<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Clinton Not Inevitable Nominee</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/</link>
	<description>Reality-based political commentary</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2026 06:13:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68731</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2016 12:11:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68731</guid>
		<description>&lt;I&gt;You&#039;re just an idiot wingnut for believing the propaganda you regurgitate without getting paid for it... and for letting me make you pay to support the forum where I get to point it out.&lt;/I&gt;

That&#039;s your opinion and I respect that..

But it&#039;s an opinion borne of complete ignorance and totally devoid of any facts whatsoever...  :D

&lt;I&gt;&quot;Yes they do Otto, they just don&#039;t understand it&quot;
-Wanda&lt;/I&gt;

I have taught you well, grasshopper...  :D

Michale</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>You're just an idiot wingnut for believing the propaganda you regurgitate without getting paid for it... and for letting me make you pay to support the forum where I get to point it out.</i></p>
<p>That's your opinion and I respect that..</p>
<p>But it's an opinion borne of complete ignorance and totally devoid of any facts whatsoever...  :D</p>
<p><i>"Yes they do Otto, they just don't understand it"<br />
-Wanda</i></p>
<p>I have taught you well, grasshopper...  :D</p>
<p>Michale</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: altohone</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68716</link>
		<dc:creator>altohone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jan 2016 18:52:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68716</guid>
		<description>No Micha

You&#039;re just an idiot wingnut for believing the propaganda you regurgitate without getting paid for it... and for letting me make you pay to support the forum where I get to point it out.

&quot;Yes they do Otto, they just don&#039;t understand it&quot;
-Wanda

A</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No Micha</p>
<p>You're just an idiot wingnut for believing the propaganda you regurgitate without getting paid for it... and for letting me make you pay to support the forum where I get to point it out.</p>
<p>"Yes they do Otto, they just don't understand it"<br />
-Wanda</p>
<p>A</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68592</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:41:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68592</guid>
		<description>You see, Biga... What you fail to comprehend is that the *ONLY* Anti-Establishment candidate out there is Donald Trump..

Sanders??

He&#039;s been a sitting CongressCritter for over a quarter of a century..  What has he accomplished??  The country is still in the firm grip of the Establishment...

Sanders is as much a part of The Establishment as Hillary Clinton is...

The ONLY true Anti-Establishment candidate is none other than Donald Trump..

So, if you are truly anti-establishment, then you are a Trumpkin..  :D

&lt;B&gt;&quot;Simple logic..&quot;&lt;/B&gt;
-Admiral James T Kirk

Michale</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You see, Biga... What you fail to comprehend is that the *ONLY* Anti-Establishment candidate out there is Donald Trump..</p>
<p>Sanders??</p>
<p>He's been a sitting CongressCritter for over a quarter of a century..  What has he accomplished??  The country is still in the firm grip of the Establishment...</p>
<p>Sanders is as much a part of The Establishment as Hillary Clinton is...</p>
<p>The ONLY true Anti-Establishment candidate is none other than Donald Trump..</p>
<p>So, if you are truly anti-establishment, then you are a Trumpkin..  :D</p>
<p><b>"Simple logic.."</b><br />
-Admiral James T Kirk</p>
<p>Michale</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68587</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2016 11:00:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68587</guid>
		<description>&lt;I&gt;Pretending that his record isn&#039;t tarnished by the very same ideology and policies that Hillary, Obama, and all the Repubs support is likewise Establishment propaganda.
Integrity to the Establishment system is very different that actual integrity in law, ethics or American values.&lt;/I&gt;

So...  Biga For Trump, eh?  

I knew it!!!  :D  hehehehehehehehe

Michale</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Pretending that his record isn't tarnished by the very same ideology and policies that Hillary, Obama, and all the Repubs support is likewise Establishment propaganda.<br />
Integrity to the Establishment system is very different that actual integrity in law, ethics or American values.</i></p>
<p>So...  Biga For Trump, eh?  </p>
<p>I knew it!!!  :D  hehehehehehehehe</p>
<p>Michale</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68580</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2016 09:45:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68580</guid>
		<description>Biga,

Do you have any FACTS that call into question Comey&#039;s integrity??

No??

Didn&#039;t think so...

Michale</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Biga,</p>
<p>Do you have any FACTS that call into question Comey's integrity??</p>
<p>No??</p>
<p>Didn't think so...</p>
<p>Michale</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: altohone</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68577</link>
		<dc:creator>altohone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:35:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68577</guid>
		<description>Micha

Anybody that thinks Comey has a &quot;reputation for integrity&quot; and is &quot;too honorable a man&quot; is a hopeless defender of the Establishment.

Pretending that his record isn&#039;t tarnished by the very same ideology and policies that Hillary, Obama, and all the Repubs support is likewise Establishment propaganda.
Integrity to the Establishment system is very different that actual integrity in law, ethics or American values.

I&#039;m not the least bit surprised you are deluded about that reality, and complicit in hiding that reality, so I&#039;m just setting the record straight for any others that may stumble upon this thread.

It is funny that your &quot;independent&quot; partisanship has you believing that the Establishment will prosecute Hillary, when her actual crimes are fully in line with standard Establishment business as usual though. 
Not ha, ha funny.

A</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Micha</p>
<p>Anybody that thinks Comey has a "reputation for integrity" and is "too honorable a man" is a hopeless defender of the Establishment.</p>
<p>Pretending that his record isn't tarnished by the very same ideology and policies that Hillary, Obama, and all the Repubs support is likewise Establishment propaganda.<br />
Integrity to the Establishment system is very different that actual integrity in law, ethics or American values.</p>
<p>I'm not the least bit surprised you are deluded about that reality, and complicit in hiding that reality, so I'm just setting the record straight for any others that may stumble upon this thread.</p>
<p>It is funny that your "independent" partisanship has you believing that the Establishment will prosecute Hillary, when her actual crimes are fully in line with standard Establishment business as usual though.<br />
Not ha, ha funny.</p>
<p>A</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68572</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2016 22:15:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68572</guid>
		<description>Tanks, CW..  :D

Michale</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tanks, CW..  :D</p>
<p>Michale</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Weigant</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68571</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Weigant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2016 22:10:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68571</guid>
		<description>Michale -

Sorry.  There you go.  Deleted the duplicate...

-CW</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michale -</p>
<p>Sorry.  There you go.  Deleted the duplicate...</p>
<p>-CW</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68547</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:38:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68547</guid>
		<description>Hay CW,

I got a comment stuck in the NNL filter...  :D


Michale</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hay CW,</p>
<p>I got a comment stuck in the NNL filter...  :D</p>
<p>Michale</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68546</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:37:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68546</guid>
		<description>&lt;B&gt;The FBI reportedly has assigned some 100 agents full time to the investigation and another 50 temporarily. The bureau would not commit such massive resources unless the initial investigation raised troubling questions of potential criminality. FBI Director James Comey is monitoring the case closely and coordinating with the intelligence agencies, which have to review the documents. Comey has a reputation for integrity, and it is his call whether to refer charges to the DOJ. Attorney General Loretta Lynch would then decide whether to indict.

Whatever Lynch decides, there will be a maelstrom if FBI agents found substantial evidence of criminal wrongdoing.&lt;/B&gt;
http://tinyurl.com/j86xrct

This is the problem that Hillary *AND* The Democrat Party faces...

It&#039;s almost guaranteed that the FBI will recommend prosecution.  Comey is too honorable a man to be swayed by political considerations...  And you don&#039;t assign 150 agents to a case that is &quot;iffy&quot;...

So, there is really no doubt that SOMEONE is going to be prosecuted...

And, if Hillary ISN&#039;T prosecuted, it will look like a cover-up and that will destroy the Democrat&#039;s chances of keeping the White House..

If Hillary IS prosecuted, that will destroy the Democrat&#039;s chances of keeping the White House..

Of course, Hillary will try and play the victim..  THAT schtick won&#039;t go over well because the American people are sick and tired of seeing Hillary play the victim over and over and over and over again...  Joe &amp; Jane SixPack will say to themselves, &lt;B&gt;&quot;Ya know, Hillary seems to step in shit constantly... Maybe it&#039;s not a &#039;vast right wing conspiracy&#039;..  Maybe Hillary IS a crook..&quot;&lt;/B&gt;

No one can deny the very real possibility that Hillary will be facing DOJ prosecution WHILE running for President...

And, if that happens, the Democrat Party can kiss their chances of taking the Senate and keeping the White House goodbye for a LONG time...

You heard it here first...

Michale</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>The FBI reportedly has assigned some 100 agents full time to the investigation and another 50 temporarily. The bureau would not commit such massive resources unless the initial investigation raised troubling questions of potential criminality. FBI Director James Comey is monitoring the case closely and coordinating with the intelligence agencies, which have to review the documents. Comey has a reputation for integrity, and it is his call whether to refer charges to the DOJ. Attorney General Loretta Lynch would then decide whether to indict.</p>
<p>Whatever Lynch decides, there will be a maelstrom if FBI agents found substantial evidence of criminal wrongdoing.</b><br />
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/j86xrct" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/j86xrct</a></p>
<p>This is the problem that Hillary *AND* The Democrat Party faces...</p>
<p>It's almost guaranteed that the FBI will recommend prosecution.  Comey is too honorable a man to be swayed by political considerations...  And you don't assign 150 agents to a case that is "iffy"...</p>
<p>So, there is really no doubt that SOMEONE is going to be prosecuted...</p>
<p>And, if Hillary ISN'T prosecuted, it will look like a cover-up and that will destroy the Democrat's chances of keeping the White House..</p>
<p>If Hillary IS prosecuted, that will destroy the Democrat's chances of keeping the White House..</p>
<p>Of course, Hillary will try and play the victim..  THAT schtick won't go over well because the American people are sick and tired of seeing Hillary play the victim over and over and over and over again...  Joe &amp; Jane SixPack will say to themselves, <b>"Ya know, Hillary seems to step in shit constantly... Maybe it's not a 'vast right wing conspiracy'..  Maybe Hillary IS a crook.."</b></p>
<p>No one can deny the very real possibility that Hillary will be facing DOJ prosecution WHILE running for President...</p>
<p>And, if that happens, the Democrat Party can kiss their chances of taking the Senate and keeping the White House goodbye for a LONG time...</p>
<p>You heard it here first...</p>
<p>Michale</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68545</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:31:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68545</guid>
		<description>&lt;B&gt;The FBI reportedly has assigned some 100 agents full time to the investigation and another 50 temporarily. The bureau would not commit such massive resources unless the initial investigation raised troubling questions of potential criminality. FBI Director James Comey is monitoring the case closely and coordinating with the intelligence agencies, which have to review the documents. Comey has a reputation for integrity, and it is his call whether to refer charges to the DOJ. Attorney General Loretta Lynch would then decide whether to indict.

Whatever Lynch decides, there will be a maelstrom if FBI agents found substantial evidence of criminal wrongdoing.&lt;/B&gt;
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/13/hillary_clintons_coming_legal_crisis_129293.html

This is the problem that Hillary *AND* The Democrat Party faces...

It&#039;s almost guaranteed that the FBI will recommend prosecution.  Comey is too honorable a man to be swayed by political considerations...  And you don&#039;t assign 150 agents to a case that is &quot;iffy&quot;...

So, there is really no doubt that SOMEONE is going to be prosecuted...

And, if Hillary ISN&#039;T prosecuted, it will look like a cover-up and that will destroy the Democrat&#039;s chances of keeping the White House..

If Hillary IS prosecuted, that will destroy the Democrat&#039;s chances of keeping the White House..

Of course, Hillary will try and play the victim..  THAT schtick won&#039;t go over well because the American people are sick and tired of seeing Hillary play the victim over and over and over and over again...  Joe &amp; Jane SixPack will say to themselves, &lt;B&gt;&quot;Ya know, Hillary seems to step in shit constantly... Maybe it&#039;s not a &#039;vast right wing conspiracy&#039;..  Maybe Hillary IS a crook..&quot;&lt;/B&gt;

No one can deny the very real possibility that Hillary will be facing DOJ prosecution WHILE running for President...

And, if that happens, the Democrat Party can kiss their chances of taking the Senate and keeping the White House goodbye for a LONG time...

You heard it here first...

Michale</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>The FBI reportedly has assigned some 100 agents full time to the investigation and another 50 temporarily. The bureau would not commit such massive resources unless the initial investigation raised troubling questions of potential criminality. FBI Director James Comey is monitoring the case closely and coordinating with the intelligence agencies, which have to review the documents. Comey has a reputation for integrity, and it is his call whether to refer charges to the DOJ. Attorney General Loretta Lynch would then decide whether to indict.</p>
<p>Whatever Lynch decides, there will be a maelstrom if FBI agents found substantial evidence of criminal wrongdoing.</b><br />
<a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/13/hillary_clintons_coming_legal_crisis_129293.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/13/hillary_clintons_coming_legal_crisis_129293.html</a></p>
<p>This is the problem that Hillary *AND* The Democrat Party faces...</p>
<p>It's almost guaranteed that the FBI will recommend prosecution.  Comey is too honorable a man to be swayed by political considerations...  And you don't assign 150 agents to a case that is "iffy"...</p>
<p>So, there is really no doubt that SOMEONE is going to be prosecuted...</p>
<p>And, if Hillary ISN'T prosecuted, it will look like a cover-up and that will destroy the Democrat's chances of keeping the White House..</p>
<p>If Hillary IS prosecuted, that will destroy the Democrat's chances of keeping the White House..</p>
<p>Of course, Hillary will try and play the victim..  THAT schtick won't go over well because the American people are sick and tired of seeing Hillary play the victim over and over and over and over again...  Joe &amp; Jane SixPack will say to themselves, <b>"Ya know, Hillary seems to step in shit constantly... Maybe it's not a 'vast right wing conspiracy'..  Maybe Hillary IS a crook.."</b></p>
<p>No one can deny the very real possibility that Hillary will be facing DOJ prosecution WHILE running for President...</p>
<p>And, if that happens, the Democrat Party can kiss their chances of taking the Senate and keeping the White House goodbye for a LONG time...</p>
<p>You heard it here first...</p>
<p>Michale</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68544</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:49:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68544</guid>
		<description>Well said, Biga... I completely agree!!  :D

&lt;B&gt;&quot;That oughta clinch up their sphincters!&quot;&lt;/B&gt;
-Rachael Phelps, MAJOR LEAGUE

:D

Michale</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well said, Biga... I completely agree!!  :D</p>
<p><b>"That oughta clinch up their sphincters!"</b><br />
-Rachael Phelps, MAJOR LEAGUE</p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>Michale</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: altohone</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68539</link>
		<dc:creator>altohone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:01:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68539</guid>
		<description>Hey CW

Given that Bernie hasn&#039;t been doing all that great of a job stressing his differences with Hillary, the narrowing of the polls shows what a weak candidate Hillary is... or perhaps that earlier polls were in fact skewed.

Hillary and her campaign now taking on Bernie directly is also worth noting. I keep hearing that &quot;Hillary isn&#039;t making the same mistakes all over again&quot;, but these recent attacks on Bernie suggest otherwise.

Not only did she follow the same head in the sand, ignore him and he&#039;ll go away approach she tried against Obama, but now that that phase is over, she and her campaign are resorting to falsehoods against Bernie rather than honest debate. Her lies and misrepresentations about Bernie&#039;s economic policies are completely in line with Establishment thinking... and exactly what we will get from Republicans too if Bernie is the nominee. Hillary is not only doing the bidding of the status quo, she is potentially hurting her own party&#039;s chances by spreading these falsehoods.
Such dishonesty is what will cement the split in the party if it continues.

As for the SCOTUS nominee angle that has become the Hillary camps standard line of attack against Bernie (ahem), there is something worth keeping in mind. Our Wall Street corporatist Dem presidents Obama and Bill Clinton both gave us very establishment, Wall Street friendly corporatist SCOTUS nominees.

The idea that Hillary will protect and &quot;save&quot; Democratic priorities by choosing good nominees doesn&#039;t hold much water. 

A Wall Street coddler isn&#039;t going to nominate judges that will overturn Citizens United.
A Wall Street coddler isn&#039;t going to nominate judges that will end the attacks on unions.
A wall Street coddler isn&#039;t going to nominate judges that prioritize environmental protection.
A defender of the Constitution violating NSA isn&#039;t going to nominate judges that will end those violations.
Even on abortion I wouldn&#039;t trust Hillary&#039;s nominees, because if they are anything like her, they won&#039;t be trustworthy... not to mention that more women have lost access to legal reproductive services under Obama than any president since Roe, with nary a peep from Hillary.

So, the SCOTUS argument isn&#039;t so much about the priorities of Dems, and certainly not the priorities of the Left. Those who confuse the priorities of the Establishment with those of Dems and the Left are seriously spinning.
In any case, it was a Bush nominee that was key in upholding Wall Street friendly, right wing Obamacare and in legalized gay marriage, so anybody raising those two issues in an argument in reference to the Supreme Court nominees is also spinning.

A</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey CW</p>
<p>Given that Bernie hasn't been doing all that great of a job stressing his differences with Hillary, the narrowing of the polls shows what a weak candidate Hillary is... or perhaps that earlier polls were in fact skewed.</p>
<p>Hillary and her campaign now taking on Bernie directly is also worth noting. I keep hearing that "Hillary isn't making the same mistakes all over again", but these recent attacks on Bernie suggest otherwise.</p>
<p>Not only did she follow the same head in the sand, ignore him and he'll go away approach she tried against Obama, but now that that phase is over, she and her campaign are resorting to falsehoods against Bernie rather than honest debate. Her lies and misrepresentations about Bernie's economic policies are completely in line with Establishment thinking... and exactly what we will get from Republicans too if Bernie is the nominee. Hillary is not only doing the bidding of the status quo, she is potentially hurting her own party's chances by spreading these falsehoods.<br />
Such dishonesty is what will cement the split in the party if it continues.</p>
<p>As for the SCOTUS nominee angle that has become the Hillary camps standard line of attack against Bernie (ahem), there is something worth keeping in mind. Our Wall Street corporatist Dem presidents Obama and Bill Clinton both gave us very establishment, Wall Street friendly corporatist SCOTUS nominees.</p>
<p>The idea that Hillary will protect and "save" Democratic priorities by choosing good nominees doesn't hold much water. </p>
<p>A Wall Street coddler isn't going to nominate judges that will overturn Citizens United.<br />
A Wall Street coddler isn't going to nominate judges that will end the attacks on unions.<br />
A wall Street coddler isn't going to nominate judges that prioritize environmental protection.<br />
A defender of the Constitution violating NSA isn't going to nominate judges that will end those violations.<br />
Even on abortion I wouldn't trust Hillary's nominees, because if they are anything like her, they won't be trustworthy... not to mention that more women have lost access to legal reproductive services under Obama than any president since Roe, with nary a peep from Hillary.</p>
<p>So, the SCOTUS argument isn't so much about the priorities of Dems, and certainly not the priorities of the Left. Those who confuse the priorities of the Establishment with those of Dems and the Left are seriously spinning.<br />
In any case, it was a Bush nominee that was key in upholding Wall Street friendly, right wing Obamacare and in legalized gay marriage, so anybody raising those two issues in an argument in reference to the Supreme Court nominees is also spinning.</p>
<p>A</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Weigant</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68523</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Weigant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2016 05:38:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68523</guid>
		<description>For everyone else:

My SOTU speech snap reactions are now up.  Enjoy.

-CW</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For everyone else:</p>
<p>My SOTU speech snap reactions are now up.  Enjoy.</p>
<p>-CW</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Weigant</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68522</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Weigant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2016 05:37:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68522</guid>
		<description>Hawkowl -

Thanks for the kind words.  I dug this out for you, where I explore the balance of power on SCOTUS in more depth:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/04/23/not-justice-ginsburg-but-the-two-after-her/

-CW</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hawkowl -</p>
<p>Thanks for the kind words.  I dug this out for you, where I explore the balance of power on SCOTUS in more depth:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/04/23/not-justice-ginsburg-but-the-two-after-her/" rel="nofollow">http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/04/23/not-justice-ginsburg-but-the-two-after-her/</a></p>
<p>-CW</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hawk Owl</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68521</link>
		<dc:creator>Hawk Owl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2016 02:25:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68521</guid>
		<description>I realize it may be swamped in the flood of &quot;assessments&quot; after tonight, but I find myself lingering over your remark about the next president selecting as many as four Supreme Court justices . . .
I follow all your commentators -- a pretty savvy bunch on either side -- but the Supreme Court &quot;Card&quot; is salient in my mind.   Thanks for pointing this out.   Hawkowl</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I realize it may be swamped in the flood of "assessments" after tonight, but I find myself lingering over your remark about the next president selecting as many as four Supreme Court justices . . .<br />
I follow all your commentators -- a pretty savvy bunch on either side -- but the Supreme Court "Card" is salient in my mind.   Thanks for pointing this out.   Hawkowl</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Weigant</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68520</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Weigant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2016 00:46:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68520</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Program Note:&lt;/strong&gt;

I&#039;ll be posting a post-speech article tonight, with snap reactions.  Enjoy the SOTU everyone!

:-)

-CW</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Program Note:</strong></p>
<p>I'll be posting a post-speech article tonight, with snap reactions.  Enjoy the SOTU everyone!</p>
<p>:-)</p>
<p>-CW</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Weigant</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68519</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Weigant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2016 00:45:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68519</guid>
		<description>nypoet22 -

Yeah, 2016 is pretty topsy-turvy, since the GOP is a &quot;fall in love&quot; field, and the Dems were supposed to be a &quot;fall in line&quot; field -- the exact opposite of the historical trend, where the GOP always went for the next-in-line guy.

neilm -

OK, most interesting veep suggestion yet!

However, Arnie can&#039;t be pres.  At least not without a constitutional amendment.  He&#039;s a naturalized US citizen.  So he can&#039;t be veep, since to be veep you have to be eligible to take over the main job.

I&#039;m thinking one of the Castro brothers (no, no, not them -- the American ones!) might be high on Hillary&#039;s list, personally...

-CW</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>nypoet22 -</p>
<p>Yeah, 2016 is pretty topsy-turvy, since the GOP is a "fall in love" field, and the Dems were supposed to be a "fall in line" field -- the exact opposite of the historical trend, where the GOP always went for the next-in-line guy.</p>
<p>neilm -</p>
<p>OK, most interesting veep suggestion yet!</p>
<p>However, Arnie can't be pres.  At least not without a constitutional amendment.  He's a naturalized US citizen.  So he can't be veep, since to be veep you have to be eligible to take over the main job.</p>
<p>I'm thinking one of the Castro brothers (no, no, not them -- the American ones!) might be high on Hillary's list, personally...</p>
<p>-CW</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68518</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2016 23:08:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68518</guid>
		<description>How utterly lame..

The White House is holding a &quot;pre-game&quot; show for the State Of The Union address...

Obama&#039;s exit can&#039;t come soon enough!!

Michale</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How utterly lame..</p>
<p>The White House is holding a "pre-game" show for the State Of The Union address...</p>
<p>Obama's exit can't come soon enough!!</p>
<p>Michale</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: neilm</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68517</link>
		<dc:creator>neilm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:50:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68517</guid>
		<description>I think the Democratic nomination is still Hillary&#039;s to lose. I really like Bernie - but America is not ready for his ideas (yet?).

I think it will be squeaky bum time in the Hillary camp for a couple of months, but her strength on the ground should put her comfortably over the finishing line.

I&#039;m interested in who her VP will be - she could really go for it and pick Warren - but is America ready for an all woman ticket? Personally, if I were her, I&#039;d pick Arnold Schwarzenegger - with Arnie, Bill will look like a saint, and Arnie will also trump Trump in the media star stakes - you heard it here first ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the Democratic nomination is still Hillary's to lose. I really like Bernie - but America is not ready for his ideas (yet?).</p>
<p>I think it will be squeaky bum time in the Hillary camp for a couple of months, but her strength on the ground should put her comfortably over the finishing line.</p>
<p>I'm interested in who her VP will be - she could really go for it and pick Warren - but is America ready for an all woman ticket? Personally, if I were her, I'd pick Arnold Schwarzenegger - with Arnie, Bill will look like a saint, and Arnie will also trump Trump in the media star stakes - you heard it here first ;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: neilm</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68516</link>
		<dc:creator>neilm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:43:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68516</guid>
		<description>JL [3]:

2016 is an unusual year - as you point out the presumptive Republican nominee would be Santorum based on the past, however in 2012 he was just the last non-establishment clown standing. 

2012 set the stage for 2016 - Bachmann, Santorum, Moonshot Newt and Cain - there was no battle between two normal candidates - it was Mitt vs. the clown car, and so no heir presumptive for 2016.

Now we have the clown car driving the message, instead of a (relatively) sensible drumbeat from the establishment.

Heaven help us if Trump or Cruz wins the White House - there are even some Republicans who say they will back Hillary over either of these two.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>JL [3]:</p>
<p>2016 is an unusual year - as you point out the presumptive Republican nominee would be Santorum based on the past, however in 2012 he was just the last non-establishment clown standing. </p>
<p>2012 set the stage for 2016 - Bachmann, Santorum, Moonshot Newt and Cain - there was no battle between two normal candidates - it was Mitt vs. the clown car, and so no heir presumptive for 2016.</p>
<p>Now we have the clown car driving the message, instead of a (relatively) sensible drumbeat from the establishment.</p>
<p>Heaven help us if Trump or Cruz wins the White House - there are even some Republicans who say they will back Hillary over either of these two.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nypoet22</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68515</link>
		<dc:creator>nypoet22</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2016 20:09:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68515</guid>
		<description>i&#039;ve never been a believer in inevitability, but there really was some wisdom in the traditional republican method of selecting nominees. almost without fail, whoever came in second in one nomination was the &quot;next up&quot; in the following nomination, and that was very effective in vetting candidates for the necessary chops to win in the general election.

JL</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i've never been a believer in inevitability, but there really was some wisdom in the traditional republican method of selecting nominees. almost without fail, whoever came in second in one nomination was the "next up" in the following nomination, and that was very effective in vetting candidates for the necessary chops to win in the general election.</p>
<p>JL</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68510</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:22:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68510</guid>
		<description>With regards to Hillary&#039;s actions dealing sexual assaults committed by her husband.

&lt;B&gt;“No, I have nothing to say and I will leave it to voters to determine whether any of that is at all relevant to their decision.”&lt;/B&gt;
-Hillary Clinton

My gods, how can it NOT be relevant..

Here is a candidate who is RUNNING on a platform of helping sexual assault victims.. Of LISTENING to and EMPOWERING sexual assault victims..

How can her real life reactions towards real sexual assault victims NOT be relevant??

Michale</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With regards to Hillary's actions dealing sexual assaults committed by her husband.</p>
<p><b>“No, I have nothing to say and I will leave it to voters to determine whether any of that is at all relevant to their decision.”</b><br />
-Hillary Clinton</p>
<p>My gods, how can it NOT be relevant..</p>
<p>Here is a candidate who is RUNNING on a platform of helping sexual assault victims.. Of LISTENING to and EMPOWERING sexual assault victims..</p>
<p>How can her real life reactions towards real sexual assault victims NOT be relevant??</p>
<p>Michale</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/11/clinton-not-inevitable-nominee/#comment-68507</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:00:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=11684#comment-68507</guid>
		<description>&lt;I&gt;Those are pretty high stakes, and this will be enough for many Democratic voters to vote for the candidate with the &quot;D&quot; next to their name, however unenthusiastically.&lt;/I&gt;

Awwww, com&#039;on!!!

No one on the Left would be enthralled SOLELY because of that micro little &#039;-D&#039; after a person&#039;s name!!!   :D

Hillary&#039;s biggest problem to her &quot;inevitably&quot; is not Bernie Sanders but rather the FBI..

Michale</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Those are pretty high stakes, and this will be enough for many Democratic voters to vote for the candidate with the "D" next to their name, however unenthusiastically.</i></p>
<p>Awwww, com'on!!!</p>
<p>No one on the Left would be enthralled SOLELY because of that micro little '-D' after a person's name!!!   :D</p>
<p>Hillary's biggest problem to her "inevitably" is not Bernie Sanders but rather the FBI..</p>
<p>Michale</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
