Ted Cruz Has a Real Birther Problem

When Senator John McCain was running for president in 2008, his campaign experienced turbulence over an issue currently vexing the campaign of Senator Ted Cruz: the phrase in the Constitution stipulating that the president must be a “natural born citizen.”

There are conflicting legal views (naturally) about what that means. Law professor Gabriel Chin of the University of California at Davis wrote a paper arguing that McCain’s birth outside U.S. borders, in the Canal Zone, made him ineligible for the presidency. Donald Trump, a birther’s birther, is now making a similar claim about Senator Ted Cruz. As my Bloomberg View colleague, Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, wrote this week:

As just about everyone knows by now, Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada, to a Cuban-born father and a mother who was a U.S. citizen. Cruz held Canadian citizenship for nearly all of his life, relinquishing it only in 2014, when he was planning to run for the presidency. Is he eligible to hold the office he seeks?

I asked Trevor Potter, a former Federal Election Commission chairman who was the general counsel of McCain’s presidential campaign, about that campaign’s research into McCain’s eligibility, and what it might tell us about Cruz’s situation. McCain is no champion of Cruz. But Potter studied the issue carefully. Bottom line: It’s dicier than you might think.

Wilkinson: How seriously did you take claims that John McCain might not qualify as a “natural born” citizen?

Potter: We looked carefully into the issue early on. We were aware of the question being raised in earlier presidential campaigns. Barry Goldwater was born in a “territory” of the U.S., and George Romney was born in Mexico to two American-born parents.

We consulted constitutional law professors. As you know, we had an opinion from Ted Olson and Larry Tribe that confirmed our understanding that John McCain’s birth — to two American parents on a U.S. military base in a U.S.-controlled territory — was as close to the historic English understanding of the term “natural born citizen” as possible.

Wilkinson: Those are a lot of supporting factors: U.S. parents on a U.S. military base in a U.S.-controlled territory. Despite all that, the McCain legal team was still concerned about the definition of “natural born citizen” and whether a legal challenge to a McCain presidency might be upheld?

Potter: Given the results of the research, we were very comfortable that we would win any legal challenge. What was less clear is who would have standing to bring a legal challenge, and at what stage in the process. The campaign actually responded to several suits, and all were dismissed by the courts.

Wilkinson: Would you have the same degree of confidence if your candidate — just thinking out of the blue here — had been born in Canada of one American parent?

Potter: We believed that Senator McCain’s birth made his situation absolutely congruent with English precedents at the time the Constitution was adopted. The founders used the English phrase “natural born citizen,” which had that same common meaning. Any divergence from Senator McCain’s particular circumstances by definition changes the facts, and takes us further away from the common law meaning circa 1789.

One American parent and one foreign parent; a birth in a foreign country and not on a U.S. base; and not while the parents were in the service of the nation; dual citizenship for an entire adult life — all of those facts are certainly different from Senator McCain’s case.

Wilkinson: So is it fair to say that you were comfortable with McCain’s circumstances in 2008 but you would not be able to apply your conclusions from that experience to the very different circumstances of Senator Cruz?

Potter: After conducting our legal analysis of the term “natural born citizen” we were very comfortable with Senator McCain’s eligibility based on multiple factors. Without those specific factors — two U.S. citizen parents, birth on a U.S. base on U.S.-controlled territory — our comfort level that the candidate met the constitutional requirement would have declined.


Hillary Clinton is running the most sexist campaign ever

Hillary Clinton is waging the most sexist campaign in the history of presidential contests by showing up, dumbing down, girling up, and pretending that her husband’s sexual indiscretions — past, potentially present and possibly future — just don’t matter.

But sex matters.

And sexual harassment — defined as relations between subordinates and the powerful people for whom they slave — matters, too.

Candidate Clinton infuriatingly plays the chick card, rejecting reality as she sprints to the finish line of the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, the cherry on top of a long and sordid career that was founded not on her talent as a deep thinker, stellar speaker or gifted public servant, but on her sterling credentials as a Grade-A doormat.

She seems to believe she deserves the White House — as she did a United States Senate seat and her perch as secretary of state — as payback for putting up with ex-President Bill, who turned her into the pathetic punch line in a long-running joke.

And while I’d enjoy seeing Bill neutered as First Man under the watchful eye of a possible Madam President, I must ask: Is this any way to run a country?


Hillary Clinton’s campaign boils down to three interchangeable platform planks:

1. Don’t vote for Republican front-runner Donald Trump — he’s on his third marriage! (And he hurt my feelings by saying I was “schlonged’’ in the 2008 presidential campaign, and took a “disgusting’’ pee break during the last debate).

2. Don’t think about voting for Democratic rival Bernie Sanders; he’s an anti-female bully who said he heard me “shouting’’ about gun ­control.

3. I’m a woman, suckers! You can’t touch this.

Clinton lately has entered into a phony cage match with Trump, changing the subject from issues of national and global import to whine about his clumsy takeoff on the word “schlong.’’ The Yiddishism seemed to convey that the candidate who lacks one was outfoxed by a decidedly male President Obama. Hillary has taken The Donald’s juvenile “schlonged’’ schtick dead-seriously.

“It’s not the first time he’s demonstrated a penchant for sexism,’’ she told The Des Moines Register.

Hillary is attacking Trump (and Sanders) essentially for failing to watch their tongues with a lady present, while deftly avoiding the elephant in the room: her scoundrel husband.

Trump’s relationship with his first wife may have overlapped with the woman who became his second wife — much to Hillary’s delight.

But rather than fall back, Trump has come out swinging, rightly saying on TV’s “Morning Joe’’ that it’s “open season’’ on Hillary’s hub.

Well, she started this.

The former prez, who has started campaigning for his wife, is “one of the great woman abusers of all time,’’ Trump said on CNN Monday.

“I think that Hillary is an enabler,’’ he added.

I was against Bill Clinton’s impeachment, a humiliating show trial charging the then-leader of the free world with lying about accepting the on-her-knees sexual favors of former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. (He was acquitted by the Senate in 1999.)

But I believe that, as Bill Cosby’s wife, Camille, encouraged her hub’s carnal appetites by looking the other way as he strayed, Hillary is complicit in Bill’s philandering by attacking the targets of his wandering eye.

I find it reprehensible that the woman who has set herself up as the Woman’s Candidate for the nation’s highest office thinks nothing of trashing her own sisters in her zeal for power. She reputedly was the brains behind efforts to quell the “bimbo eruptions’’ that threatened to derail Bill’s first presidential campaign.

She once dubbed Lewinsky a “narcissistic loony toon,’’ a close pal wrote in her journal.

Hillary needs to start respecting women. She must stop defending her louse of a husband and quit tearing down her romantic rivals. It’s wrong. It’s selfish. It’s sexist.



Donald Trump has America’s pulse: Rick Scott

Florida Gov. Rick Scott in Jacksonville in November 2015.

Public is pushing aside time-serving politicians for outsiders seeking dramatic change.

Political pundits are shocked that Donald Trump is leading in the polls. The same thing happened in 2010 when I entered the Florida gubernatorial race against the already anointed and establishment-endorsed sitting Republican attorney general. One establishment member even said to me, “How can you be governor? I don’t know you.”

I won the governor’s race in 2010 and many outsiders — some of them business people — continue to shock the political establishment by coming into elected office from careers outside of politics. Attorney Chris Christie was elected governor of New Jersey in 2009; manufacturer Ron Johnson was elected senator of Wisconsin in 2010; businessman Bruce Rauner won the governor’s race in Illinois in 2014; and businessman Matt Bevin won the governorship of Kentucky just a few months ago. Voters have been choosing new ideas and new energy over the old formula of sheer time served in political office.

I know Donald Trump personally, and while I currently have no plans to endorse a candidate before Florida’s March presidential primary, there is no doubt that Donald is a man who speaks and tweets his mind freely. But I don’t think his ability to give the most interesting interviews or speeches is the only thing that has him leading in the polls. I think he is capturing the frustration of many Americans after seven years of President Obama’s very intentional government takeover of the U.S. economy.

Have you tried to start a business recently? That used to be the American dream. But after seven years of endless and tedious regulation and taxation, it is nearly unaffordable to do so. Americans are mad, and I agree with them. I started school living in public housing, and I have been blessed to do well in business over my lifetime. But I also benefited from a government at that time that wasn’t slowly taxing and regulating the life out of the American dream.

What happened to our country? Why isn’t everyone upset that federal regulations and taxes have steered us onto the wrong course? This shouldn’t be a frustration of just one candidate, or even one party. This should be universal.

I continue to believe that our next president will be chosen because he or she has a believable plan for robust job creation in America. Yes, foreign policy and defense will be front-burner issues in this election, but let’s not forget that without a thriving economy, we will never be able to afford the kind of vigorous defenses that our country must have.

Our next president cannot simply tweak our national economic policies. We need a complete overhaul.

Our next president will be fed up with the fact that job creation has basically dried up in many states with a few exceptions, such as Texas, North Dakota and Florida. Our next president will be incensed by the fact that middle-income, hard-working Americans can’t even afford to start the business they always dreamed about because they would pay more in taxes and federal health care mandates than they could make in profits.

I ran for governor of Florida to turn our economy around. I pledged to create 700,000 jobs in seven years. In the past five years, we have added 1 million private sector jobs. We currently have almost 300,000 job openings. Housing prices have recovered, and our crime rate is at a 44-year low. Even though the politicians will scoff at the notion, we can see this kind of growth nationally if we dramatically change our approach to governing.

It is my hope that every Republican presidential candidate will become laser-focused on job creation because I want our next president to be a Republican, and I want Washington to eliminate the regulations and taxes that are poisoning our country’s future. The pollsters and pundits will keep trying to read voters’ minds. In the meantime, I am glad Republicans are frustrated. I am glad we are demanding a major change. Because until we get serious about that, we will continue to get more of the same.

Rick Scott is the Republican governor of Florida.


Rush Limbaugh: Drive-Bys Show Us Trump’s Huge Crowd

RUSH ARCHIVE:  There were 15,000 people at this event in Biloxi, and Trump — now, this is an indication.  Nobody else does this.  Trump spotted a CNN photographer, and he had the presence of mind to know that the CNN photographer was not showing the entire crowd.  And from the stage, Trump called this guy out and challenged him to show the entire crowd. (imitating Trump) “You get your camera, you aim it, you show everybody who’s here. You show the size of this crowd,” because they weren’t.  He called ’em out on it.  That’s something that doesn’t happen. The crowd stood up and cheered; they loved it.  Because many of the people of this country know you’ve also gotta beat the media if you want to win an election.  It’s not just the Democrats.  You gotta beat the media because they’re one and the same.

RUSH:  So here is Trump last night in Lowell, Massachusetts.  And, by the way, I’m looking for the — I wonder what Stack I put this in. Here it is.  Chris Cillizza.  Our old buddy at the Washington Post.  He’s starting to change his mind, a lot of leftist reporters.  Remember, I told you yesterday that a lot of people reporting on Trump in the Drive-By Media are saying, “Well, yeah, yeah, yeah, he’s got a lot of crowds. I mean, these crowds are showing up, big crowds, but I don’t think they’re the kind of people that are gonna vote.  I mean, Trump supporters, they’re showing up ’cause he’s a reality TV star, or because he’s celebrity.  But I don’t know how many of ’em are gonna go vote.”

This has been a standard inclusion now in the last two or three weeks in every Trump story.  It is a way the Drive-Bys are attempting to defuse the importance of the size of the crowds gathering to hear Trump.  “Well, yeah, of course, but most of them aren’t gonna vote, and Trump doesn’t have a get-out-the-vote effort, he doesn’t have any ground game, so I don’t think it’s gonna be big.”  Now they’re starting to change their mind because the media is showing up at these events and standing in line to get in, and they’re finding out that people are standing in line in 19- and 20-degree weather for hours, and they’re not even assured they’re gonna get in.  It may fill up before they get in there, but they’re willing to brave that.

So now some reporters, “You know what?  Maybe we have change our thinking on this.  Maybe Trump’s people are committed enough to vote.”  When Obama was drawing these large crowds in 2008, was anybody saying “Yeah, yeah, yeah, but these are not the kind of people that are gonna show up and vote”?  How unique that is with Republican primary crowds.  But Chris Cillizza here in the Washington Post: “This crowd shot from Donald Trump’s Massachusetts rally is absolutely mind-boggling.”

He was in Lowell, Massachusetts, five miles south of the New Hampshire border at a big arena rally last night and it holds 8,000 people.  It was at the Tsongas Center arena, named after Paul Tsongas, well-known Massachusetts politician, Democrat candidate for president.  Eight thousand people is capacity.  It was overflowing.  People lined up unable to get in, 20 degrees.  There was a picture of the crowd.  Cillizza saw it, that’s what his piece is about.  This crowd shot from Trump’s Massachusetts rally is absolutely mind-boggling.  And these crowds are nothing new.  Trump’s been drawing these crowds for months now but to the Drive-Bys they’re all of a sudden noticing it.

And you know what else they’re noticing?  Hillary doesn’t come anywhere near crowds this size, nor the crowds that show up for Hillary have anywhere near, not even half as much of the enthusiasm as Trump’s crowds.  Bernie Sanders attracts bigger crowds than Hillary does.  Bernie Sanders’ people are more enthusiastic.  Some Drive-Bys, by the way, I saw it today in doing show prep, some Drive-Bys are now thinking that Bernie Sanders may actually do better in Iowa than the polls indicate.  They’re really starting to get worried about Hillary.  And you know something else that’s worrying about Hillary?  Bill yesterday in New Hampshire was a bomb.  Exactly as I thought.  He was rambling.  It was almost incoherent.


And there are stories today about how women in the audience were rolling their eyes as though they couldn’t believe what they were hearing. There were looks of boredom all around on the faces of women. At the first event, Bill Clinton shows up solo to campaign for Hillary, and they make the point that Bill is afraid to attack Trump because that’s a nonstarter.  When he was asked questions about Trump going after his peccadillos with women, Clinton’s answer was, again, incoherent and off subject.

You couple that with stories that we had yesterday of a rising fear in the Democrat hierarchy that Hillary is not a shoo-in, is not automatic as they’ve believed all this time.  So if they are reporting what they are about concerns with Bill and concerns with Hillary, then I guarantee you those concerns are at least twice as serious as they are being reported.  Meanwhile, here’s Trump at the rally in Lowell, Massachusetts, last night.

TRUMP:  I’ve never seen so many cameras in my life.  We have a lot.  Look at all the cameras here tonight, and all live television.  You’re all on live.  Wave.  Hi, folks!

AUDIENCE: (cheers and applause)

TRUMP: And I wish… You know, I always do this.  I wish they’d turn the cameras and show the audience.

AUDIENCE: (jeering the media)

TRUMP: But they tend not to do it.

AUDIENCE: (applause)

TRUMP:  They tend not to do it.  We won’t do it too much tonight. But —

AUDIENCE: (cheers)

TRUMP:  — but I said —

AUDIENCE: (wild cheering and applause)

TRUMP: Wow! They’re doing it!  Wow!  That is so amazing. They did it!  They turned the cameras.

RUSH:  Exactly right. Right after I called ’em out on it yesterday, the Drive-Bys turn the cameras and showed the crowd at the Lowell arena, the Tsongas arena in Lowell where Trump was.  Hey, I’ll give you a little anecdotal story here.  I was on the golf course Sunday, and it’s not far from PBI, Palm Beach International Airport.  I’m on some fairway. I’m getting prepared to lace a 3-wood 240 yards, second shot on a par 5 going for the green.  So I’m totally focused on the shot.  When I hit the ball, nobody comments on my shot.

They said, “My God, Rush, you just missed Trump! You just missed Trump!” I said, “What?” “Yeah! The Trumpster!” They pointed to the sky. Trump’s plane had just taken off and flew over the golf course.  These are guys that six months ago couldn’t have cared less if Donald Trump had driven by on a golf cart, but there’s Trump’s plane! It’s big. It’s a Boeing 757. It’s black, TRUMP in giant gold letters on the fuselage. You can’t miss it.  It’s parked next to mine when he’s here in Palm Beach.  So these guys say, “You just missed Trump’s plane! Trump just took off! Wow!”

I said, “You guys you didn’t see my shot?”

“What shot?”

My point is the excitement over seeing Trump’s plane take off.  And this was Sunday, so he was… I don’t know where he was headed Sunday.  Maybe back to New York from the New Year’s weekend; I don’t know.  But he had been in Biloxi Saturday night, so he had obviously flown back here Sunday. This had to be in the afternoon about three.  I don’t know where he was going, but maybe up to Massachusetts or New York, ’cause his appearance in Lowell was last night.


Burying Negative Polls

The networks constantly hammered George W. Bush with bad polling results. But for Obama, NBC and the other networks routinely and shamelessly spike these awful numbers to preserve his “legacy” and to keep Clinton “inevitable” in November.


Network news outlets conduct their own polls. They also bury the poll results when they don’t like them. On PBS on Jan. 1, liberal pundit Mark Shields brought some very bad news for the left. The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 73 percent say they want the next president to take a different approach from President Obama’s.

So NBC, both the creator of the poll and a relentless cheerleader of Obama, chose not to air that bombshell. Instead, they buried it deep in an article on the “Meet the Press” website. “This will become a high hurdle for the Democrats at some stage of the 2016 election,” Democratic pollster Fred Yang declared in that piece.

So what did they pluck out of their December polling to report instead? Take a look.

Dec. 10: “Nightly News” anchor Lester Holt promoted “brand-new” results that 57 percent of America opposed Donald Trump’s notion to ban (temporarily) Muslim immigration to America. On screen, a graphic showed it was 57 percent opposed, and only 25 percent in favor.

Dec. 11: “Today” doubled down. Peter Alexander reported “the firestorm over Trump’s proposed Muslim ban keeps raging. Our new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows nearly 6 in 10 Americans oppose Trump’s proposal. But Republicans are divided, 42 percent in favor, 36 percent against.”

Dec. 13: Both “Meet the Press” and “Nightly News” touted NBC’s poll showing Trump on top of GOP race, with 27 percent to Ted Cruz’s 22 percent. Still no mention of the current president’s unpopularity.

Dec. 14: On “Today,” Peter Alexander repeated the Trump/Cruz findings, then added: “There are some new numbers from our NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll out just this morning that show Hillary Clinton would trounce Donald Trump in a head-to-head matchup. It’s much closer though between Clinton and Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson.”

But there’s no mention that if she runs on Obama’s platform, she too would be crushed.

That evening, “Nightly News” anchor Lester Holt reported, “In our brand-new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll [apparently their polls never age], 40 percent say the federal government’s top priority is national security and terrorism. That number has more than doubled since April, and 29 percent say they’re worried that they, or a loved one, will be the victim of a terror attack. But today, for the second time in just over a week, President Obama argued that his strategy against ISIS is working.”

Holt (and NBC) deliberately skipped numbers revolving around this issue that are far more important. Obama has his lowest approval rating since right before the 2014 midterm wipeout, at 43 percent. More to the point, just 37 percent approve and 57 percent disapprove of the president’s handling of foreign policy, and only 34 percent approve and 60 percent disapprove of his handling of ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

NBC’s pollsters said these low numbers on foreign policy were comparable to George W. Bush’s numbers at this point in his second term. In addition, only 20 percent of the public believes the country is headed in the right direction, versus a whopping 70 percent who think it’s on the wrong track.

The networks constantly hammered George W. Bush with bad polling results like these in the long war on terrorism. But for Obama, NBC and the other networks routinely and shamelessly spike these awful numbers to preserve his “legacy” and to keep Clinton “inevitable” in November.


Chuck Norris Exposes a DARK SECRET From Hillary Clinton’s Past — WHOA!

Chuck Norris, the famous actor and martial arts expert, is speaking out against Hillary Clinton. His latest message is something every American patriot must see!

Norris, in an op-ed for WND, noted Hillary’s deep ties to Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, two radical academics who want to expand a permanent form of socialism in America. As Norris explained, “the Cloward-Piven strategy is a political plan created in 1966 by two Columbia University sociologists to overload the U.S. public welfare system, the goal being to replace it with a national system of ‘a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.’”

Norris continued:

I echo again that it’s neither a coincidence that Obama graduated from Columbia University nor that others who espoused the Cloward-Piven strategy were a group of radicals who have been a part of his life and education: Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, Bernardine Dohrn, George Wiley, Frank Marshall Davis, Wade Rathke and George Soros, among others. What’s also not a coincidence is how close Hillary ran in the same circles.

In fact, Hillary Clinton was obsessed with these types of radical techniques early in her career. She learned from Saul Alinsky, the original community organizer, how to agitate against the American government to support left-wing causes:

First, Robert Chandler, a retired Air Force colonel and former strategist for the White House, the Departments of State, Defense, Energy and Justice, and the CIA, explained in the Washington Times that “much of [the Cloward-Piven] strategy was drawn from Saul Alinsky.” There’s no doubt that Alinsky’s life and work served as the coach and plan for Cloward and Piven.

Second, Hillary’s similar discipleship devotion was clearly seen by her 92-page college thesis paper on Saul Alinsky, which is a glimpse behind the present veil of her politically savvy and guarded gloss into the heart of her true ideologies.

Even Bill Dedman, investigative reporter for NBC News, had to admit the young 21-year-old Hillary had an infatuation with the “old radical from Chicago.” In her own words, Hillary characterized Alinsky as possessing a “compelling personality” and “exceptional charm.”

Hillary Clinton’s roots are far more radical than her husband’s. Hillary has shown herself to be a shrewd operator, and has become deadly precise in promoting her radical agenda. She was fired from the Watergate hearings for her lying and deceitful conduct, but she continued her career of deception.

Chuck Norris is an American patriot who just courageously exposed Hillary for what she really is! Thank you Chuck Norris for spreading the word about why we must do everything possible to stop her.


Democrats unsure Hillary Clinton can beat Donald Trump in general election

Democratic Party activists are conflicted over whether Hillary Clinton can take on Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump in the general election, with some fearing she provides too much ammunition for the flamboyant businessman’s style of attack.

While Mr. Trump is leading the national polls and calling the shots in what’s become a circuslike GOP primary season, Mrs. Clinton tops a sedentary Democratic race with two other opponents respectfully nipping at her without doing much damage — and party stalwarts are happy to have it that way.

“I hear a lot of people saying, ‘You know, I’ve watched the Democratic debates and the Republican debates, and they’re so different. I’m sure glad I’m on the Democratic side and they’re talking about the issues. They don’t always agree with one another, but they explain why,’” said David Allen, a Democratic Party leader in Barnstead, New Hampshire. “Democrats have resolved themselves to not go into a circus and tear one another down.”

But Mr. Allen said he does worry about how the eventual Democratic nominee will stand up to the sort of withering barbs Mr. Trump has dished out to his own side.

“We’re going to start to have to look at how the [Democratic] candidates play against Donald Trump, because he’s certainly holding onto his lead in the Republican Party, and he has certainly played the Republican candidates in a way that has hurt some of his opposition, and I think people are going to start asking, ‘All right, who’s going to stand up under his type of campaigning?’” Mr. Allen said. “If Bernie [Sanders] is the candidate, Trump will play up how un-American socialism is, and if Hillary gets it, he will dig up everything in the past 40 years and use it — and won’t mince words in using it.”

Other activists say there’s a sense that, while it’s Mrs. Clinton’s turn to run, there’s no swell of on-the-ground enthusiasm for her to carry the party’s banner into the general election.

“I don’t think the [Democratic primary] race has generated all that much intensity,” said Ron Romine, chairman of the Spartanburg, South Carolina, Democrats, who is neutral in the race. “I don’t feel like anywhere in the state there’s all that much passion. The usual suspects will go out and vote, but there’s not an intensity that you might think there should be with the first woman.

“Hillary is so familiar, she’s been around forever. She has her supporters, and they’re going to go out and vote for her, so there’s not a whole lot to parse out,” he said. “You either like her or you’re not enthusiastic.”

Mr. Trump already has started taking aim at Mrs. Clinton, just as some activists had feared.

At a rally in South Carolina on Wednesday, the billionaire real estate mogul declared “war” on the Clintons as he explained why he wouldn’t attack Mrs. Clinton as “low-energy” — the term he used to devastate his GOP rival, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

“I just don’t like to use the same thing twice on one of my enemies, because I consider them enemies,” Mr. Trump said. “We view this as war. Don’t we view this as war? It’s war, it’s war!”

Bothered by Mrs. Clinton’s accusation that he has a “penchant for sexism,” Mr. Trump continued to attack her husband, former President Bill Clinton, saying he was “one of the great abusers [of women] of the world.”

The Clinton camp this week said they would “stand up” to Mr. Trump. Deputy Communications Director Christina Reynolds said in a statement that “Hillary Clinton will stand up to him, as she has from the beginning,” citing Mr. Trump’s “demeaning” remarks about “women, immigrants, Asian-Americans, Muslims, the disabled or hard-working Americans,” adding that he has “pushed around nearly all of his fellow Republicans.”

Mrs. Clinton’s own supporters seem unfazed by the threat of Mr. Trump.

“I expected that to come up no matter who the [Republican] candidate was [and] the Bill Clinton past — I’m not the least bit surprised,” said Bonnie Chehames, who is campaigning for Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire. “I can’t imagine Trump beating Hillary Clinton, and I don’t care what the polls say. The Republican Party will be fractured if Trump’s nominated, and that’s good for the Democrats.”

She also said Mr. Trump’s candidacy has helped Mrs. Clinton by taking press attention away from her during the primary season.

“The media isn’t really poking at her with negative comments. If Donald Trump were not the media superstar darling that he is, I’m sure that wouldn’t be the case,” Mrs. Chehames said.

Still, support for Mrs. Clinton as the Democrats’ champion in the general election remains lukewarm, especially among supporters of Mr. Sanders, her chief rival, who cite many of the same criticisms as Mr. Trump in arguing against her nomination.

“I just don’t trust her,” said Jason Frerichs, the Democratic Party leader in Montgomery County, Iowa. “I’m a progressive; that’s my value, and that’s what I want. I don’t need an ideological purity test, I just don’t trust her. She’s pivoted on too many issues important to me. I’m 38 [and] earn $45,000 a year. How can she understand what my life is like? She’s a millionaire. She’s a career politician. I just don’t see much excitement for her outside the baby boomers, who think it’s her time.”

Mr. Frerichs, who is caucusing for Mr. Sanders, said he understands Mr. Trump’s followers and believes Mrs. Clinton will struggle against him because she can’t match his charisma and doesn’t invoke any emotional connection or ties with her supporters.

“Bernie’s popular for the same reason why Donald Trump is popular: People are sick and tired of the same old politicians,” he said.

He said he would vote for Mrs. Clinton if she wins the Democratic nomination, but he refuses to campaign for her.

“I think we would see a low voter turnout with Democrats [in the general election]. She just doesn’t fire up the base,” Mr. Frerichs said. “Now, I could be wrong, and many women could come out just because she’s a woman, but most of the young women I see are caucusing for Bernie.”


error: Content is protected !!