February 20th, 11 days from now.  Can Trump last, or will he run into trouble outside the North?  And who will drop out between now and then?  There seems no real reason for Carson, Fiorina or even Christie to stay in.  Although Kasich came in second in New Hampshire tonight, he got only half of Trump's vote and his finances are reportedly not great.  I can't see him carrying much momentum into South Carolina.  Rubio, Cruz and Bush reportedly have good ground operations in that state.

Again, nothing will be proved until South Carolina.   

We welcome reader comments on the primary, and the election campaign, for our Angel's Corner tomorrow night.

NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY – There'll be no "Short Takes" tonight, as we're following the results of the New Hampshire primary. 

8:53 P.M. ET:  It's clear that the polling predictions were right as to the winners.  Donald Trump will win the Republican primary by an impressive amount.  Bernie Sanders will win the Democratic primary with strong numbers.

John Kasich will come in second for the GOP.  Third place will be fought for, if you can believe it.  The contenders are Cruz, Bush, and Rubio.

Clearly, Rubio's performance is a big disappointment.   He expected, and the GOP establishment expected, that he'd come out of New Hampshire with an impressive second-place finish, putting him in position to be the "establishment" challenger to Donald Trump.  That did not happen.  But let's not over-interpret.  The primaries move south and then move national, and New Hampshire is not a typical state.

Bernie's expected victory may or may not set him up well.  The next big state for the Dems is South Carolina, with a substantial black vote.  African-Americans have been loyal to Hillary Clinton.  If that loyalty can be broken by Sanders, Hillary is in deep trouble.  If she holds, Sanders may start to weaken.

Lots of speculation.  Please remember that.

Stand by for more.

WANTED TO BE SURE YOU KNEW – AT 4:31 P.M. ET:   It's now official.  Hillary Clinton is under formal investigation by the FBI.  Up to now the Obama administrations Ministry of Explanations and Blurry Words argued that the FBI was looking into some wires, or a modem, or something plugged into a circuit breaker, or somethin'.   Not anymore.  From, of all places, MSNBC:   

In a letter disclosed Monday in a federal court filing, the FBI confirms one of the world’s worst-kept secrets: It is looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

Why say this at all, since it was widely known to be true? Because in August in response to a judge’s direction, the State Department asked the FBI for information about what it was up to. Sorry, the FBI said at the time, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any investigation.

Now, in a letter dated February 2 and filed in court Monday, the FBI’s general counsel, James Baker, notes that in public statements and congressional testimony, the FBI “has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.”

Baker says the FBI has not, however, “publicly acknowledged the specific focus, scope or potential targets of any such proceedings.”

He ends the one-paragraph letter by saying that the FBI cannot say more “without adversely affecting on-going law enforcement efforts.”

The letter was filed in one of the Freedom of Information Act cases brought against the State Department over access to documents from Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state. This one was filed by Judicial Watch.

COMMENT:  The FBI is being very correct.  It's a serious agency and they know how serious the matter is.  It involves a potential president.  They want to get this exactly right.

February 9, 2016       Permalink

HILLARY'S FIGHT FOR SURVIVAL – AT 10:22 A.M. ET:   Hillary will probably be defeated in New Hampshire today by Bernie Sanders.  She is now in a fight for political survival, but some Democrats worry over the tactics she's chosen.  From The Hill: 

Hillary Clinton’s White House campaign is going negative against her left-wing rival Bernie Sanders — and a lot of unaligned Democrats think that’s a bad idea.

Her husband, former President Clinton, is leading the charge, hitting Sanders supporters as sexist on Sunday while accusing the Vermont senator of muddying facts.

The attacks come as Hillary Clinton faces a defeat — perhaps a heavy one — in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, according to opinion polls.
Clinton barely defeated Sanders in last week’s Iowa caucuses, and Monday brought rumblings of a possible staff shake-up.

The shift by the Clinton team to a more aggressive footing evoked memories for some of her 2008 campaign against Barack Obama, when Bill Clinton and other surrogates mounted attacks that were widely seen as counter-productive.

Clinton supporters worry that history might be repeating itself, and that the former president’s attacks could boomerang on his wife by turning off large swathes of the Democratic electorate.

And...

Iowa gave added sharpness to the 42nd president’s existing frustrations.

“He’s had enough of this,” one supporter said.

All the same, even some Clintonites have found his tone perplexing.

“It doesn’t feel strategic. It feels reactionary,” another ally said. “Angry Bill is kind of fun but when he’s looking older and older, not so much. I don’t understand it. In the end, show me anyone who believes [Sanders] gets the nomination, so why not keep his supporters happy for the general?”

Another former aide who worked for Clinton during her 2008 bid said Bill Clinton “should have let others be the attack dog while he promotes Hillary.”

COMMENT:  I think the critics are right.  The Clintons come off as a wealthy corporation being pushed aside by a scrappy start-up. 

But it's also true that, thanks in some measure to Barack Obama, the Democratic Party has veered far to the left, and that just isn't where the Clintons are.

February 9, 2016       Permalink

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM – AT 8:56 A.M. ET:  It's been rumored for some time that former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg might run for president.  Now Bloomberg has publicly confirmed that he might indeed. 

This story is very important.  Third-party or independent candidates can shake up a race, or even determine it, by taking votes away from one of the major-party candidates.  In 1992 Ross Perot did exactly that when he got 19% of the vote, most of it coming from President H.W. Bush.  This allowed Bill Clinton to become president with only 43% of the popular vote.

From CNN:

(CNN) Michael Bloomberg says he is considering running for president of the United States, a move that would dramatically shake up an already chaotic 2016 race.

In an interview with Financial Times, the media mogul and former New York City mayor said he was "looking at all the options" when asked about a possible bid.

"I'm listening to what candidates are saying and what the primary voters appear to be doing," Bloomberg said, adding that he would need to add his name on ballots by early March in order to stage a serious campaign.

The billionaire also issued his most damning indictment of the current campaigns to date.

"I find the level of discourse and discussion distressingly banal and an outrage and an insult to the voters," Bloomberg told the Financial Times, adding that the public deserved "a lot better."

Bloomberg's interview, which marks the first time the billionaire has confirmed that he is eyeing a presidential bid, took place in London and focused primarily on financial sustainability, a source with knowledge of the interview told CNN.

It wasn't until the end of the interview that the reporter, Oliver Ralph, asked the former mayor if he was considering running for president.

"What Bloomberg told (the Financial Times) is what he's been saying privately for weeks," the source said.

The New York Times reported last month that he was considering a plan to run as an independent because he was troubled by Donald Trump's success on the Republican side, and Hillary Clinton's inability to stanch Bernie Sanders' growth on the Democratic side.

COMMENT:  The key point here:  Bloomberg, a multi-billionaire, could finance his own campaign.  No need to go on a fundraising tour.

Also, he's been mayor of New York, often called "the second toughest job in America."  He was a solid, if unexciting mayor.  He comes off as a decent, well-behaved man.

Could he actually win a presidential election?  Look, you never know.  Ross Perot was a terrible candidate, an eccentric who never really could explain what he'd do as president.  Bloomberg would be much better, but he has some policy positions that would be serious problems.  First, he's a passionate advocate of gun control.  Second, he had a kind of nanny-state approach to governing New York City, going on campaigns to bar oversized soft drinks, for example.  Third, he's a New Yorker, and there are still some in the country who have a prejudiced view of New York. 

Bloomberg would need at least a third of the popular vote to win.  But we decide our presidents by electoral vote, and I wonder how many states he could carry.  You may be certain he's polling on that right now.

Pundits point out that most Americans know little, if anything, about Bloomberg.  But his campaign's vast financial resources could flood the airways with getting-to-know-him ads.

Win?  No one can predict.  But shake up the race?  Definitely.  And the excitement factor would grow. 

February 9, 2016       Permalink   

NATIONAL POLL ON PRIMARY DAY – AT 8:21 A.M. ET:  We'll find out within hours who'll win the New Hampshire primary, but what about the national standing of the candidates?  From The Hill:

Donald Trump has a sizable national lead over other Republican White House hopefuls the day of New Hampshire’s GOP presidential primary, according to a new weekly tracking poll.

Trump commands a 15-point edge over his nearest competition in the NBC News/Survey Monkey poll released Tuesday.

He receives 35 percent, topping Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at 20 percent and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) at 17 percent.

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson is fourth with 7 percent, while a three-way tie exists for fifth place nationwide.

Former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.) is deadlocked with Govs. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) and John Kasich (R-Ohio) at 3 percent apiece. Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina rounds out the GOP field with 2 percent of her own.

Tuesday’s results, however, also found less confidence that Trump will win the Republican nomination.

About 42 percent believe he will take that honor, pollsters found, but that result is down 20 points from last week.

COMMENT:  On the Democratic side, Hillary leads Bernie 51-39 percent.  Both candidates on the Democratic side have remained relatively steady for the last month, at least in this poll.  Other polls show Sanders almost even with Hillary.

National polls are interesting snapshots, but only that.  We are in the nomination phase of the presidential election, and it's the state polls that may have some meaning.  But again, they're only interesting, and entertaining.  Don't take them to the bank.

February 9,  2016     Permalink

FEBRUARY 8,  2016

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:56 P.M. ET:

CREDIT WHERE IT'S DUE – As regular readers know, I am no fan of current popular culture, especially the music scene.  We used to have Kern, Berlin, Gershwin, Rodgers, and Cole Porter.  Now we have "singer songwriters."  We used to have Ella Fitzgerald and Frank Sinatra.  Now we have...I can't recall them, but they dress funny.  And so it was with a great sense of relief, surprise, and delight, that I watched and listened to Lady Gaga's rendition of the national anthem before yesterday's Super Bowl game.  Here is a woman who built her reputation on garish costumes and questionable taste.  But along the way there were many streaks of true musicality.  Her rendition of the anthem was strong, tasteful, respectful, and heartfelt.  She did a fine job, and has won praise across the internet.  So congratulations Lady Gaga.  You're a solid singer after all.

GOOD GOOGLE MOVE – From Fox:   Last week, Anthony House, the senior manager for public policy and communications at Google, revealed plans to show users anti-radicalization links in response to terrorism-related searches. The plan was outlined before a committee of the British parliament dedicated to counter-terrorism.  The program is still in its pilot stages, but House is hopeful that this new plan may provide a clever tool that protects the freedom of the Internet while protecting the livelihoods of the world's citizens. "We should get the bad stuff down, but it's also extremely important that people are able to find good information, that when people are feeling isolated, that when they go online, they find a community of hope, not a community of harm," said the Google manager.  Well said.  I hope they have the courage to see it through, because they'll get plenty of opposition from the professional multiculturalists.

MAJOR EDUCATION NEWS – From the Daily Caller:   In just the latest instance of taxpayer-funded censorship, students in one University of Florida course have been banned from using words such as “husband,” “wife,” “mom,” or dad” in the classroom and risk losing points off their grade if they don’t comply.  In the syllabus for her “Creativity In Context” class — a required course for any student pursuing a minor in Innovation — UF professor Jennifer Lee informs students of her four paragraph long classroom “communications policy” that she says will enforce “ethical conduct” in the classroom.  “The following policies and guidelines will be followed in this course,” the policy begins, followed by a bullet point instructing students to “Use inclusive language.” The policy mandates that students “[s]peak in a way that does not make assumptions about others based on “norms”, stereotypes, or one’s own identity or experience.”  The syllabus explains that this means replacing the words “boyfriend”/”girlfriend” with the more inclusive “partner” or “significant other.” The rule applies to conversations about married couples too: saying “husband” or “wife” is forbidden. Even the words “mom” and “dad” have a more “inclusive” alternative — students are told to use the word ‘family” instead.  Will some courageous members of the Florida legislature please stand up and suggest cutting off funds to the University of Florida unless this nonsense is stopped.

February 8, 2016      Permalink

FACING THE TRUTH – AT 10:25 A.M. ET:  Field Marshal Obama assures us that ISIS is on the run, and that he has a plan to destroy it.  But even David Ignatius of the Washington Post, someone friendly to the administration, can't accept that.  ISIS, is in fact, getting stronger.   From WaPo: 

Republican and Democratic presidential candidates should be able to agree on one stark foreign policy reality: The tide hasn’t turned in the war against the Islamic State. In the 18 months that the United States has been working to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the group, it has grown to become a global force that can strike targets in Europe, Asia, Africa and America.

The self-declared “caliphate” that in June 2014 was localized in Iraq and Syria now has nearly 50 affiliates or supporting groups in 21 countries. It has declared 33 “official provinces” in 11 of those countries.

Though it has lost about 25 percent of the territory it held at its peak in Iraq and Syria, it has meanwhile established an international presence, on the ground and in cyberspace.

“Follow ISIS and you will see the huge momentum that the group has harnessed across the globe,” says Rita Katz, co-founder of the SITE Intelligence Group, using a common shorthand for the Islamic State. “The government’s first step in fighting ISIS must be to stop dismissively characterizing the jihadists as a mere gang of guys in pickup trucks. It should be called what it is: a threat to global security.”  (Editor's note:  Rita Katz is not related to the editor of Urgent Agenda.)

And...

What seems to engage Obama most is countering the jihadists’ narrative that this is a war between Islam and the West. He made an eloquent presentation of his case for tolerance in a speech this week at a mosque in suburban Baltimore. But there’s little evidence that this message of outreach to Muslims is checking the Islamic State’s growth.

COMMENT:  I agree with Marco Rubio that Obama knows exactly what he is doing.  ISIS is a pesty distraction to him.  His main goal is to enhance the standing of Islam in its relations with the West.  Witness his appeasement of Iran.  The next president, and the next president's forces, will have to deal with ISIS.  Obama will just go into presidential retirement claiming he ended two wars, which he didn't.

February 8, 2016       Permalink 

THE INEVITABLE – AT 9:56 A.M. ET:  There is growing heat on Attorney-General Loretta Lynch to remove herself from the FBI investigation into Hillary's e-mails.  Entirely reasonable.  From The Hill: 

Loretta Lynch is on the edge of the spotlight, about to be dragged to the center.

If the FBI finds sufficient evidence to launch a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton or one of her top aides for mishandling classified information, Lynch’s Justice Department will have to decide whether or not to press ahead.

Even if no evidence of wrongdoing is found, Clinton’s many critics are unlikely to take the word of an appointee of President Obama’s, and will doubt that justice has been served.

Already, top Republicans are calling for a special prosecutor to be brought in and evaluate the situation.

No. 2 Senate Republican John Cornyn (Texas) took to the floor of the Senate last week to call for a special counsel to be appointed “because of the conflict of interest by asking Attorney General Lynch to investigate and perhaps even prosecute somebody in the Obama administration.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) agrees that Lynch ought to consider a special counsel, a spokesperson said, to reassure the country that decisions are made “without regard to any political considerations.”

The Justice Department, however, has so far declined the request.

“This matter is being reviewed by career attorneys and investigators and does not meet the criteria for the appointment of a special prosecutor,” department spokeswoman Melanie Newman said in a statement.

COMMENT:  The Justice Department statement doesn't pass the common-sense test.  Everyone knows that decisions on whether to prosecute Hillary will be made at the top, not by "career attorneys and investigators." 

There have been stories in the last few days asserting that the Obamans are becoming concerned that they could beome embroiled in a Hillary scandal.  The White House, after all, has been defending Clinton.  Maybe Obama wants to protect his former secretary of state...until he throws her under the bus and brings Joe Biden in from the bullpen.  But if Hillary proves tainted, there'll be questions about those who worked with her at the highest levels. 

A special prosecutor would seem, on the surface, to be a sound and fair idea.  Problem is, appointment of one could delay the investigation, and possibly push it past the election.  How do you indict a president-elect?

February 8, 2016       Permalink

NEW HAMPSHIRE – LATEST POLL – AT 9:31 A.M. ET:  The latest tracker shows it's still Sanders for the Dems, Trump for the GOP.  There does not appear to be any last-minute surge by anyone else.  From WHDH, Manchester: 

Bernie Sanders is now beating Hillary Clinton by 16 points- 56% to 40%, after he lost a point overnight, and she kept what she had.

Undecided is up to 4%, an increase of two points since yesterday.

The tracking poll shows Sanders is too far ahead of Clinton for her to catch him by Tuesday.

All she can do now is try to cut the margin her loss..

But the Republican race is more complicated, and the outcome is a mystery.

Donald Trump stays in the top spot, with 34%, after dropping two points overnight..

Then, a tie for second--at 13%--after Marco Rubio lost a point, and there was no change in Ted Cruz's support.

John Kasich and Jeb Bush also are now tied, at 10%. Kasich gained one point...While Bush held steady.

COMMENT:  We'll know the exact figures tomorrow night.  Reporting should be quick and efficient.  It's a small state, and people vote with ballots.  No caucuses.

Oh, by the way, does anyone remember Iowa?  Wasn't there some kind of primary, or caucus, or something there last week?  It's always the same with these early primaries.  There's a big buildup, some interest in the results, and then the campaigns shift somewhere else.

Wednesday the campaigns move south, to South Carolina.  Hillary Clinton hopes to win there, and possibly win big, because of the large minority vote.  And, on the GOP side, the key question is whether brassy New Yorker Donald Trump will play well with a very different political culture.

February 8,  2016     Permalink