Tuesday, February 16, 2016

OBAMA-POINDEXTER PICS FUEL SCALIA SUSPICIONS

ON CAPITOL HILL

'Conspiracy? That will be for you the readers to decide'

Published: 5 hours ago

 CHERYL CHUMLEY 
About | Email Archive

John Poindexter and President Obama shake hands at the White House (Credit: Via DC Whispers)

A couple of photographs of President Obama shaking hands with a wealthy Democrat Party donor named John Poindexter, who also owns the ranch resort where he found Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead, has fueled the whispers that radio host Michael Savage just gave wings to with the blunt broadcast question: “Was [he] murdered?”

As WND reported, Savage posed that question to listeners on his recent show, at the same time insisting “we need a Warren Commission-like federal investigation” and calling Scalia’s sudden death “serious business.”

Now the blog DC Whispers has stoked those flames with a post that includes a couple of photographs of Obama and Poindexter, who owns the Cibolo Creek Ranch where Scalia was staying at the time of his death, in a friendly handshake.

The blog says Poindexter, a Texas millionaire businessman, also received an award from Obama for his Vietnam military service.

John Poindexter and President Obama at the White House (Credit: Via DC Whispers)

“It has been long-standing policy for the Obama administration to grant presidential awards to those who are among the president’s most prized political donors,” DC Whispers wrote. “It was Poindexter who reportedly was among those who initially discovered the justice’s body, and who then coordinated with local officials to have Justice Scalia declared dead via a phone conversation with the area medical examiner, but without an actual medical examination of the body.”

The blogger writes: “Coincidence? That will be for you the readers to decide.”

The Associated Press reported Texas Judge Cinderela Guevara initially determined an autopsy should be performed on Scalia’s body, but then changed her mind when the justice’s doctor confirmed he had a history of heart troubles and when emergency officials responding to the scene of his death said no foul play was suspected.

Click here for reuse options!

Copyright 2016 WND

Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/02/obama-poindexter-pics-fuel-scalia-suspicions/#zI2t7PxIcdrIhpvT.99

OBAMA-POINDEXTER PICS FUEL SCALIA SUSPICIONS

ON CAPITOL HILL

'Conspiracy? That will be for you the readers to decide'

Published: 5 hours ago

 CHERYL CHUMLEY 
About | Email Archive

John Poindexter and President Obama shake hands at the White House (Credit: Via DC Whispers)

A couple of photographs of President Obama shaking hands with a wealthy Democrat Party donor named John Poindexter, who also owns the ranch resort where he found Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead, has fueled the whispers that radio host Michael Savage just gave wings to with the blunt broadcast question: “Was [he] murdered?”

As WND reported, Savage posed that question to listeners on his recent show, at the same time insisting “we need a Warren Commission-like federal investigation” and calling Scalia’s sudden death “serious business.”

Now the blog DC Whispers has stoked those flames with a post that includes a couple of photographs of Obama and Poindexter, who owns the Cibolo Creek Ranch where Scalia was staying at the time of his death, in a friendly handshake.

The blog says Poindexter, a Texas millionaire businessman, also received an award from Obama for his Vietnam military service.

John Poindexter and President Obama at the White House (Credit: Via DC Whispers)

“It has been long-standing policy for the Obama administration to grant presidential awards to those who are among the president’s most prized political donors,” DC Whispers wrote. “It was Poindexter who reportedly was among those who initially discovered the justice’s body, and who then coordinated with local officials to have Justice Scalia declared dead via a phone conversation with the area medical examiner, but without an actual medical examination of the body.”

The blogger writes: “Coincidence? That will be for you the readers to decide.”

The Associated Press reported Texas Judge Cinderela Guevara initially determined an autopsy should be performed on Scalia’s body, but then changed her mind when the justice’s doctor confirmed he had a history of heart troubles and when emergency officials responding to the scene of his death said no foul play was suspected.

Click here for reuse options!

Copyright 2016 WND

Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/02/obama-poindexter-pics-fuel-scalia-suspicions/#zI2t7PxIcdrIhpvT.99

Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol Makes the Case for Donald Trump

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com

by JOHN NOLTE16 Feb 2016

The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol is spitting-mad that the Republican Establishment won’t fight. He’s outraged no one will take on Trump. Among others, Kristol names Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, John Kasich, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Dick Cheney. Published Monday night and titled “No Outrage,” Kristol writes, “Once upon a time we had leaders who would have expressed their outrage at such a slander. They would have demanded evidence… Receiving none, they would have denounced and excoriated him.”

Hey, Bill, welcome to our world, where again and again and again the Establishment rolls over like whipped dogs as the DC Media and President WrightAyers destroy our country.

Isn’t this the bottom line…

If the Establishment won’t fight Trump over something as big as this with all of the media on their side, they surely won’t fight Hillary with all of the media on her side, which means they are going to LOSE;  which means the legacy and executive actions of President WrightAyers are all going to become the settled law of the land, which means Justice Antonin Scalia will be replaced by Justice WrightAyers.

This is a risk we simply cannot take.

We need a nominee who is going to win, and that means nominating someone who will do whatever it takes to win.

Never allow yourselves to forget that in 2012, Team Obama accused Mitt Romney of murder and of not paying his taxes for 10 years. Both bald-faced, outrageous lies. And the DC Media not only let them get away with it, the media delighted in the attacks.

This is the world in which we now live, this is today’s political landscape, these are the battle rules, and for the sake of our country we must nominate someone who understands this. Through his ruthless attacks against both Republicans and Democrats, Trump has already proven he gets it.

Trump fights like a leftist.

Trump fights like Obama.

Jeb Bush attacks Trump with tens of millions of negative ads, Trump goes right after Jeb’s family.

Ted Cruz attacks Trump with millions in negative ads, Trump goes right after Cruz’s integrity, faith, and eligibility.

But here’s the kicker… Something our useless, cowardly Establishment has already promised they will never do

Hillary Clinton attacks Trump as sexist, Trump rips her throat out by bringing up Bill and Hillary’s female victims. The result is not only that Trump stands as the one person in 25 years to effectively fight past the Clintons’ Media Palace Guards and leave a mark, Hillary actually shut her lying mouth.

Here’s another blast from the past…

In 2008, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was willing to gut Mitt Romney, but he wouldn’t touch Barack Obama’s disqualifying past.

In 2012, Mitt Romney was willing to gut Rick Perry, but he couldn’t or wouldn’t prosecute Benghazi.

Time and again and again our Establishment nominees have proven themselves perfectly capable of attacking their own, only to then fold like a cheap suit in the general election. The DC Media creates rules specifically designed to ensure Republicans lose, and our loser Republicans always play by them.

Not Trump.

The Establishment won’t fight, you say?

Well, no shit.

You’re just figuring that out now?

Probably, from somewhere deep within his patriotic sub-conscious, for the sake of America, Bill Kristol finally decided it was time to make the case against the Establishment.

Regardless, by exposing the truth about this hopelessly feckless group of serial-losers, that is exactly what he did.

 

Follow John Nolte on Twitter@NolteNC               

Read More Stories About:

Big Government2016 Presidential Race,Donald Trump 2016GOP EstablishmentBill Kristolweekly standard

Latest Poll Numbers 16 FEB 16


Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio



ROGER STONE AND PAUL NAGY15 Feb 2016
Nearly fifty years ago, former Vice President Spiro Agnew said, “A spirit of national masochism prevails, encouraged by an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.”
That perfectly sums up today’s self-delegated protectors of American conservatism as, in their desperation to stop Donald Trump at all cost, hurl every pseudo intellectual invective their tiny little brains can conjure up.
Their attempt to define American conservativism is equivalent to the federal government shoving Common Core down the throats of states.
The essence of their criticism is that Trump is no Ronald Reagan because Reagan spent nearly forty years refining his political views. They say, Trump, on the other hand, doesn’t have any philosophical underpinnings except self-promotion and changes his positions on a whim.
Reagan revisionism is quite prevalent as the “impudent snobs” create their own narrative of the Gipper that is at odds with reality.
Ronald Reagan understood the most fundamental lesson of politics — winning. Yes, he had strong policy views, but acted with a strong sense of pragmatism. Growing up in Dixon, Illinois, and surviving the depression tends to put priorities in focus at the expense of useless rhetoric.
Tip O’Neill understood that when he declared, after Reagan took over the presidency, “We will cooperate with him in every way.” And the Democratic Congress did work with Ronald Reagan, most notably passing the 1983 Social Security Reform Act and 1986 Tax Reform Law.
The impudent snobs forget that Reagan raised taxes as governor of California to balance the budget. He also was not a life-long supply sider, but rather adopted the economic model at the behest of Jack Kemp in the 1970s — arguably his most important policy decision since it was the basis for the Kemp-Roth tax cuts of 1981, which in combination with Volcker’s Fed policies, broke the back of inflation and got America working again.
Interestingly, it is these same impudent snobs who castigated and minimized Kemp by saying that he was not really a pure enough conservative since he wanted to help rebuild the inner cities and appeal to blacks.
Another inconvenient truth is that Ronald Reagan had the support of the Teamsters Union. While he had his differences with unions on many issues, he also worked with them which should be no surprise since he had been head of the Screen Actors Guild in Hollywood (when he was a Democrat). And what is underreported is the role the unions played in his foreign policy vis a vis the Soviet Union.
And make no mistake, Reagan’s pragmatism could be construed as calculation. He took on Gerry Ford in 1976 — a sitting president of his own party. The case can be made that he was partly responsible for Ford’s defeat to Carter as he softened up the president in a very bruising primary campaign.
There are important similarities when you juxtapose this Ronald Reagan with Donald Trump.
Leader — sense of purpose — outsider — winner.
At their core, Reagan and Trump are men who know who they are. They were both successful before they entered politics and had an identity outside of politics. Ronald Reagan was purported to have said, in his self-deprecating way, “You know, it takes a little ego to run for president.”
And there is a certain transparency about both of them. They don’t pull any punches. Reagan did it with humor and humility interwoven with toughness. Trump does it with a caustic, in your face New York “state of mind.” And the voters get it — it resonates with them.
This is diametrically opposite those impudent snobs — Rich Lowry, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol et al — who sit in their K Street offices and Fifth Avenue media towers critiquing others. Clearly the impudent snobs don’t get it as evidenced by the slew of cancellations the National Review has gotten since its blind side of Trump.
And what exactly is “American Conservatism” these snobs are supposedly protecting?
The conservatism of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who just passed an outrageous federal budget that Barack Obama and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) were proud to support?
The conservatism of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, who will jeopardize national security by not protecting our borders from illegal immigration and Muslim refugees all in the name of political correctness?
The conservatism of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who pursued disastrous foreign policies that led to the unraveling of the Middle East — begun under their watch and finished with abandon by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, with a maniacal efficiency or stupidity, depending upon your perspective?
The conservatism of the corporate elites who use the mantra of “free trade” as a battering ram to sell out American workers and small business with adoption of multi-lateral trade agreements such as the Trans Pacific Partnership to enhance corporate profits?
The impudent snobs condemn Donald Trump for philosophical inconsistency and yet their notion of conservatism in 2016 is a mystery to many serious conservatives.
The allegations that Trump lacks a philosophy are a smokescreen to hide the real threat that Trump poses to those snobs and the political elite — access and money.
Simply put, Trump doesn’t need them — they have no leverage over the Donald.
Trump is operating totally outside the nexus of party insiders, the media, and corporate funders. He is truly independent unlike Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who likes to foster that perception, but in reality is owned lock stock and barrel by Goldman Sachs and the Bushes.
As Yogi Berra said, “It is déjà vu all over again.”
The 2016 campaign is becoming more and more reminiscent of the 1980 campaign when the establishment threw everything it had at Ronald Reagan. Reagan was characterized as a crackpot, b-grade movie actor whose foreign policy would cause World War III; his economic policies were “madness” and the tax cut proposal was “voodoo economics.”
Trump is in the same situation as Reagan was in 1976 and throughout the 1980 campaign until the convention in Detroit. And then, inexplicably to some conservatives, Reagan decided to put George H. W. Bush on the ticket as his vice president instead of Kemp.
Thus the political elites, inclusive of the impudent snobs, were able to salvage what would have been a near catastrophic situation — not having access and leverage on the presidency and the business of Washington.
Needless to say, politics is a very big business and, as the New York Timesrecently reported, Donald Trump is a nightmare for the political consulting business. The digital media buy alone for 2016 is estimated to be nearly $1 billion. Jeb Bush has paid one firm over $40 million for advertising through December. Additionally, $3 billion is spent annually to lobby Capitol Hill and the White House.
Donald Trump, like Ronald Reagan, has interjected a positive dynamic into the U.S. political lexicon — an anti-political correctness that resonates with voters. It is healthy for our country and severely needed within the Republican Party.
Americans are embracing Trump’s vison of making America great again, just as they embraced Reagan’s vision of America as that shinning city on the hill. Trump is very much a disciple of Ronald Reagan, contrary to what the impudent snobs say.

Trumpism and Reaganism

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio

FREDERIC J. BROWN/Getty Images/Michael Evans
by ROGER STONE AND PAUL NAGY15 Feb 2016
Nearly fifty years ago, former Vice President Spiro Agnew said, “A spirit of national masochism prevails, encouraged by an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.”
That perfectly sums up today’s self-delegated protectors of American conservatism as, in their desperation to stop Donald Trump at all cost, hurl every pseudo intellectual invective their tiny little brains can conjure up.
Their attempt to define American conservativism is equivalent to the federal government shoving Common Core down the throats of states.
The essence of their criticism is that Trump is no Ronald Reagan because Reagan spent nearly forty years refining his political views. They say, Trump, on the other hand, doesn’t have any philosophical underpinnings except self-promotion and changes his positions on a whim.
Reagan revisionism is quite prevalent as the “impudent snobs” create their own narrative of the Gipper that is at odds with reality.
Ronald Reagan understood the most fundamental lesson of politics — winning. Yes, he had strong policy views, but acted with a strong sense of pragmatism. Growing up in Dixon, Illinois, and surviving the depression tends to put priorities in focus at the expense of useless rhetoric.
Tip O’Neill understood that when he declared, after Reagan took over the presidency, “We will cooperate with him in every way.” And the Democratic Congress did work with Ronald Reagan, most notably passing the 1983 Social Security Reform Act and 1986 Tax Reform Law.
The impudent snobs forget that Reagan raised taxes as governor of California to balance the budget. He also was not a life-long supply sider, but rather adopted the economic model at the behest of Jack Kemp in the 1970s — arguably his most important policy decision since it was the basis for the Kemp-Roth tax cuts of 1981, which in combination with Volcker’s Fed policies, broke the back of inflation and got America working again.
Interestingly, it is these same impudent snobs who castigated and minimized Kemp by saying that he was not really a pure enough conservative since he wanted to help rebuild the inner cities and appeal to blacks.
Another inconvenient truth is that Ronald Reagan had the support of the Teamsters Union. While he had his differences with unions on many issues, he also worked with them which should be no surprise since he had been head of the Screen Actors Guild in Hollywood (when he was a Democrat). And what is underreported is the role the unions played in his foreign policy vis a vis the Soviet Union.
And make no mistake, Reagan’s pragmatism could be construed as calculation. He took on Gerry Ford in 1976 — a sitting president of his own party. The case can be made that he was partly responsible for Ford’s defeat to Carter as he softened up the president in a very bruising primary campaign.
There are important similarities when you juxtapose this Ronald Reagan with Donald Trump.
Leader — sense of purpose — outsider — winner.
At their core, Reagan and Trump are men who know who they are. They were both successful before they entered politics and had an identity outside of politics. Ronald Reagan was purported to have said, in his self-deprecating way, “You know, it takes a little ego to run for president.”
And there is a certain transparency about both of them. They don’t pull any punches. Reagan did it with humor and humility interwoven with toughness. Trump does it with a caustic, in your face New York “state of mind.” And the voters get it — it resonates with them.
This is diametrically opposite those impudent snobs — Rich Lowry, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol et al — who sit in their K Street offices and Fifth Avenue media towers critiquing others. Clearly the impudent snobs don’t get it as evidenced by the slew of cancellations the National Review has gotten since its blind side of Trump.
And what exactly is “American Conservatism” these snobs are supposedly protecting?
The conservatism of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who just passed an outrageous federal budget that Barack Obama and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) were proud to support?
The conservatism of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, who will jeopardize national security by not protecting our borders from illegal immigration and Muslim refugees all in the name of political correctness?
The conservatism of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who pursued disastrous foreign policies that led to the unraveling of the Middle East — begun under their watch and finished with abandon by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, with a maniacal efficiency or stupidity, depending upon your perspective?
The conservatism of the corporate elites who use the mantra of “free trade” as a battering ram to sell out American workers and small business with adoption of multi-lateral trade agreements such as the Trans Pacific Partnership to enhance corporate profits?
The impudent snobs condemn Donald Trump for philosophical inconsistency and yet their notion of conservatism in 2016 is a mystery to many serious conservatives.
The allegations that Trump lacks a philosophy are a smokescreen to hide the real threat that Trump poses to those snobs and the political elite — access and money.
Simply put, Trump doesn’t need them — they have no leverage over the Donald.
Trump is operating totally outside the nexus of party insiders, the media, and corporate funders. He is truly independent unlike Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who likes to foster that perception, but in reality is owned lock stock and barrel by Goldman Sachs and the Bushes.
As Yogi Berra said, “It is déjà vu all over again.”
The 2016 campaign is becoming more and more reminiscent of the 1980 campaign when the establishment threw everything it had at Ronald Reagan. Reagan was characterized as a crackpot, b-grade movie actor whose foreign policy would cause World War III; his economic policies were “madness” and the tax cut proposal was “voodoo economics.”
Trump is in the same situation as Reagan was in 1976 and throughout the 1980 campaign until the convention in Detroit. And then, inexplicably to some conservatives, Reagan decided to put George H. W. Bush on the ticket as his vice president instead of Kemp.
Thus the political elites, inclusive of the impudent snobs, were able to salvage what would have been a near catastrophic situation — not having access and leverage on the presidency and the business of Washington.
Needless to say, politics is a very big business and, as the New York Timesrecently reported, Donald Trump is a nightmare for the political consulting business. The digital media buy alone for 2016 is estimated to be nearly $1 billion. Jeb Bush has paid one firm over $40 million for advertising through December. Additionally, $3 billion is spent annually to lobby Capitol Hill and the White House.
Donald Trump, like Ronald Reagan, has interjected a positive dynamic into the U.S. political lexicon — an anti-political correctness that resonates with voters. It is healthy for our country and severely needed within the Republican Party.
Americans are embracing Trump’s vison of making America great again, just as they embraced Reagan’s vision of America as that shinning city on the hill. Trump is very much a disciple of Ronald Reagan, contrary to what the impudent snobs say.
Read More Stories About:

Eight years later, Bill Clinton is causing headaches for his wife again

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com


Former president Bill Clinton addresses an audience at Francis Marion University on Saturday in Florence, S.C. (Alex Holt for The Washington Post)

By Abby Phillip February 15 at 4:39 PM  

FLORENCE, S.C. — Halfway through a 40-minute stump speech here, Bill Clinton arrived on the topic of Bernie Sanders’s proposal for single-payer health coverage — and became annoyed.

“Every time we try to have a debate on this, they say: ‘You don’t understand. We’re creating a revolution. You’re getting in the way. You’re part of the establishment,’ ” Clinton drawled, with more than a hint of frustration in his voice. “God forbid we should have an honest discussion on it.”

Then Clinton changed course again.

Campaign 2016  Email Updates

Get the best analysis of the presidential race.

Sign up

“That’s not the point I want to make to you,” he said hastily, before refocusing on his principal assignment: delivering a positive message for his wife’s candidacy rather than attacking her opponent.

In his post-White House years, Clinton has become a coveted Democratic surrogate. But when it comes to his wife’s campaigns, something else can happen: He seems to lose it. It was true in this crucial nominating state in 2008, where Hillary Clinton lost badly to Barack Obama. And it’s been true this month, when the former president has reemerged as a potent but unpredictable advocate who sometimes helps his wife’s cause — and sometimes doesn’t.

Are Bill Clinton's attacks on Sanders backfiring in New Hampshire?

 

Play Video1:51

Former president Bill Clinton got a mixed reception while campaigning for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. He was criticized for attacking Bernie Sanders and calling his supporters “sexist.” (Alice Li/The Washington Post)

For a moment here in Florence over the weekend, it seemed that this crowd of more than 650 would get a glimpse of the Bill Clinton who had broken free of the reins earlier in February, in the closing days of the New Hampshire primary race. Then, Clinton accused Sanders of running a dishonest campaign — and the media of coddling him.

The outburst was widely seen as unhelpful to Hillary Clinton. Her campaign aides emphasized that the former president’s role was to positively reinforce her message, not to be an attack dog. But in an unexpectedly close nominating contest, that has proved a difficult task.

“Bill Clinton is an incomparable genius when it comes to politics — except when it comes to his wife,” said former Obama strategist David Axelrod. “It clouds his judgment.”

Axelrod said he understands why the former president behaves the way he does: because he loves his wife and because he believes she is the best candidate in the race.

“He’s proud of what she’s done, and he can’t believe that people don’t see it,” he said. “He can be super-effective for her. Where he’s not effective is where he has these histrionic episodes.”

[In Nevada, a tightening race threatens Clinton’s post-N.H. ‘firewall’]

A day after that outburst in New Hampshire, Sanders’s name scarcely escaped the former president’s lips, but he let it be known that he wished he was free to say more.

Clinton on the campaign trail

View Photos

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton campaigns in key states in her quest to become the Democratic nominee for president.

“The hotter this election gets, the more I wish I was just a former president and just for a few months not the spouse of the next one,” Clinton said. “I have to be careful what I say.”

Sometimes, it’s the tone and apparent vitriol in Clinton’s voice that seem to hit the wrong note. Sometimes it’s his actual argument, which doesn’t always mesh with what his wife is saying on the same day, somewhere else on the campaign trail.

When Hillary Clinton launched a new broadside against Sanders last week focused on his criticism of President Obama, her pitch, targeted at Obama supporters, attempted to cast herself as more loyal to the president.

Enter Bill Clinton, at an appearance Thursday in Memphis.

The economy is “rigged,” Clinton told the crowd, appropriating one of Sanders’s favorite terms, “because you don’t have a president who’s a changemaker . . . with a Congress who will work with him.”

It sounded like he was agreeing with one of Sanders’s central arguments about income inequality — but blaming the sitting president for it. The comments launched a barrage of tweets and more than a few GOP attacks accusing the Clintons of hypocrisy.

It was a speed bump in a full-throttle week of attacks on Sanders by Hillary Clinton’s allies. And once again, the former president was on the wrong side of the headlines.

Clinton allies mounted a familiar defense, trying to tamp down the significance of what the former president had said.

“What Clinton was clearly trying to say is that the GOP has thwarted President Obama at every turn,” said longtime Clinton ally Paul Begala. “Any fair reading of President Clinton’s comments proves that.”

Even on the friendliest of turf, Bill Clinton can run into trouble. His wife’s campaign considers him an enormous asset here in South Carolina and in other Southern states with upcoming contests, where he is hugely popular among the African Americans and moderate whites who make up a vast majority of the Democratic electorate.

Yet even here, he can do damage. Days before the South Carolina primary eight years ago, Bill Clinton called Obama’s candidacy a "fairytale" His words plunged Hillary Clinton’s campaign into a racially charged tailspin, and she went on to lose the state’s primary by nearly 30 points.

The blowback from that experience is one reason the Clinton campaign this year is trying to keep him focused on a positive message.

“I don’t think it’s his job to vet her opponent. It’s the job of the media,” said Iowa-based Democratic political operative jerry Crawford, a longtime ally of both Clintons. “I think he’s at his best when he’s talking about her, when he’s talking about Hillary.”

Bill Clinton’s power on the trail is hard to dispute — but it’s also hard to measure whether he is succeeding at persuading voters to support his wife. He draws large, energetic crowds and nearly as much media attention as the candidate herself.

A glossy video compilation of Clinton’s endorsement of his wife became a campaign staple at events in the first two states. It featured what has become Clinton’s signature slow, professorial delivery of the case for his wife as the “single greatest changemaker” he has ever known.

Clinton’s popularity is driven in part by older voters who recall him as he once was: an energetic, electrifying young politician. But he has also aged dramatically. His words come more slowly and in a raspy voice. His slim stature and drawn features show the toll of age and a stringent diet.

“He does still have the magic when it comes to interacting with the audience,” said Jim Hodges, a former Democratic governor of South Carolina. But Hodges added, “Like anyone who is over the age of 60, you become less of a force of nature.”

The battle for South Carolina will be fierce among young voters, who showed in Iowa and New Hampshire that they are open to supporting Sanders.

For voters like Joshua Keith, a 28-year-old African American small-business owner in Florence, Hillary Clinton still needs to win his vote.

Asked whether Bill Clinton’s endorsement of his wife will make a difference to him, Keith, a former Obama campaign volunteer, replied, “Not really.”

“The last time he was in office, I was 12, maybe,” Keith said with a shrug. “I don’t think it impacts the younger voters.

“I don’t really think that the Clinton name has the stronghold that it did.”

Karen Tumulty contributed to this report.

Abby Phillip is a national political reporter for the Washington Post. She can be reached atabby.phillip@washpost.com. On Twitter