March 14, 2016

Hillary said she's "receiving messages" from foreign leaders asking "if they can endorse me to stop Donald Trump."

Do Americans want the foreign-endorsed candidate? We're seeing Trump tarred as xenophobic, and meanwhile Hillary touts herself as the choice of foreign leaders. This deserves a closer look, and I expect some lampooning from Trump.

At last night's CNN town hall in Columbus, Ohio, Hillary Clinton got a question from Amit Majmudar, a radiologist and — Jake Tapper called this "trivia" — the poet laureate of Ohio. (Majmudar referred to the minority status of his religion, but didn't say what religion it was. The answer is Hindu. He's got a book of poems called "Dothead." That has a poem that refers to "my dark unshaven brothers / whose names overlap with the crazies and God fiends.")

Majmudar had already asked Bernie Sanders a question. He'd said Donald Trump had started to make him and his family "a little uncomfortable here, and frankly, a little bit scared." His question, to both candidates was: Which one of you has a better chance to defeat Trump? Sanders said that the polls show him beating Trump by a wider margin than Hillary and that Democrats win when turnout is high and he's the one who's exciting and energizing the crowds. Presenting himself as the one who'd be good at exposing Trump, Sanders misspoke ludicrously:
This is a guy who goes on Republican T.V. debate and says wages in America are too low. Tell that to the people in Ohio that wages are too low. 
Oh, Bernie.

When Majmudar posed the same question to Hillary, she referred to all the votes she's gotten so far in the primary (more than anyone else), the "broad-based, inclusive" nature of her campaign, and how tough and ready she is to fight. She says she's got "a lot of arguments" she's going to be able to make against Trump but she's "not going to spill the beans right now" about what they are. Then she says:
But, one argument that I am uniquely qualified to bring, because of my service as Secretary of State is what his presidency would mean to our country and our standing in the world. I am already receiving messages from leaders — I'm having foreign leaders ask if they can endorse me to stop Donald Trump. I mean, this is up to Americans, thank you very much, but I get what you're saying.
So... it's "up to Americans," but Americans might prefer her because foreign leaders say they prefer her? Why do foreign leaders prefer her and not Bernie? I get that they are opposed to Donald Trump (and suspect Donald Trump counts that in his favor). But the question is why Hillary over Bernie? It seems that she's just enthused about this support from foreign leaders and wanted to clue us in about it. But why? Why does she think we'd be impressed and why are they supporting her? Who is supporting her?

Jake Tapper asks: "And can you tell to tell us who?"

She doesn't reveal who's been speaking to her behind the scenes, offering support. She just says: "Well, some have done it publicly, actually. The Italian Prime Minister, for example."

Tapper aptly pushes: "How about the ones that have done it privately?"

She says "No, Jake," and the audience laughs. She adds: "We're holding that in reserve too."

How can you refer to it and then hold it in reserve? Who are these people? Why are they supporting her?

She keeps talking, changing the subject — "But, I - you know, lots of times foreign policy doesn't play as big a role as I think it should, you know? The wonderful question that the woman asked me before...." — and blabbering up to the commercial break.

IN THE COMMENTS: Balfegor said:
Well, there's a not insubstantial segment of the American public today who believe that "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" requires that we follow their opinions, rather than that we merely explain why we're conspicuously not doing so, like in 1776.

82 comments:

tim in vermont said...

I guess Europe is so happy with the flood of refugees unleashed from her bad policies that they want more of it, good and hard.

Donald Trump couldn't have ordered up a better ad: "They don't want to negotiate with me!"

damikesc said...

I wonder if those names are in her private server...

Hillary doesn't seem to notice that the European governments, just as the government here, are ignoring their citizenry. Their citizens might prefer Trump.

fivewheels said...

"We'll be beloved around the world if I'm elected! In fact, all of our enemies say they hope I'll be president!"

tim in vermont said...

A thousand sexual assaults and rapes in a single train station on a single evening in Cologne by "migrants' which the European press suppressed until the numbers of victims became unmanageable. How much longer will the American press ignore them?

tim in vermont said...

She can assure them that she will be much more flexible after the election.

MaxedOutMama said...

This election is designed to leave us without heroes. I was holding Sanders in reserve as an "Anti" candidate, but the more he starts misrepresenting truth like he did here, the more worried I get about him.

I can accept the bad math, but here he's either lying or senile. Neither makes me feel that supporting him is the best option.

BDNYC said...

Maybe Guccifer can tell us who they are.

TheThinMan said...

In the 2004 election, Kerry said the exact same thing. Doesn't anyone remember that? Then Bush and others raked him over the coals with that statement and Kerry kind of walked it back then never brought it up again. Inspite of all her highly paid consultants, Hillary just made the same blunder. Will Sanders be able to make the ju jitsu move first or is he too much of the same mindset?

Drago said...

This is the woman that Chuck, "lifelong republican" refuses to criticize.

You know, exactly like every other "lifelong republican".

'cuz Trump.

Uh huh.

Brando said...

She's a lot like Trump in that way--referring to anonymous people who plainly don't exist. The election will be a Lie-a-thon like we've never seen.

Bernie is really the Democrats' best bet in the general election. Train wreck that Trump is, Hillary might be the one person who could lose to him.

Brando said...

"This is the woman that Chuck, "lifelong republican" refuses to criticize."

Chuck doesn't strike me as a Clinton fan.

As for the "foreign leaders want me to win" card, I can't imagine who that appeals to. In reality, a president needs good relations with our allies, but no voter likes the idea that our presidents need the approval of foreigners. Yet another sign of Hillary's political obtuseness.

Curious George said...

"TheThinMan said...
In the 2004 election, Kerry said the exact same thing. Doesn't anyone remember that? Then Bush and others raked him over the coals with that statement and Kerry kind of walked it back then never brought it up again. Inspite of all her highly paid consultants, Hillary just made the same blunder. Will Sanders be able to make the ju jitsu move first or is he too much of the same mindset?

"Incorrect. This only proves that Bernie's successes have her shitting in her granny panties. Having other countries love her is a feature, not a bug, to lefties. This was no blunder, it was intentional. Her tune will need to change in the general, but she has to make the general first.

tim in vermont said...

My favorite "lifelong Republicans" are the ones who get mad when you refer to the Democrats as the Democrat Party.

Balfegor said...

Well, there's a not insubstantial segment of the American public today who believe that "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" requires that we follow their opinions, rather than that we merely explain why we're conspicuously not doing so, like in 1776.

Hagar said...

What "Europeans" know about American politics is what they get from the European MSM. Go to The Daily Mail.com to see what that is like.

Plus, Europe is a different world. If we don't understand what the hell is going on around here, imagine what it must look like to someone not born and raised here. And that is in normal times, never mind this cycle.

MaxedOutMama said...

And Hillary is becoming reminiscent of Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam War.

Oh, well. Perhaps Nixon is the real father of her political career, her guiding light.

Paco Wové said...

"This election is designed to leave us without heroes."

This past weekend saw me put Cruz and Sanders in the "no way in Hell" category, where Hillary! and Rubio already sit.

tim in vermont said...

Oh, well. Perhaps Nixon is the real father of her political career, her guiding light.

Exactly! He would have gotten away with it if he had kept those tapes in such a way as he could delete whatever he wanted with no-one being the wiser, say on a private server!

Oso Negro said...

Fortunately for America, the Clintons presciently created the Clinton Foundation, which permits those nameless foreign leaders an avenue by which they can demonstrate the level of their concern with numbers instead of mere words.

Mark said...

Those leaders are simply seeking to protect their investment, either direct (Clinton Foundation contributions) or indirect (email "leverage").

rehajm said...

So... it's "up to Americans," but Americans might prefer her because foreign leaders say they prefer her?

This is probably not a bad strategy for a Democrat in primaries. American liberal elites certainly believe European Socialism is superior.

Jason said...

I'm fine with it as long as they sew their foreign flags to her pantsuit jackets like so many NASCAR sponsor logos.

Sebastian said...

"Oh, Bernie . . . and blabbering": save yourself some time and pixels, and apply this to everything they say.

traditionalguy said...

Birds of a Globalist feather flock together. And now launder and pass those Huge Donations to Clinton, Inc.

Anglelyne said...

Jason: I'm fine with it as long as they sew their foreign flags to her pantsuit jackets like so many NASCAR sponsor logos.

Ha. Brilliant.

Original Mike said...

Foreign leaders wanted Obama too. How'd that turn out for them?

MayBee said...

Democrats have been playing this card since GWB's second election. Foreign leaders want *me*!

But I can't imagine a foreign leader who might want a continuation of Obama's foreign policy. Maybe Iran's leaders. What do they think Hillary will do different than Obama? Will she tell us?
Plus, there's something weird about the phrase "receiving messages".

Brando said...

"Exactly! He would have gotten away with it if he had kept those tapes in such a way as he could delete whatever he wanted with no-one being the wiser, say on a private server!"

I think he might have gotten away with it if the economy was doing a lot better in '73-'74.

mccullough said...

Every time Hillary says stuff like this, Trump gains more supporters. I'm sure foreign leaders love that we send our jobs to their countries, get killed in MENA to protect the flow of their oil and provide their military defense because they don't spend money on their militaries. MENA is Europe's shit show. Let them deal with it. The US doesn't want refugees from third world countries anymore. We're not the world's police force or their social services agency.

LarsPorsena said...

Blogger Oso Negro said...
Fortunately for America, the Clintons presciently created the Clinton Foundation, which permits those nameless foreign leaders an avenue by which they can demonstrate the level of their concern with numbers instead of mere words.

3/14/16, 7:52 AM
---------------------------------

Damn, you beat me to it and stated it better.

campy said...

I wonder if she's also hearing from Eleanor Roosevelt.

Bob Boyd said...

"What did Clinton actually do in his eight years on Pennsylvania Avenue?"
Salon Piece Excerpted from Thomas Frank’s new book, “Listen, Liberal”

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/13/bill_clintons_odious_presidency_thomas_frank_on_the_real_history_of_the_90s/

Worthwhile read via Instapundit.

Big Mike said...

Why does she think we'd be impressed

Because foreigners, especially those Europeans, are so sophisticated and thus everybody who is anybody will want to emulate them.

... and why are they supporting her?

Because they've met her when she was Secretary of State and they know how easy it is to buy her or otherwise roll her.

Who is supporting her?

The leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, the leaders of Hamas, the leaders of ISIL, the leaders of Boko Haram, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Vlad Putin, Mexican drug lords, folks like that.

YoungHegelian said...

I think lots of foreign leaders support her over Trump because they don't want all their hard-earned bribe money to the Clinton Foundation to go to waste.

I mean, jeez, God only knows what Trump will ask to make a bribe worth his while.....

Rick said...

Why are they supporting her?

Because they already know how much her support costs. Marketing 101, if you wait too long to reveal the price people will assume they can't afford it.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

...receiving messages from foreign leaders...

North Korea, Cuba, Iran ...

tim maguire said...

She wants us to know that foreign leaders support her, but she doesn't want us to know which foreign leaders? Classic Hillary! Either she made it up out of while cloth, or the leaders are Putin and Assad.

tim maguire said...

YoungHegelian said...I think lots of foreign leaders support her over Trump because they don't want all their hard-earned bribe money to the Clinton Foundation to go to waste.

Good point. Why try to buy a Trump when you've already bought a Clinton?

sunsong said...

Trump did say that wages are too high. Perhaps you Trump supporters don't realize that everything that Trump has said will be used against him. And yes, he is responsible for what he says and its impact:

Trump - wages are too high

Fernandinande said...

"Into the rood wood, where the grain's current splits
around the stones of its knots, carve eyelashes and eyelids.
Dye the knots, too—indigo, ink-black, vermillion
irises. These will be his eyes, always open, willing
themselves not to close when dust rises or sweat falls,
eyes witnessing, dimly, the eclipse that shawls
the shuddering hill, Jerusalem's naked shoulder."

Now that you're on the edge of your seat ...

Fen said...

"...receiving messages from foreign leaders..."

Everyone here supports me in private messages. Even Althouse.

No, I will not violate their privacy by providing proof.

Fernandinande said...

"not going to spill the beans right now"

You have to vote for Billary to find out what she's full of.

mccullough said...

If Tapper had said to Hillary: "Did you receive those messages through your private e-mail server like you did when you were Secretary of State?" Tapper would have a $25 million a year show on Fox News for the next decade.

mccullough said...

Sunsong,

Bernie's supporters are starting fights and rushing the stage at some of Trump's rallies. Bernie says his campaign is "part of a political revolution in this country." Is Bernie's revolutionary rhetoric responsible for his supporters violence? Why aren't you asking Bernie to tell his violent supporters to stop?

Fabi said...

That's a hell of a visual, Jason! LOL

sunsong said...

Bernie said over the weekend that his view is that there is a right to protest but that violence is not ok . He always says "political revolution" meaning more people involved in the political process.

Trump is inciting violence...

Bay Area Guy said...

The Democrat candidates care more what foreign leaders think than what American voters think.

Michael K said...

"Oh, well. Perhaps Nixon is the real father of her political career, her guiding light.

Exactly! He would have gotten away with it if he had kept those tapes in such a way as he could delete whatever he wanted with no-one being the wiser, say on a private server!"

I saw that as a column yesterday somewhere.

B said...

If Clinton defeats Trump, she'll get a Nobel Peace Prize of her very own.

mccullough said...

Sunsong,

So Bernie doesn't have control over his supporters?

Why aren't Trump's supporters disrupting Bernie's rallies? Hillary's rallies? Cruz rallies?

Why is it always the RFB troopers from MoveOn, OWS, and BLM who are the disruptors, who overturn cars, block highways, break windows?

Who is inciting them to do this stuff?

mccullough said...

Shorter sunsong,

The RFB troopers from MoveOn, BLM, and OWS are not responsible for their actions. They have no moral agency. If Donald Trump didn't encourage his supporters to punch them when they disrupt his rallies, then RFB troopers would continue to be able to disrupt, harass, and provoke Trump's supporters in peace.

mccullough said...

Shorter sunsong,

But if Trump told his supporters to knock it off and don't go to Bernie's rallies and do the same thing(something they already don't do because they don't employ RFB tactics like the BernieBros from MoveOn) that Bernie's supporters are doing at Trump's rallies, Trump would still be responsible for his supporters disrupting Sanders rallies and harassing Bernie's supporters, tearing their signs, spitting on them or punching them.

Trump's supporters have moral agency, but Bernie's supporters are animals. So vote for Bernie

tim in vermont said...

Bernie said over the weekend that his view is that there is a right to protest but that violence is not ok -sunsong

Link?

the wolf said...

Since Obama collected donations from overseas a verbal endorsement seems like small potatoes.

the wolf said...

Bernie said over the weekend that his view is that there is a right to protest but that violence is not ok

Left out is the fact that Bernie blamed Trump for the violence

The Cracker Emcee said...

Nice of the mexican President to endorse her.

cubanbob said...

Hillary's comment about foreign leaders supporting her, red meat for Trump. No doubt he will say "See, I told you so. Bought and paid for." And he would be right.

Alex said...

Can you imagine the sheer bitch-fest a Merkel/Hillary meeting would be?

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

The foreign leaders who maintain environmental stability and green lawns through backing a mass exodus (e.g. refugee crisis) of native people. Probably some other underhanded quid pro quo, too, a la "oil for food", anti-native foreign interventions, etc.

sunsong said...

mccullough,

Everyone is responsbile for what they do, what they say, what they believe, think, feel, for their choices, decisions etc. It’s not “if” you are responsbile, it’s “when” you decide to take it…and you are responsible for your impact…for the impact of what you do, say, believe etc. This is NOT rocket science. This is responsibility 101. Trump’s and Sander’s supporters are responsible for their actions and statements and beliefs and their impact just as Trump is. Trump is responsible for everything he says in his campaign, just as Bernie and Hillary and Cruz, Kasich and Rubio are. Again, that just obvious…responsibility 101. [And, btw, Cruz, Kasich and Rubio have all come out and officially called Trump responsible for the violence he is encouraging at his rallies. And don’t forget there was violence from his supporters BEFORE Chicago.] Trump’s impact is vastly greater, by a magnitude, than a mere supporter as I assume you know already.

People have a right to protest. The Phelps family and Westboro Baptist Church took that to the Supreme Court. The violence is the issue. And that’s what Trump has been encouraging. It’s past time for him to take responsibility for it.

sunsong said...

Tim,

“We have never, our campaign does not believe in and never will encourage anybody to disrupt anything. We have millions of supporters, and people do what they do, and people have the right to protest. I happen not to believe that people should disrupt anybody’s meetings, but let me say something about Mr. Trump — Some of you may have read just a few hours ago that Mr. Trump said that he is prepared to pay for the legal costs of an individual who sucker punched somebody at a recent event. He is going to pay the legal fees of somebody who committed a terrible act of violence. What that means is that Donald Trump is literally inciting violence with his supporters. He is saying that if you go out to beat somebody up, that is okay, I will pay the legal fees. That is an outrage and I would hope that Mr. Trump tones it down big time and tells his supporters that violence is not acceptable in the American political process…”
~ Bernie Sanders

link

Fabi said...

@sunsong: Inciting violence is a crime. Has Trump even charged or arrested? You may want to be a little more careful with your language.

Rick said...

Trump’s impact is vastly greater, by a magnitude, than a mere supporter as I assume you know already.

The political left's violence is not about a single protester, they have normalized intimidation and escalation to violence. This is the entire point about hyping race hatred and other politics beyond any reasonable level. you have to train people to intimidate and hate instinctively. The Missouri protesters with Melissa Click initiated physical contact with others while screaming "You're assaulting me". This is Activist Tactics 101.

Like good military tactics each unit has a specific role. Good cavalry doesn't charge an entrenched position, they wait until conditions making a successful attack likely are met and then act. Similarly sunsong and Josh Marshall are silent about violence when initiated by the left. Their role is to wait until the right responds and attack only then.

The left would like people to think these events are spontaneous, but they aren't. The current corruption of Title IX into a political weapon didn't occur overnight. Campus radicals came up with the idea in the 1970s and it took decades to both radicalize the campus administration and the legal profession sufficiently that their adherents could achieve the positions capable of corrupting the law. Similarly the left's support of intimidation and violence has a long history.

Fabi said...

Of course people have the right to protest, sunsong -- no one is suggesting otherwise. Drop the straw man.

What do you remember about the Westboro agitators? Did they invade the memorial chapels or enter the cemeteries? I remember them being across the street (although I'm not sure they didn't try to "invade" at times -- which is the issue). Nobody would properly object to the BLM and Bernie crews being across the street from the venues making their point -- that's a healthy part of the process. The issue is entering private events for the sole purpose of disruption. That's a big difference.

Michael K said...

"Cruz, Kasich and Rubio have all come out and officially called Trump responsible for the violence he is encouraging at his rallies."

Hilarious. The losers are all banding together. I think that is basic anthropology. Even animal behavior teaches that.

cubanbob said...

Blogger sunsong said...
Tim,

“We have never, our campaign does not believe in and never will encourage anybody to disrupt anything. We have millions of supporters, and people do what they do, and people have the right to protest. I happen not to believe that people should disrupt anybody’s meetings, but let me say something about Mr. Trump — Some of you may have read just a few hours ago that Mr. Trump said that he is prepared to pay for the legal costs of an individual who sucker punched somebody at a recent event. He is going to pay the legal fees of somebody who committed a terrible act of violence. What that means is that Donald Trump is literally inciting violence with his supporters. He is saying that if you go out to beat somebody up, that is okay, I will pay the legal fees. That is an outrage and I would hope that Mr. Trump tones it down big time and tells his supporters that violence is not acceptable in the American political process…”
~ Bernie Sanders"

I hope Trump does bring it on. I hope Trump does encourage people to disrupt Sanders and Clinton's rally's. Sanders is lying through his teeth and now its time to smash them in the teeth. No one believes for a moment those rent-a-mobs 'protesters' aren't organized by left wing groups and that those groups have no ties to either Sanders or Clinton.

Fabi said...

@cubanbob: As tempting as it might be to see a few of those jerks get clipped; even a media master like Trump could never control the resultant narrative. I watched a few minutes of a national morning news story about the Chicago incident and it was an exceptional piece of propaganda. The rent-a-riot crew as sad victims; Trump is "toxic"; candidates abandoning their principles to stab DT in the back** -- a cumulative slur.

**And the Ides of March is not until tomorrow!

Jonathan Graehl said...

Get that filling checked, Hillary.

Jonathan Graehl said...

"I'm going to negotiate them so attentively ... but also firmly. They'll say, "yes, President Trump, right away President Trump". Mexico will pay for her own handcuffs. They'll be begging for it, begging for me to stop. They'll say 'No, President Trump! We're tired of negotiating! You're smarter than our leaders!' But I won't stop. I'll just keep negotiating, and negotiating, and negotiating, and you know what? They're going to be very happy with what they get ... no nation has ever left my negotiating harness without being completely satisfied. Believe me, that's 100 percent. There's *no* problem with the foreign nations or anything else. They love me. They love me."

Paul said...

No doubt Ambassador Stevens tried to contact her to.

Look where that got him.

Jonathan Graehl said...

Important point about hacked email 'leverage', Mark. Hadn't thought of that, and the consequences are obvious. To spell it out, if:

Someone has hacked hillary's bootleg classified-info email stash (foreign intel/cyberwar corps most likely) and is holding onto something hillary successfully hid (the claim is that government computer forensics has recovered 'everything'), or even if it's something she didn't hide but would be damaging to her re-election chances, then they have very strong blackmail leverage over POTUS. She'd try to find them and take them out and that could lead to bad places as well.

Interesting that security clearances can be revoked/denied - except presumably those that come with elected office. If she were private sector she'd be 1. in prison and/or 2. banned for life from security-clearance work.

sunsong said...

North Carolina Sheriff Looking Into Violence Incitement Charges for Donald Trump

mccullough said...

Since Bernie criticized the hooligans among his "millions of supporters" but they are still doing the same shit, he's weak and ineffective. Turns out telling them to knock it off doesn't work. So keep punching them in the fact until they figure it out. Appeasement isn't an option.

mccullough said...

Sunsong,

Brandenburg v. Ohio. Please read it and all the cases that cite it. The North Carolina Sheriff ain't doing nothing about this because he can't.

mccullough said...

Looks like Bernie Sanders wants to repeal the First Amendment. Fascist

mccullough said...

RFB troopers signing White House petition to arrest Trump for inciting violence. Don't understand First Amendment law or that state law, not federal law, governs disorderly conduct.

Fabi said...

Bad news, sunsong, no charges to be filed against Trump. I guess the DA talked a little sense into Sheriff "Moose" Butler (D).

cubanbob said...

sunsong said...
North Carolina Sheriff Looking Into Violence Incitement Charges for Donald Trump

3/14/16, 7:56 PM

Five will get you ten the Sheriff isn't a Republican and conveniently forgets to charge the putative victim for incitement as well.

cubanbob said...

Fabi said...
@cubanbob: As tempting as it might be to see a few of those jerks get clipped; even a media master like Trump could never control the resultant narrative. I watched a few minutes of a national morning news story about the Chicago incident and it was an exceptional piece of propaganda. The rent-a-riot crew as sad victims; Trump is "toxic"; candidates abandoning their principles to stab DT in the back** -- a cumulative slur.

**And the Ides of March is not until tomorrow!

3/14/16, 5:57 PM"

Maybe I'm old but I don't remember the Republicans losing votes when the cops clubbed lefty rioters and protesters back in the late 60's and early 70's. But for George Wallace Nixon would have won a landslide in 68 and he did in 72. back then there was no internet, alternate media or cell phone video and yet the media couldn't skew it and they won't be able to spin it now if its clear the lefty are the provocateurs.

Fabi said...

I see your distinction, cubanbob, and agree.

Crazy Jane said...

Are these the same "foreign leaders" who watched Syria disintegrate, who supported the decimation of Libya into ISIS chaos, who were cool with the Crimean/Russian shootdown of a commercial airliner, who claimed Chinese sand spits as territorial islands in the South China Sea, who tried to fix Venezuelan elections and stacked the state supreme court to render the legislature ineffective, or who contributed to the Clinton Foundation and then enabled Russian interests to corner the uranium market?

As I have said before, I'm not a Trumpian. But who are these high-minded altruists who believe Hillary Clinton is a credible alternative?