@movie buff

every once in a while, after Bill has gone to bed with one of his interns, I stay up late and sit by a roaring fire and wonder: should my campaign have deliberately propped up extremist candidates like Trump, despite the risk that he could unleash a torrent of hate and intolerance upon the nation, just because we thought he would be easier to beat, only to end up losing to him anyway? It's like a card sharp losing to his own mark. I mean, how the fuck do you lose to your own mark, right?

This causes me a moment of unease, but it passes quickly when I remind myself that the only mistake was made by the voters.

@dkmich

Not only did he lie his way into office and do everything he said he wouldn't, the Republicans made mincemeat out of a President that won with a clear mandate and majority.

Did the republicans actually have that much power, or was this the excuse Obama used for why he couldn't pass his legislation?
I think it's the latter. The reason why I think this is because when he did negotiate with them, he often gave them more than what they wanted. Either way, has any other president been rolled this badly?
He even didn't bother to fight for his Supreme Court nominee. Did he make a deal with Hillary to let her choose her own candidate? Or did he not actually want his to be confirmed? I'm interested to see if others have an opinion about this.
Either way, he certainly earned his nickname. The Empty Suit president.

Wowzer! I just did a Google search for empty suit president and most of the hits are about him. How funny.
There is a counterpunch article with that headline.

The Nation does a pretty good job of getting the facts straight, but they tiptoe around the elephant in the room, the man who lost the WH, Senate, House, 2/3's of the Governships and 1000+ state offices on his watch.

Democrats obsessed with identity politics don't see people as people, they see them as demographics. What Hillary needed to do was run against Obama in 2016 as hard as he ran against her in 2008. Afraid of losing the black vote (demographic) and being called a racist, no one ever talks about the farce the Obama Presidency turned into. Not only did he lie his way into office and do everything he said he wouldn't, the Republicans made mincemeat out of a President that won with a clear mandate and majority. Voters repudiated Bush/Cheney and the GOP. They wanted them and conservatives dead and buried. Instead of Obama doing what he was elected to do, Obama failed to governed like a limp d!ck. He was the last straw. He was the one that drove the final nail in the Democrat's credibility, and until they repudiate Obama and Blll Clinton, people will vote against them in the hope of a Phoenix rising from the ashes.

Hillary Clinton Tries to Explain ‘What Happened’
Her book about the 2016 campaign shows she doesn’t fully understand the problems facing Democrats.

@dkmich Of course, I still don't think she really had too much real issue with Obama policy wise aside from him probably not going far enough to the right, but Obama certainly seemed to be an elephant in the room that was never mentioned. I'm not sure what she could have said though considering her take was that "America is great already." The party as a whole seems to have a huge blind spot to the disappointment that was the Obama administration.

The Nation does a pretty good job of getting the facts straight, but they tiptoe around the elephant in the room, the man who lost the WH, Senate, House, 2/3's of the Governships and 1000+ state offices on his watch.

Democrats obsessed with identity politics don't see people as people, they see them as demographics. What Hillary needed to do was run against Obama in 2016 as hard as he ran against her in 2008. Afraid of losing the black vote (demographic) and being called a racist, no one ever talks about the farce the Obama Presidency turned into. Not only did he lie his way into office and do everything he said he wouldn't, the Republicans made mincemeat out of a President that won with a clear mandate and majority. Voters repudiated Bush/Cheney and the GOP. They wanted them and conservatives dead and buried. Instead of Obama doing what he was elected to do, Obama failed to governed like a limp d!ck. He was the last straw. He was the one that drove the final nail in the Democrat's credibility, and until they repudiate Obama and Blll Clinton, people will vote against them in the hope of a Phoenix rising from the ashes.

Hillary Clinton Tries to Explain ‘What Happened’
Her book about the 2016 campaign shows she doesn’t fully understand the problems facing Democrats.

@dkmich @dkmich Great link. Loved this quote:

As a result, she couldn’t escape “being pigeonholed as the candidate of continuity rather than change.” She attributed this to people’s widespread anger. She writes that “her instinctive response” when she meets people who are “frustrated and angry” is to talk about how we can fix things. “But in 2016 a lot of people didn’t really want to hear about plans and policies. They wanted a candidate to be as angry as they were, and they wanted someone to blame.”

They pushed this meme in the Shattered book too. Voters were angry. Bernie was angry. Trump was angry. But everyone totally ignores that Her went out and said "America is great already." Her never accepted issues concerning the voters were valid. She talked about policies, sure. But Her never connected them to problems. And Her made a point of saying we could never have the things Sanders was advocating.

Hillary never once was able to see the problems facing the average American. By the time she tried to look like she did, it was transparently obvious she was saying what she thought people wanted to hear rather than operating from a place of understanding.

Also, as the article launches into right after that quote, Her talked about plans and policies that contradicted either actions Her had done or things from Clinton/Obama Her supported or gave no reason to think Her would walk away from. I know the average voter probably isn't paying attention close enough to know every detail, but surely people are smart enough to pick up the general idea, which is the other part of why they (correctly) didn't trust Her.

Part of why I think this book and media tour is so interesting is that it's just re-enforcing that Her has no clue and never will.

The Nation does a pretty good job of getting the facts straight, but they tiptoe around the elephant in the room, the man who lost the WH, Senate, House, 2/3's of the Governships and 1000+ state offices on his watch.

Democrats obsessed with identity politics don't see people as people, they see them as demographics. What Hillary needed to do was run against Obama in 2016 as hard as he ran against her in 2008. Afraid of losing the black vote (demographic) and being called a racist, no one ever talks about the farce the Obama Presidency turned into. Not only did he lie his way into office and do everything he said he wouldn't, the Republicans made mincemeat out of a President that won with a clear mandate and majority. Voters repudiated Bush/Cheney and the GOP. They wanted them and conservatives dead and buried. Instead of Obama doing what he was elected to do, Obama failed to governed like a limp d!ck. He was the last straw. He was the one that drove the final nail in the Democrat's credibility, and until they repudiate Obama and Blll Clinton, people will vote against them in the hope of a Phoenix rising from the ashes.

Hillary Clinton Tries to Explain ‘What Happened’
Her book about the 2016 campaign shows she doesn’t fully understand the problems facing Democrats.

@chuckutzman

How, on one hand, can you publish something like this story and on the other simply go with the #Russiagate assertion as if it was proven fact?

I don't read that web site because they seem to be partly embedded in the liberal bubble. Out here in the real world, there still is no public information that implicates Russia in anything nor is there even any sort of concrete charge. The fact that the goalposts have moved substantially is also an important point. I'm OK with reporting on #RussiaGate but I'd like it to be fact-based reporting.

And... you know... in case cold reason isn't good enough, I can always go with humor. "Dudes!! Trump and Putin are accused of collaborating because Putin DIDN'T help him get his building built. Think about that." Trump went to Putin and asked, "Hey Bro... help a fellow billionaire out?" and Putin totally ignored him. The #RussiaGate case is riddled with things just like that.

the next piece was another "Russia, Russia, Russia" screed to remind me why I stopped reading their work.

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal that was worthy of an essay of its own.

Of far greater importance is the credibility problem that establishment Democrats suffer generally. Clinton’s loss can be treated as idiosyncratic, but under Obama Democrats lost over 1,000 state legislative seats and control of both the House and the Senate. Putin, Comey, and Bernie didn’t do that. Hillary isn’t to blame for that.

Isn't she, Mr. Borosage? Not even a little bit?

I admit the President of Hope and Change is primarily responsible--that is, if you're looking for a politician to take responsibility, rather than the forces that are really in charge of our government, and which probably give politicians few options if they want to 1)survive, 2)keep their jobs. The most truthful thing to say is probably that the wealthy, with their control of the media character assassination machine, and the military industrial complex, with its control of an actual assassination machine--whether you think that machine has ever been pointed at an American politician or not, it undeniably has assassinated lots of people, and continues to do so--are responsible. They are the ones who are in control of American politics, along with some assorted bullies from overseas, in places like Saudi Arabia and Israel. They are the ones who keep America on this horrible, suicidal trajectory, because it gives them maximum wealth and power. They are the ones who will allow no diversion from that trajectory.

But OK, let's say you don't want to talk about that, for fear of being called a conspiracy theorist; say you don't want to be, or hire, the investigative reporter who looks into that--assuming one could be found willing to take the risks. Let's pretend that politicians are the ones who control American politics, and not their paymasters, nor their overseers, even though both Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have stated publicly that it's dangerous for a politician to oppose the will of the CIA. Let's pretend the big machine is controlled by politicians.

Does Hillary Clinton really have nothing to do with voter disillusionment about the Democratic Party? Is it all Obama's fault?

What you don't ask is why voters chose Obama, who came out of nowhere, over Hillary, the candidate of continuity (are you really buying the idea that she was "pigeonholed" into that notion by external forces?) In other words, why, in 2008, was Hillary not seen as a "change" from George W. Bush?

Could it be because the Clintons had spent from 1992-2000, and then again from 2002-2008, advocating for every economic and military policy the Republicans did? I don't much like Republicans, Mr. Borosage, but I have to admit that they had reason to be upset in the 90s, upset because Mr. Clinton was stealing all their policy positions and remaking the Democratic Party in their image. Because our insane duopolistic system requires the parties to appear different from one another, or cease to be relevant, the inevitable conclusion of this triangulation was for more and more extremist Republican politicians to take power in the Republican party. (The Republicans really only had three choices: 1) become extremists, 2) triangulate to the left, 3)cease to be politically relevant.They wouldn't triangulate to the left for the same reason the Democrats won't return to the left: they'd lose all their big donors. It took a political neophyte like Trump to do something as politically reckless as that.) The "Pied Piper" strategy was, in that sense, only new in that the corporate media was actually issued explicit instructions to participate in a strategy the Clintons have been engaging in and profiting from all along.

And yes, Mr. Borosage, Hillary was not just a ride-along on this trip. She was a willing, active partner who took part repeatedly in advancing her husband's political aims. Later, as a senator, she did nothing--literally nothing--to advance a more left-wing, a more populist, or even a more lawful set of policy goals. Tell me one thing George W. Bush did that she led the charge against--as you think a person might if she was preparing to run for President as a change candidate. Try to think of one horrible Bush policy she publicly opposed.

Like hell she has no responsibility for this.

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

There are so many reasons that Clinton is, in fact, partly responsible. But as you say, examining those reasons would require on to violate the DC consensus and live outside the liberal bubble.

Of far greater importance is the credibility problem that establishment Democrats suffer generally. Clinton’s loss can be treated as idiosyncratic, but under Obama Democrats lost over 1,000 state legislative seats and control of both the House and the Senate. Putin, Comey, and Bernie didn’t do that. Hillary isn’t to blame for that.

Isn't she, Mr. Borosage? Not even a little bit?

I admit the President of Hope and Change is primarily responsible--that is, if you're looking for a politician to take responsibility, rather than the forces that are really in charge of our government, and which probably give politicians few options if they want to 1)survive, 2)keep their jobs. The most truthful thing to say is probably that the wealthy, with their control of the media character assassination machine, and the military industrial complex, with its control of an actual assassination machine--whether you think that machine has ever been pointed at an American politician or not, it undeniably has assassinated lots of people, and continues to do so--are responsible. They are the ones who are in control of American politics, along with some assorted bullies from overseas, in places like Saudi Arabia and Israel. They are the ones who keep America on this horrible, suicidal trajectory, because it gives them maximum wealth and power. They are the ones who will allow no diversion from that trajectory.

But OK, let's say you don't want to talk about that, for fear of being called a conspiracy theorist; say you don't want to be, or hire, the investigative reporter who looks into that--assuming one could be found willing to take the risks. Let's pretend that politicians are the ones who control American politics, and not their paymasters, nor their overseers, even though both Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have stated publicly that it's dangerous for a politician to oppose the will of the CIA. Let's pretend the big machine is controlled by politicians.

Does Hillary Clinton really have nothing to do with voter disillusionment about the Democratic Party? Is it all Obama's fault?

What you don't ask is why voters chose Obama, who came out of nowhere, over Hillary, the candidate of continuity (are you really buying the idea that she was "pigeonholed" into that notion by external forces?) In other words, why, in 2008, was Hillary not seen as a "change" from George W. Bush?

Could it be because the Clintons had spent from 1992-2000, and then again from 2002-2008, advocating for every economic and military policy the Republicans did? I don't much like Republicans, Mr. Borosage, but I have to admit that they had reason to be upset in the 90s, upset because Mr. Clinton was stealing all their policy positions and remaking the Democratic Party in their image. Because our insane duopolistic system requires the parties to appear different from one another, or cease to be relevant, the inevitable conclusion of this triangulation was for more and more extremist Republican politicians to take power in the Republican party. (The Republicans really only had three choices: 1) become extremists, 2) triangulate to the left, 3)cease to be politically relevant.They wouldn't triangulate to the left for the same reason the Democrats won't return to the left: they'd lose all their big donors. It took a political neophyte like Trump to do something as politically reckless as that.) The "Pied Piper" strategy was, in that sense, only new in that the corporate media was actually issued explicit instructions to participate in a strategy the Clintons have been engaging in and profiting from all along.

And yes, Mr. Borosage, Hillary was not just a ride-along on this trip. She was a willing, active partner who took part repeatedly in advancing her husband's political aims. Later, as a senator, she did nothing--literally nothing--to advance a more left-wing, a more populist, or even a more lawful set of policy goals. Tell me one thing George W. Bush did that she led the charge against--as you think a person might if she was preparing to run for President as a change candidate. Try to think of one horrible Bush policy she publicly opposed.

Like hell she has no responsibility for this.

@munbeam666 It's like a soap opera melodrama to some people. She's Mildred Pierce, betrayed by the people she loves : the voters. If you've ever seen that Joan Crawford movie, you either cried your heart out, or alternately puked and laughed, like I did. The most cultish of the Hillary supporters, the ones who obsess about every minor indignity she experiences, are the ones that cry bucks over that awful, awful atrocity of a movie.

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&persist_app=1&noapp=1&v=kxZwwF...

What the hell is going on? Why have the Clintons been elevated to deity status by these people? Especially Bill, who has exhibited blatant sexist/ misogynist behavior with women for decades? Both they and Hillary seem to have only three words in their vocabulary, 'sexism, racism and misogyny'and will attack anyone, no matter what their gender, sexuality and age is. If a person disagrees with anything St Hill says they are viciously attacked . Whats really strange is that many of these people - a large percentage of women, who seem well educated and well off, lack any kind of critical thinking skills
Can someone help me and explain this?
Bizarre

@Dumbo look at history, and patronage of that type was always closely linked to corruption and dirty deals. I'm thinking Boss Tweed.

(I'm not sure this blog likes Opera mobile...)

It gives the Clintons the ability to dole out centrist welfare to political friends in the DNC and in government. Toe our line, and there will be a soft landing for you and/or family/friends down the line. Look at the names of the employees of the Foundation. They are all water carriers for Clinton campaign.

Now, you might say, "Well what's so wrong about them offering jobs to former campaigners md surrogates?" The problem is that this undermines the claim of it being a charitable foundation. Aid for truly needy people becomes a device for giving money to cronies who have their hands out and might become less loyal otherwise.

edit: (This was intended as a reply to wood dweller, but the software apparently insists on putting it down here.)