RUTHFULLY YOURS

Clandestinely stirring up potentially violent protests in an attempt to try and force Israel to go against its best interests? Advice like this was par for the course with Clinton’s advisers.It’s already been established that one of Hillary Clinton’s most trusted advisers, Sid Blumenthal, sent her anti-Israel articles, ideas and advice during her time as secretary of state. But the stream of anti-Israel advice received by Clinton was much more comprehensive.

In the entire forced dump of Clinton’s emails, you will be hard pressed to find a single one sympathetic toward the Jewish state from any of the people she relied on. The negative, poisonous approach to Israel throughout this email expose shows the atmosphere that she had established around herself. These emails seem to demonstrate that a huge segment of her close advisers and confidantes were attacking Israel, condemning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and strategizing how to force Israel to withdraw from Judea and Samaria at all costs.

This was occurring against the backdrop of Israel’s recent Gaza withdrawal, which led to the takeover of Gaza by Hamas. There is almost zero mention of the huge risks to Israel’s security in withdrawing as Clinton and the Obama administration did everything they could to pressure Israel to capitulate to their demands.

Donald Trump bragged about how he was going to bring a record number of voters to the polls. And he did. The only problem is, most of the newcomers came out to vote against him.

In the last presidential primary, there were 120,000 Republican attendees; in this one, there were 180,000, a 50% increase. Whom did all these new people vote for? About a third voted for Donald Trump, but two thirds came out to vote against him, for other candidates. There’s no denying that Trump drove the increase in numbers, but most of the increase was antagonistic, not out of support.

Trump has a record-setting 60% unfavorable rating among all Americans, the highest unfavorable rating of any politician. Many of the people he motivated to go to the polls were not just Republicans, but independents and Democrats who wanted to see him defeated. No other candidate, not even Hillary Clinton, has higher unfavorables than Donald Trump.

This has grave implications if Trump, with plurality of Republican voters, becomes the nominee. He will be so polarizing that he will draw more new people to come out against him than for him, as he did in Iowa. Part of it is his positions on the issues, but a lot of it is his immature and acerbic personality. Calling women bimbos is not presidential. Nor is calling voters stupid or losers, or talking about how he is so great that he could shoot people and not lose support.

Those “yuuuge” crowds that Trump draws at rallies? Most don’t end up voting for him. But his style is clearly energizing people to come out and vote against him.

One of the extraordinary developments in the current presidential campaign is that the front runners on both the Democrat and the Republican side are emphasizing their opposition to the “special interests”. Given that the world is rapidly becoming a more dangerous place, and that our unemployment rate (when we include those who have dropped out of the official statistics) is so high, one would expect this issue to be on the back burner.

A central belief of Bernie Sanders, who is running a surprisingly effective campaign, is that our economy is rigged by the wealthy, in such a way that the average person gets short-changed. As Bernie’s website puts it: “We are talking about a rapid movement in this country toward a political system in which a handful of very wealthy people and special interests will determine who gets elected or who does not get elected.”

On the Republican side, Donald Trump claims his political rivals are indebted to special interest groups, whereas he, a billionaire, doesn’t need to take money from anyone.

Hillary Clinton will not be outdone: “We have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans.”

The problem with these candidates who promise to fight the special interests is that they are creating more special interests, which will be even more uncontrolled.

Hillary Clinton’s third-place finish in the 2008 Iowa caucuses upended her candidacy. By contrast, she scored a narrow victory Monday night. Beyond her having a much-improved campaign organization, what changed over those eight years, and what does it teach us about the current state of the Democratic Party?

Let’s begin with what didn’t change. Mrs. Clinton did better among women than men in both contests. She did 24 points better among Democrats than independents in 2008 against Barack Obama, and 30 points better among Democrats this year. She lost to Mr. Obama by 16 points among caucusgoers who regarded themselves as “very liberal”—and to Bernie Sanders by 19 points. She trailed Mr. Obama by 12 points among first-time caucus attendees, a group she lost to Sen. Sanders by 18 points.

And in both races she did much better among middle-aged and elderly voters. In 2008 she lost voters 17-29 years of age by 46 points, and those in the 30-44 bracket by 19 points. She ran even with Mr. Obama among voters 45 to 64 years old and trounced him by 27 points among voters 65 years and older. This time around she trailed Mr. Sanders among young adults by 70 points and by 21 points among voters 30-44. She did better among voters 45-64 than she did eight years ago, racking up a 23-point edge. And she garnered 69% of the elderly vote compared with just 26% for Mr. Sanders.

So, it turns out that you can’t call Iowa voters “stupid,” skip a debate in Des Moines because you don’t like the moderators and still expect to prevail in the state’s caucuses. Who knew?

Donald Trump’s loss Monday night, which is far more consequential than Ted Cruz’s victory, could mean a return to Republican normalcy in an election year that has been almost freakish. Mr. Trump’s poll numbers have soared above his rivals’ for months—the Real Clear Politics average puts him at nearly 36%, while none of the other GOP candidates is above 20%—yet he lost handily in the state where the first votes were cast.

Thanks to the voters of Iowa, conservatives awoke Tuesday morning to a political world that made sense again for the first time since Mr. Trump’s rise began last summer. They learned that bluster and incivility have not become political virtues. Well-attended rallies are no substitute for traditional campaigning. Sarah Palin is no GOP kingmaker. And religious conservatives—real ones in the mold of Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum—still win the Iowa caucuses. Hawkeye voters find Mr. Trump entertaining but not very presidential. Many Republicans haven’t made up their minds, and among those tasked with casting the first votes, Donald Trump ranked closer to the third-place candidate, Marco Rubio, than the winner.

Iowa taught two hard election lessons tonight. You can’t win without organization and you can’t win without enthusiasm.

Hillary Clinton came into Iowa with all the organization in the world, but none of the enthusiasm. It will take time to determine whether she managed to eke out a tiny victory against a senescent Socialist, but her shrill speech and deranged expression, eyes wild, draped in blood-red, were not those of a winner.

Bernie Sanders had poor organization, but plenty of enthusiasm. And that paid off. 43% of Iowa caucus goers identified as Socialists and 53% as politically correct. No matter how far to the left Hillary rushed, she couldn’t narrow that enthusiasm gap because she is fundamentally inauthentic.

Organization may have bought her a narrow win. Maybe. But it can’t buy her enthusiasm. And that will be a big problem for her in a general election.

On the Republican side of the dial, enthusiasm without organization also proved to be a disaster. Trump’s campaign had plenty of enthusiasm and was ahead in the polls, but it lacked the organization to capitalize on the enthusiasm and all the free publicity. Rubio had some organization and enthusiasm and came in third. Ted Cruz had the best combination of organization and enthusiasm and came in first.

Donald Trump’s pitch to American voters can be summed up as “I’ve been wheeling and dealing all my life. In pursuit of personal advancement, I have made ‘great deals’ to build my company and my net worth. Elect me president of the United States and I will place those talents and services at your disposal.”

To many, it’s a compelling argument. Rather than another weak-kneed politician, America would have a CEO president — a titan of industry who could run a tight ship; a Gordon Gekko out to make America strong and rich again.

But how many Americans are aware of the grimy details of Trump’s famously #winning record?

And how many know that Donald J. Trump’s vaunted “business” career is marked less by innovative, hard-charging business acumen, and more by good old-fashioned bullying? As one might expect, Trump claims to represent the interests of the blue-collar citizenry of this country. But his business record reveals a man with a penchant for persecuting the little man — or even the little old lady:

Trump Asks the Government to Take Out an Atlantic City Widow

If there was ever an example of a caddish play, it was Trump’s persecution of five-foot-three-inch-tall Atlantic City widow, Vera Coking.

Des Moines, Iowa — Hillary Clinton’s victory speech Monday night didn’t go over very well here at the Airport Holiday Inn, where Bernie Sanders’s campaign was holding its own victory rally.

“I’m a progressive who gets things done!” she said, before deafening boos drowned out the televisions playing her speech.

“You’re no f***ing progressive!” one man shouted indignantly. “No no no no no!” yelled another. “Turn her off!” The crowd soon broke into a chant of “She’s a liar! She’s a liar! She’s a liar!”

Rowdy as they may have been in making it, Sanders’s supporters had a point. When Clinton took the stage to declare victory, she and Sanders were within 0.2 percentage points of each other. Clinton performed slightly better in rural counties, while Sanders beat her by a slim margin in urban areas. Both seem set to leave Iowa with 21 delegates to their names — and Clinton won at least two Democratic precincts by a coin toss. If Iowa was a victory for the once-inevitable Democratic front-runner, it was a Pyrrhic one.

Sanders certainly thought so. Though he stopped short of declaring victory in his own speech, his enthusiasm could not be contained. “We went up against the most powerful political organization in the United States of America,” he said, before declaring the race a virtual tie. “I think the people of Iowa have sent a very profound message to the political establishment, to the economic establishment, and by the way, to the media establishment,” he said, drawing thunderous applause.