ChrisWeigant.com

The End Of Hillary Clinton's 2008 Campaign

[ Posted Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 – 18:15 UTC ]

To tell you the truth, I never thought I'd have to write this article. I fully expected someone else to dig this stuff out, if the calls for Bernie Sanders to drop out of the race (or "say nice things about Hillary Clinton") began. Now that they have, I still haven't seen any detailed reminders of how the 2008 Democratic primary race ended yet. So I went ahead and dug them out on my own.

What follows is a review of the last few weeks of the 2008 primary, for those who have forgotten what it was like. All of these articles come from the Washington Post (because it made the database search easier, mostly). I apologize for not providing links; this is due to the fact that I retrieved the articles from a commercial database (with a paywall).

All of the following articles were published from mid-April to the first week in June of 2008. In other words, exactly eight years ago. I'm going to present them with only limited commentary (to only provide any needed historical context).

One more thing before I begin, in the interests of fairness. While Hillary Clinton did fight hard until the end, she is to be credited for two strategic moves from roughly the same period of time. First, she largely refused to attack Barack Obama in the midst of all the "Reverend Wright" mudslinging. She easily could have piled on, along with the rest of the political universe. She didn't. Secondly, during the time period below, Clinton had a stock line she threw in to most of her speeches (even the ones quoted below): "I will work my heart out for the Democratic Party and the party's eventual nominee." She signaled that she would work for Obama's election if she lost, which was rightly seen as a big step towards party unity.

With those caveats firmly in place, though, let's take a look at the end of Clinton's 2008 campaign. Just before the Pennsylvania primary, from an article titled "Obama Sharpens His Tone; As Pa. Vote Nears, Clinton Criticizes Rival's Negative Turn," Clinton showed her displeasure at Obama's attacks on her health care reform plan (which, at the time, had a mandate for coverage that Obama did not support):

Clinton, campaigning in Bethlehem, called her rival's approach "so negative" and charged him with mimicking Republicans by attacking her plan for universal health care.

"He has sent out mailers, he has run ads, misrepresenting what I have proposed," Clinton said. "I really regret that because the last thing we need is to have somebody spending as much money as he has downgrading universal health care."

From an April 22 article entitled "Clinton in the Wilderness," a previous and very personal slight towards Obama was noted:

But she [Clinton] has gone too far -- too much disturbing stuff, some of it shocking in its coarseness. For instance, she added the coy "as far as I know" to her 60 Minutes statement that Obama is not a Muslim.

Clinton used some inartful language in an interview with USA Today, which Eugene Robinson pointed out on May 9 ("The Card Clinton Is Playing"):

From the beginning, Hillary Clinton has campaigned as if the Democratic nomination were hers by divine right. That's why she is falling short -- and that's why she should be persuaded to quit now, rather than later, before her majestic sense of entitlement splits the party along racial lines.

If that sounds harsh, look at the argument she made Wednesday, in an interview with USA Today, as to why she should be the nominee instead of Barack Obama. She cited an Associated Press article "that found how Senator Obama's support... among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again. I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on."

As a statement of fact, that's debatable at best. As a rationale for why Democratic Party superdelegates should pick her over Obama, it's a slap in the face to the party's most loyal constituency -- African Americans -- and a repudiation of principles the party claims to stand for. Here's what she's really saying to party leaders: There's no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you'll be sorry.

How silly of me. I thought the Democratic Party believed in a colorblind America.

On May 20, in an ironically-titled article "Democrats Observe A Fragile Cease-Fire," the Clinton campaign tried to equate Obama with George W. Bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished" photo:

Obama is favored to win the Oregon primary today, and Clinton is an even stronger favorite to win the Kentucky contest. But Obama will not celebrate primary night in either of those states. Instead, he has chosen to be in Iowa, where his victory in the caucuses in January turned the Democratic race upside down. There, at a rally in Des Moines, he is expected to declare that he has secured a majority of the pledged delegates currently eligible to attend August's Democratic convention in Denver.

Obama and his advisers insist the event will stop short of a declaration that he has won the nomination. But it will be seen as another signal to superdelegates to climb aboard his bandwagon as quickly as possible.

The celebration, however, has rankled the Clinton campaign and the candidate herself. They see it as a highhanded effort to embarrass her and to generate renewed calls from others in the party for her to quit the race before anyone has achieved a genuine majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates.

In a signal of how fragile the detente between the two sides is, the Clinton campaign sent out a tart memo yesterday under the name of communications director Howard Wolfson calling the Obama rally in Iowa "a slap in the face of millions of voters in the remaining primary states and to Senator Clinton's 17 million supporters." Then, in language tying the Obama campaign to the Bush White House, the memo continues: "Premature victory laps and false declarations of victory are unwarranted. Declaring mission accomplished does not make it so."

On May 23, Hillary Clinton said something downright despicable. There's just no other word to describe her insinuation. From "Hillary Clinton Raises the Specter of the Unspeakable," here is Hillary musing on a possible end to the Democratic nomination race:

Smart candidates don't invoke the possibility of their opponents being killed. This seems so obvious it shouldn't need to be said, but apparently, it needs to be said.

"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California," Hillary Clinton said yesterday, referencing the fact that past nomination contests have stretched into June to explain why she hasn't heeded calls to exit the Democratic race. She was in an editorial board meeting with a South Dakota newspaper, and she didn't even seem to notice she'd just uttered the unutterable.

The nation's political science students, our future strategists and campaign managers, would do well to pay attention to this moment. There are taboos in presidential politics, and this is one of the biggest. To raise the specter of a rival's assassination, even unintentionally, is to make a truly terrible thing real. It sounds like one might be waiting for a terrible thing to happen, even if one isn't. It sounds almost like wishful thinking.

She had to immediately apologize, but within the apology article ("Clinton Sorry For Remark About RFK Assassination; Comment Was Made in Reference to Primaries") were a few other slights she had recently made (there was an enormous battle over whether the Florida and Michigan delegations would count at the convention, since they had defied D.N.C. rules by scheduling their primaries too early):

Hillary Clinton's reference to the shooting of Robert Kennedy on June 6, 1968, after he had just won the California primary, hardened feelings in the Obama campaign once more, following a brief thaw as it appeared that Clinton would seek to unite the party in the final weeks of the campaign. Her allusion came on the heels of two other comments over the past few days that the Obama campaign described as off-putting: her reference to the Michigan and Florida delegations as similar to the fraudulent elections in Zimbabwe, and her comparison of that dispute to the ballot recount in the 2000 presidential election.

Not mentioned in this article was the fact that she had also compared the battle over seating the delegations "with the abolition of slavery" (from a May, 25 article, "To Claim Popular Vote, Clinton Is Seeking Wins In Last 3 Primaries").

On the very last day of primary voting, when Montana and South Dakota put Barack Obama over the top in the delegate count, Clinton essentially refused to concede his victory. From a June 3 article, "Obama Claims The Democratic Presidential Nomination," the key line in the speech she gave:

Obama scored his final primary victory in Montana and was quickly endorsed by the state's governor as well as the two Democratic senators. Clinton, meanwhile, claimed a come-from-behind victory in South Dakota, after trailing in the state for weeks.

Clinton, who spoke roughly 30 minutes before Obama at Baruch College in New York City, congratulated the Illinois senator for the "extraordinary race" he ran, although she did not acknowledge he had effectively won the nomination and stressed that "I will be making no decisions tonight" about her future plans.

For more context, from her speech transcript that night:

Now, the question is: Where do we go from here? And given how far we've come and where we need to go as a party, it's a question I don't take lightly. This has been a long campaign, and I will be making no decisions tonight.

But this has always been your campaign. So, to the 18 million people who voted for me, and to our many other supporters out there of all ages, I want to hear from you. I hope you'll go to my Web site at HillaryClinton.com and share your thoughts with me and help in any way that you can.

And in the coming days, I'll be consulting with supporters and party leaders to determine how to move forward with the best interests of our party and our country guiding my way.

From an article ("Obama Is Poised To Clinch Victory; Clinton Ponders Options at Finish Line") filed the same day:

As Clinton made a final push for votes across South Dakota, her advisers said her options ranged from dropping out Tuesday night and endorsing Obama to making a final effort to convince uncommitted superdelegates that she would be a stronger rival to McCain.

Another, according to senior Clinton advisers, is what they dubbed the "middle option," for Clinton to suspend her campaign, acknowledging that Obama has crossed the delegate threshold but keeping her options open until the convention in late August. Advisers said she is looking at historical precedent while weighing her recent victories, including her landslide win in Puerto Rico, in trying to sort out what to do.

Clinton has been angered by recent calls for her to quit, her advisers said, and the "soft landing" of suspending her campaign would allow her to move ahead on her own terms.

Speaking to reporters in Sioux Falls, S.D., spokesman Mo Elleithee was unequivocal, saying that Clinton intends to spend the next several days "making the case to undecided delegates" and adding: "She's in this race until we have a nominee. She expects to be that nominee."

On June 6, Barack Obama met with Hillary Clinton in Senator Dianne Feinstein's house in Washington. The next day -- a full four days after the last primary finished -- she finally announced the end of her campaign (from "Clinton to Publicly Withdraw, Support Obama"):

After a tumultuous 17-month journey, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) will formally withdraw as a presidential candidate today, publicly declaring her support for Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) for the first time since he secured the Democratic nomination.

Clinton drew the wrath of many Democrats when she did not acknowledge Obama's victory in her speech on Tuesday night. Her farewell address to supporters, scheduled for noon today at the National Building Museum at Fourth and F streets NW, is intended to repair any lingering damage from the Tuesday speech and will close the door on an epic primary campaign that, after dividing Democrats, produced the first African American presumptive nominee of any major party in history.

The former rivals made progress in their search for common ground during a clandestine hour-long meeting at the home of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Thursday night. Details of the sit-down, held in Feinstein's living room, began to emerge as Clinton aides turned in their cellphones, packed up their offices and put the finishing touches on her much-anticipated speech.

"Hillary will be holding an event tomorrow in Washington D.C. to thank all of her supporters, to express her support for Senator Obama, and to talk about the issues that have been at the core of her public service, the issues she will continue fighting for," campaign manager Maggie Williams wrote in a letter yesterday inviting supporters to attend the gathering. The e-mail doubled as a fundraising solicitation -- a reminder of the nearly $30 million in debt that Clinton will seek to retire.

Now, even with such a tumultuous end to the Democratic primary campaign, Hillary Clinton eventually made good on her promise to "campaign her heart out" for Obama. She personally put him over the top in the delegate voting on the convention floor (being a senator, she was also a superdelegate). Eventually, after winning the general election, Barack Obama appointed her Secretary of State (there were many rumors at the time that Bill Clinton was pushing hard for her to be named as Obama's running mate, but obviously that didn't come to pass).

Hillary Clinton worked for party unity, but only after a very hard-fought and contentious primary season. I offer these reminders up because now she finds herself in the opposite role. And it seems like everyone's memory has gone fuzzy when recalling the final two months of the 2008 race. Hillary Clinton's campaign team has no real leg to stand on now, in calling on Bernie Sanders to "stop attacking Hillary" or even to drop out of the race for her convenience. Because that's definitely not what Hillary herself did, exactly eight years ago.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

68 Comments on “The End Of Hillary Clinton's 2008 Campaign”

  1. [1] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    With the Indiana primary less than a week away, the vast majority of the campaign commercials I've seen on TV are Bernie's ads. Coming in second is the Club For Growth's Never Trump ad about voting for the Canadian Cuban because math.

  2. [2] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It is easy to understand why Hillary refused to call it quits in 2008, and why Bernie will likely stay in the race even after winning becomes an impossibility -- after campaigning for so long and hearing the cheers and praises of thousands and thousands of supporters, they realize just how much bigger than them, personally, the election has become. They feel a strong need to keep fighting, for fear of letting down all of those who believe in them and their message. No one wants to squash that kind of hope that they are witnessing; and no one wants to stop being a "hero" to others. I am sure that the desire to help others, that feeling that likely first drew them into politics in the first place, is resonating within them stronger than ever. With the schedules that they have been forced to endure on the campaign trail, the exhaustion that results from said schedule, and the strong emotions that politics brings out in people; it is amazing that they aren't babbling emotional wrecks being fitted for straightjackets by now!

  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear -

    That is an excellent point, and very well put!

    :-)

    -CW

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary Clinton's campaign team has no real leg to stand on now, in calling on Bernie Sanders to "stop attacking Hillary" or even to drop out of the race for her convenience. Because that's definitely not what Hillary herself did, exactly eight years ago.

    There is NO hypocrite like a Democrat hypocrite...

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Clinton, now all but assured she will win the nomination, has missed other possible opportunities to reach out in order to begin uniting the Democratic Party. On Monday, she said Sanders should convince his supporters to back her, just as she convinced her supporters to back nominee Barack Obama after she lost the nomination in 2008.
    Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article74085577.html#storylink=cpy

    But, as CW points out, what Clinton DOESN'T say is that she waited days *AFTER* the primary ENDED to encourage her supporters to back Obama....

    Implying that Sanders' supporters should support her candidacy NOW is blatant hypocrisy..

    Hypocrisy thy name is Clinton..

    But ya'all already knew that....

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    TheStig wrote:

    This piece is a nice wrap-up of the 2008 primary endgame - the details of which I had largely forgotten. Thanks CW! Now, where did I leave my sun glasses?

  7. [7] 
    TheStig wrote:

    In the end, I think Sanders will support Clinton as Clinton supported Obama. Sanders has done far better than he probably expected, or could have wished. I'm a fan of Sanders. I like his politics of ordinary people. He's a genuinely gifted campaigner at the National Level! Who knew?!

    With the respect to the Presidency of 2016 I rate his policy position a "political bridge too far." Good politics is the art of the possible. You can't always get what you want etc. Contrary to current fashion, compromise tends to result in functional governance.

  8. [8] 
    Mopshell wrote:
  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the end, I think Sanders will support Clinton as Clinton supported Obama.

    But the REAL question is...

    Will Sanders supporters support Clinton??

    I don't think so...

    Granted, you have the PUMAs from 2008 which might indicate otherwise, but consider the fact that we now have had TWO forays into the hypocrisy and dishonesty that is Hillary Clinton...

    Plus you add to the fact that hundreds of thousands of Americans nationwide are changing their political affiliation from Democrat...

    Not to mention that the soon-to-be recommendation from Director Comey will crystallize in the minds of every American the crook that Hillary is...

    No... Hillary is going to have a problem on her hands that is YYYUUUUGGGGGGEEEEEEE....

    Trump is going to be the candidate that is pure as the driven snow by comparison...

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/yes-trump-can-beat-hillary-clinton/

    Those who think that Trump can't win are living in a fantasy world..

    All of the previously mentioned are real possibilities even WITHOUT the indictment recommendation...

    Plenty of Trump's ideas are socially liberal and will attract TENS of THOUSANDS of Democrats...

    Trump is going to be Hillary's worse nightmare and President Trump is going to be this country's last best hope to get back on track....

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale [10],

    agree that trump CAN win. we ridicule the possibility at our peril. and if he does win, we can blame ourselves for being too smug and self-righteous to recognize that so many people support him for the same reasons they support bernie - they feel voiceless and abandoned.

    ridicule and disdain for the candidate may be justified - i would say it IS justified - but the same directed at his followers is rude, unsympathetic and could very well propel trump to an unlikely win.

    or more succinctly:

    "the wages of smug is trump"
    ~emmitt rensin

    http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism

  12. [12] 
    neilm wrote:

    What happens when Trump, after Hillary inevitably accuses him of sexism, says that Bill is a rapist, a serial assaulter of women, and that she is his enabler? What happens when he incorporates this into his stump speech? The upside, if you can call it that, to Trump's refusal to act "presidential" is that he is the only candidate who will go that far. Trump, and Trump alone, is the only candidate who would not only resurrect all the Clinton sex scandals, but make them a centerpiece of his campaign.

    What happens is that Trump's popularity, such as it is, takes a node dive outside of the schoolyard bully types that think this is funny.

  13. [13] 
    neilm wrote:

    Plenty of Trump's ideas are socially liberal and will attract TENS of THOUSANDS of Democrats...

    And keep millions of Republican supporters at home.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    And keep millions of Republican supporters at home.

    I disagree. You don't take into account the depth of hatred Republicans have for Hillary...

    Most will do ANYTHING in their power to make sure she doesn't win..

    Including vote for Trump....

    Now, if Hillary is NOT the Dem Candidate (Biden steps in to save the day) then, of course, all bets are off...

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    What happens is that Trump's popularity, such as it is, takes a node dive outside of the schoolyard bully types that think this is funny.

    you should read the comment thread from a few days ago. trump supporters may not be who you think they are.

    JL

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    "the wages of smug is trump"
    ~emmitt rensin

    http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism

    Yep, excellent commentary that nails the problem with liberals today...

    They are simply the flip side to the smugness of the Right...

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    neilm wrote:

    agree that trump CAN win. we ridicule the possibility at our peril. and if he does win, we can blame ourselves for being too smug and self-righteous to recognize that so many people support him for the same reasons they support bernie - they feel voiceless and abandoned.

    I listened to a great "Ted Radio Hour" podcast yesterday about Intolerance. They covered the Dunning-Kruger effect, interviewing Dunning.

    Lack of confidence was correlated with increased chance of being right, and over-confidence matched up with being spectacularly wrong.

    @nypoet22 is being open to the possibility of a Trump success, and doubting the confidence in a Hillary landslide.

    @michale is confidently predicting a Trump win

    The Dunning-Kruger effect?

  18. [18] 
    neilm wrote:

    you should read the comment thread from a few days ago. trump supporters may not be who you think they are.

    I think I supplied the 538 link if my memory serves me, if not I read the breakdown. Schoolyard bullies are not exclusively in the ranks of low educated white men. By all accounts, Trump himself was a schoolyard bully and my wife tells me women can be a lot more evil than men in this regard. However they are the minority by the time people grow up from middle school and become adults.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    you should read the comment thread from a few days ago. trump supporters may not be who you think they are.

    That would be this one.. :D

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/04/25/calling-tomorrows-primary-races/#comment-74620

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    What happens is that Trump's popularity, such as it is, takes a node dive outside of the schoolyard bully types that think this is funny.

    It's not the schoolyard bully-types that think this is funny..

    It's the victimized-types who cheer when the cheat and liar and crook gets a taste of their own medicine...

    And THAT is the majority of Americans...

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    They are simply the flip side to the smugness of the Right...

    that's odd, i never found the right to be particularly smug. the right's vice of choice i would say is false outrage, the idea that american culture is under attack and we must man the barricades.

    JL

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think what we are going to see over the coming weeks is a resigning acceptance by the Right Wingery that Trump is the man to beat Clinton...

    Once the entirety of the Right Wingery is behind Trump, he will be unstoppable...

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    neilm wrote:

    It's not the schoolyard bully-types that think this is funny..

    It's the victimized-types who cheer when the cheat and liar and crook gets a taste of their own medicine...

    And THAT is the majority of Americans...

    Just replay the look on Mary Pat Christie's face Michale, that will tell you everything you need to know about the reaction Trump will get if he starts playing the "You can't talk Hillary, you can't keep your husband from wandering and you are only where you are because you are a woman" line.

    I doubt he will be able to stop himself. Look for Paul Manafort face palming in the background.

    http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/04/27/donald-trump-paul-manafort-acting.-really-crude-ill-bred-uncouth-dimwit/

    But then, Manafort is a massive liability on his own:

    In particular, multiple sources said Trump was bothered by news stories about Manafort’s representation of Saudi Arabia and for a group accused of being a front for Pakistani intelligence.

    “I don’t think [Trump] was aware of the extent of the work that Paul has done in foreign countries that have not always been friendly to the United States,” said a Washington operative with close relationships to the campaign.

    Trump can't even choose a sensible 'sensible' person. He got a crooked 'sensible' person instead in Manafort.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    hat's odd, i never found the right to be particularly smug. the right's vice of choice i would say is false outrage, the idea that american culture is under attack and we must man the barricades.

    They are smug in the sense that they "know" their's is the correct path to follow and they cannot even conceive that they are wrong..

    In that sense, the smugness of the Right and the smugness of the Left is no different..

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Any thoughts on Cruz's selection for running mate???

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M - 9

    As I said, I think Sanders will ultimately support Clinton. There will be some horse-trading involved, but that's how the game is played to win.

    Trump's basic problem is that he scores best with voters the Republicans already own...old, under educated, economically stressed, white folk. A group getting getting proportionately smaller every day.

    Hundreds of thousands of Democrats switching allegiance. Oh, happy day, except the Republicans need a lot more to counter the Grim Reaper. The "lot more" is going to have to come from groups he's cheerfully pissing off. The Republican Establishment realized this intellectually, in a white paper way, but was incapable of doing anything substantive about it because the party base wouldn't have any of it.

    Driven snow is not the metaphor I would use to describe Trump's so called purity. Manure spreader seems more apt.

    That leaves Comey as the best path to Trump victory. Or maybe Santa, who is a white guy with access to a lot of chimneys.

    I'm not saying Trump can't win, but he's a decided underdog on many, many levels. Not the choice of a party that actually wants to win.

  27. [27] 
    neilm wrote:

    Any thoughts on Cruz's selection for running mate???

    Carly won't help him much in California. She is too late and has no ties with Indiana.

    My guess - change the story from "came in last in 4 states behind Kasich" to "ooh, look, Carly".

    Next week after losing Indiana he'll probably announce his Secretary of State.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I said, I think Sanders will ultimately support Clinton. There will be some horse-trading involved, but that's how the game is played to win.

    Sanders is not a Democrat. He is under no obligation to support Clinton..

    But he probably will..

    That being said, it's irrelevant if Sanders supports Clinton or not..

    If Sanders SUPPORTERS don't support Clinton, she's toast...

    Trump's basic problem is that he scores best with voters the Republicans already own...old, under educated, economically stressed, white folk. A group getting getting proportionately smaller every day.

    The same can be said for Clinton...

    Hundreds of thousands of Democrats switching allegiance. Oh, happy day, except the Republicans need a lot more to counter the Grim Reaper.

    And the Republicans will likely GET a lot more as the election progresses...

    Driven snow is not the metaphor I would use to describe Trump's so called purity

    It is, when compared to Clinton...

    That leaves Comey as the best path to Trump victory.

    Perhaps..

    But it's not the ONLY path...

    I'm not saying Trump can't win, but he's a decided underdog on many, many levels.

    And Americans will flock to a politically incorrect underdog by the tens of millions! :D

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Re: 27

    heh :D

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS,

    Hillary's biggest problem is that she is the ESTABLISHMENT candidate in an election where the electorate wants to line up the ESTABLISHMENT against the wall and shoot it...

    Hillary is toast even without Comey's recommendation that she be thrown into the darkest hole and the key be destroyed... :D

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hillary's biggest problem is that she is the ESTABLISHMENT candidate in an election where the electorate wants to line up the ESTABLISHMENT against the wall and shoot it...

    Yet Obama's ratings are still high. Maybe the anti-establishment sentiment is mostly on the right - you know where Fox News and all the AM layabouts have been railing against DC for the last couple of decades.

    Washington is doing OK for most on the left (LGBT rights, no stupid wars, push to raise minimum wage, ACA, climate change, etc.), with the exception of the inequality issue, which nobody in the anti-DC crowd has any plans to fix beyond "give you boss another raise and maybe he will be in a good mood and give you a raise too".

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yet Obama's ratings are still high.

    Obama is the past...

    No wars???

    Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan...

    Obama has 2 more wars than when get entered office..

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Washington is doing OK for most on the left

    Yea, but the problem is that Obama is supposed to be a President for ALL Americans..

    Not just the Americans who agree with him ideologically..

    You, inadvertently I am sure :D, hit on EXACTLY the reason why Obama is such a bad leader and a bad POTUS...

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    So what’s the takeaway? The Democrats’ delegate allocation rules are more “fair” than the GOP’s rules in the sense that vote shares are translated into delegate shares more faithfully and uniformly — but aspects of the process, such as the use of low-turnout caucuses and some delegates getting allocated based on the results of subsequent conventions, can distort that translation. If the Democrats used Republican allocation, Clinton would have wrapped up the nomination long, long ago. If the Republicans used Democratic allocation, we’d almost assuredly be heading toward a contested Republican convention.

    Donald's whining about the process is asinine - he is benefiting from the current rules and if he had the business smarts to pay attention to the small print (you know, like all business people do because that is where the nasty stuff is) he'd probably be further ahead.

    Source:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clintons-delegate-lead-would-triple-under-gop-rules/

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:

    No wars???

    No stupid wars was the correct quote Michale.

    Yea, but the problem is that Obama is supposed to be a President for ALL Americans.. Not just the Americans who agree with him ideologically..

    He is meant to follow the policies he stated on his platform, the platform that won the most votes in the 2008 and 2012 elections - you know, that democracy thing ;)

    These policies happen to be the best for most people in the country, but not the 1% who own the Republican Party and the minds of those outside the 1% gullible enough to fall for the Republican line. Fortunately, that isn't you, because you are not a Republican and all that.

    I'll grant you that Trump is more left wing than Hillary, so perhaps he can be a good Obama 2 for the country - but his temperament doesn't seem to be up to the role of President. We'd be going from no-drama-Obama to tweet-n-bomb-Trump - I'm not ready for that.

  36. [36] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    I would chime in that while Trump certainly has a shot at winning...I would contend that it will not be due to a yuuugggeee voter turnout for him.

    Once the decks are cleared and the Clinton machine kicks into high gear many of the higher educated supporters of Trump will be sufficiently turned off by the fallacy (or is it phallicy?) of Trump as a successful businessman to not vote for him (what with the Trump university fraud, use of foreign eminent domain, Trump stuff made not in the US, and the affairs should he choose to drop the sex bomb...just to name a few ).

    To be clear this probably will not translate to people running to Hillary, but more to people staying at home.

    Depending on how Trump takes on Hillary the same can happen to her supporters with the resurrected scandals and the whole wall street ties, with a hint of quid pro quo via the Clinton foundation. I am sure that some gems from her private speeches are all set to surface. As long as attacking her abilities because she is a woman is studiously avoided a sufficiently toxic environment will be created to turn off the less than enthused / motivated voter.

    Again I do not see this as people running to Trump, but again more to staying at home.

    The whole thing with using disenfranchisement to motivate people to vote is that is can be over manipulated and cause those people to say fucit (time fah whe bucket) I'm staying home it does not matter.

    I predict at the end of the day that #sackofdicks2016 (close your eyes reach in and grab one, doesn't matter which one, your gonna get screwed...weather you want to be or not)will be decided by whoever does the best job of not de-incentivizing the responsible citizen middle of the road voter to come over to their line of thinking, or put another way both T and H have their fanatics which overall are a small portion of the electorate and not really sufficient to get the job done. Both T and H will require a small amount of dedicated responsible citizens to push them across the line....which is a small group as well.It is quite possible that a majority of people who want to vote but do not view it as a required responsibility (unlike most of us here)will be sufficiently de-incentivized to not bother with the hassle of going to vote.

    After the small election turnout we will see about 30 seconds of thought about why that is, 30 seconds of weeping and gnashing of teeth by the losing party and a prompt return to business as usual and immediately start the 2018 midterm election cycle.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    No stupid wars was the correct quote Michale.

    According to the ideology of the Left Wingery, the ONLY "smart" war is no war at all...

    He is meant to follow the policies he stated on his platform, the platform that won the most votes in the 2008 and 2012 elections - you know, that democracy thing ;)

    Really?? Like there are no red states or blue states only a UNITED states??

    Looks like he failed... EPICLY...

    These policies happen to be the best for most people in the country,

    Despite all the facts to the contrary....

    I'll grant you that Trump is more left wing than Hillary, so perhaps he can be a good Obama 2 for the country - but his temperament doesn't seem to be up to the role of President. We'd be going from no-drama-Obama to tweet-n-bomb-Trump - I'm not ready for that.

    As long as the right people get bombed, NOT our own Ambassador, for example, I have no problem with Trump's ideas.. :D

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    neilm wrote:

    What on earth is this?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl_ke85HqII

    Carly aiming to piss off the cat people?

  39. [39] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    How about Boehner's comments calling Cruz "Lucifer in the flesh"? His contempt for Cruz is one of the only things I could agree with Boehner on. The saddest thing is that Boehner was one of the GOP architects of what the Party has morphed into today and that allowed a "Ted Cruz" to be running for the Republican nomination-- Cruz is just much better at the evil game than Boehner ever was.

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    How about Boehner's comments calling Cruz "Lucifer in the flesh"? His contempt for Cruz is one of the only things I could agree with Boehner on. The saddest thing is that Boehner was one of the GOP architects of what the Party has morphed into today and that allowed a "Ted Cruz" to be running for the Republican nomination-- Cruz is just much better at the evil game than Boehner ever was.

    So, we're all in agreement...

    Cruz is scum... :D

    Common ground... A wonderful thing... :D

    "Detente... A wonderful thing..."
    -Maureen Robinson, LOST IN SPACE

    :D

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ronald Reagan brought forth an annual real GDP growth of 3.5%.
    Barack Obama will be lucky to average a 1.55% GDP growth rate.

    This ranks Obama as the fourth worst presidency on record.
    -http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/simply-worst-obama-first-president-ever-not-see-single-year-3-gdp/

    HA!!!

    Tell me again how awesome Obama and the Democrats have been???

    I seem to have forgotten, what with all the facts to the contrary...

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The question asked on Washington Journal this morning was "What is the proper role of government?"
    I couldn't help thinking that if Trump was president (yes, it is possible)then the correct answer might be a kaiser roll.

  43. [43] 
    neilm wrote:

    Ronald Reagan brought forth an annual real GDP growth of 3.5%.

    Wrong. Ronnie saw 3.64% real GDP growth, but even though that number is higher, it is still lower than Clinton's 3.82%.

    Idiot-boy (Bush 2) achieved 1.8%, basically the same as Obama's 1.78%

    It is like there is a systemic change in the economy from the 60's (Kennedy and Johnson both saw >5% real GDP growth), then 80's/90's, and the last 15 years.

    If only there was some field of study that investigated these data ;)

    Source for data: Bureau of Economic Analysis.

  44. [44] 
    neilm wrote:

    And if you were wondering about Nixon/Ford vs. Carter:

    Nixon: 3.07%
    Ford: 2.28%
    Carter: 3.32%

    Good old Jimmy, eh!

    Growth under Democrats far outpaces growth under Republicans - this is a well known meme - I can't believe you gave me this soft ball Michale ;)

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil..

    Obama's 1.5% looks pretty impressive stacked up to that..

    NOT!!!

    :D

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    neilm wrote:

    ... kaiser roll.

    Thanks Don! Good one.

  47. [47] 
    neilm wrote:

    Obama achieved 1.78%, and was President during the bulk of the Great Recession. Idiot Boy (Bush 2) basically only matched Obama and Bush 1.

    If you take the Great Recession out of the picture, Obama is over 4% - not bad for a Kenyan Muslim Socialist, I'd say.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of cats...

    http://sjfm.us/temp/image10.jpg

    Here's one for ya, CW for the next holiday fund raiser.. :D

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    neilm wrote:

    One of the underlying premises of this election is that we need to take actions that will bring back good manufacturing jobs. Trump and Sanders make this a core issue for their platforms, and even Clinton has, I'm sad to say, talked about this.

    It is all nonsense. "Good" manufacturing jobs, just like "Good" agricultural jobs, are gone, and not just because there is cheaper labor elsewhere.

    In the U.S. we are the leaders in healthcare, entertainment, advanced energy, education, etc. all of which are expected to be growth industries in the future. Why are we trying to restore a prior economy that is in worldwide decline?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/business/economy/the-mirage-of-a-return-to-manufacturing-greatness.html

  50. [50] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Can someone on FaceBook help me out, and post a comment over on HuffPost to Chris Willett? Something along the lines of "Chris Weigant answered you over on his site" with the permalink to this comment (link down below). Thanks!

    Chris Willett -

    Just wanted to say thanks for your comments, and in particular I was very impressed with how you phrased the following:

    I'm ready to put a bookend on this volume, the Bernie presidential insurgency; but I'm already excited for the next volume. This story doesn't end here, but the true climax should be soon; where the movement actually acts like one and continues the fight through the upcoming elections. Where the people who will take up Bernie's cause star running their own progressive campaigns.

    Your first sentence is the best metaphor I've yet come across to describe where millions of Bernie voters now find themselves. Seriously, well done -- an excellent turn of phrase!

    :-)

    -CW

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama achieved 1.78%, and was President during the bulk of the Great Recession.

    ahh ahh ahhh...

    No re-writing recent history...

    The Great Recession officially began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, which determines the start and end dates of U.S. recessions based on a range of economic indicators.Jun 26, 2014
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-fieldhouse/five-years-after-the-grea_b_5530597.html

    Obama was POTUS for less than 6 months of the Great Recession.....

    Sorry....

    Obama and the Democrats OWNS this abysmal "recovery"....

    They were more concerned about their agenda and TrainWreckCare than they were about JOBS for Americans..

    Don't take my word for it..

    Ask Chuck Schumer...

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can someone on FaceBook help me out, and post a comment over on HuffPost to Chris Willett? Something along the lines of "Chris Weigant answered you over on his site" with the permalink to this comment (link down below). Thanks!

    Done....

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you take the Great Recession out of the picture, Obama is over 4% - not bad for a Kenyan Muslim Socialist, I'd say.

    Yea... And if you take away my fat belly and my baldness, I'de be a dead ringer for George Clooney...

    :D

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Apologies.. I didn't permalink to the specific comment, but rather gave a link to the entire commentary..

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    I think this will help things...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=525io_DoZco

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think this will help things...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=525io_DoZco

    Someone had WAY too much time on their hands!! :D

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    4Crawford wrote:

    Hillary claims she never sent or received classified material on her private server. She also claims she never used the government server. Just how did she send and receive classified information? Carrier Pigeon?

    The only way my faith in the system will be restored is if the DOJ indicts her before the Democratic convention. I'm not holding my breath.

  58. [58] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yea... And if you take away my fat belly and my baldness, I'de be a dead ringer for George Clooney...

    :)

  59. [59] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Great Recession officially began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009

    Yes, and the peak impact carried on for years afterwards.

    Let me put it another way, did you think things were getting better in July 2009?

    If you did, then maybe like me you put money into the market (most of mine went in in early 2010, and I was deemed a risk taker at the time). If you didn't was it because you don't have liquid assets or you didn't think late 2009/early 2010 was a good time to invest because we were in the middle of a financial crisis with rising unemployment?

    If you reject all that, then your alternative is that it only took Obama six months to turn the economy around. Thanks Barry!

  60. [60] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hey CW:

    "This is who we are. These are our generational values. This is how Millennials plan to govern. We want everyone to see the doctor and we want everyone to go to college or trade school and we want less war and more infrastructure. Your ideas have had their fair chance and they failed. It is time for something different.
    So, yes. Bernie may not win the Presidency. But it would be foolish to write him, or his policies, or his supporters, off. In fact, anyone who wants to stay in politics should be listening very closely right now, including Hillary Clinton. Because Millennials won’t settle for the same old solutions. You’ve raised us to be smarter and more compassionate than that."
    -- By Melissa Gustkey

    Source:

    https://somuchforgravity.wordpress.com/2016/04/27/a-generation-berning/

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    4Crawford,

    Hillary claims she never sent or received classified material on her private server. She also claims she never used the government server. Just how did she send and receive classified information? Carrier Pigeon?

    The only way my faith in the system will be restored is if the DOJ indicts her before the Democratic convention. I'm not holding my breath.

    I don't think I have ever meant this as much as I do right now..

    "WELCOME TO THE PARTY, PAL!!!"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    :D

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    4Crawford,

    The only way my faith in the system will be restored is if the DOJ indicts her before the Democratic convention. I'm not holding my breath.

    It really doesn't matter if the DOJ indicts her or not..

    If FBI Director Comey recommends indictment of Hillary and/or Senior Staff, the she/they WILL be indicted..

    The only question is whether it will be thru the Department of Justice or the Court of Public Opinion..

    Hillary would probably get a better shake from the DOJ than the CPO...

    Personally, I don't think Obama's DOJ will indict.. But it won't matter.

    The damage will be done with Comey's recommendation and, when the DOJ refuses to do the right thing, there will be a massive walk-out of FBI agents up to, and probably including, Director Comey...

    But, based on Director Comey's recommendation, Hillary's campaign will be toast...

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Someone here ( I think it was Neil ) was castigating the Trump mantra AMERICA FIRST..

    I have to ask.... As Americans, what is wrong with that??

    Is there really a problem with an American President putting his country and her people FIRST???

    After 8 years of being IGNORED by our leaders, I think an AMERICA FIRST policy is going to be welcomed by tens of millions of Americans who have been crapped on by Obama and the Democrats...

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    In my continuing quest to define aspects of Mr. Trump’s rise, to my own satisfaction, I offer what was said this week in a talk with a small group of political activists, all of whom back him. One was about to begin approaching various powerful and influential Republicans who did not support him, and make the case. I told her I’d been thinking that maybe Mr. Trump’s appeal is simple: What Trump supporters believe, what they perceive as they watch him, is that he is on America’s side.
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/simple-patriotism-trumps-ideology-1461886199

    This is why Trump is so personally popular...

    He is not an ideological leader...

    We have had ideology shoved in our faces for 16 years...

    We're sick of it and we'll be damned if we're going to put up with it any more...

    It's that simple...

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Cenk Uygur: If You Don't Think Hillary Could Get Indicted, "You Are Either Grossly Ignorant Or Lying"
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/28/cenk_uygur_if_you_dont_think_hillary_could_get_indicted_you_are_either_grossly_ignorant_or_lying.html

    Yep... :D

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    And now for a moment of comedy..

    Siamese twins walk into a bar in Toronto and park themselves on bar stools.

    One of them says to the bartender, "Don't mind us; as you can see, we're joined side by side at the hip.

    I'm John, he's Jim.

    Two Molson Canadian draft beers, please."

    The bartender, feeling slightly awkward, tries to make polite conversation while pouring the beers.

    "Been on vacation yet, boys"?

    "Off to England next month," says John. "We go to England every year, rent a car and drive for miles. Don't we, Jim?"

    Jim agrees.

    "Ah, England !" says the bartender. "Wonderful country ... the history, the beer, the culture ..."

    "Nah, we don't like all that British crap," says John. "Hamburgers and Molson's beer, that's us, eh Jim? And we can't stand the English - they're so arrogant and rude."

    Bartender asks: Then why keep going to England?

    "It's the only chance Jim gets to drive."

    baa daa da..... :D

    I'll be here all week. Be sure and tip your waitresses :D

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    4Crawford wrote:

    There is a possibility of charges being brought but they need to be brought before the Democratic convention. If after the convention but before the election. The Rump, or whomever, will be sitting in the Oval Office. If after the election, we must endure months of an impeachment circus. On the bright side, that could give us President Warren.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is a possibility of charges being brought but they need to be brought before the Democratic convention.

    Like I said, I doubt the DOJ will indict.. Obama is the ultimate in narcissism and if he allows his DOJ to indict, the Clintonistas (who are already a few fries short of a happy meal) will lose their frakin' minds.. And they can do a LOT of damage to Obama's legacy..

    And THAT is the ONLY thing that Obama cares about...

    If after the election, we must endure months of an impeachment circus.

    Yea, can't argue with that...

    My sources tell me that Comey will issue his recommendation within the next week... I am going with 4 May because it's Star Wars Day and an anniversary (of sorts) for me and Weigantia... :D

    On the other hand, there hasn't been any word of actual interviews taking place, so the 1st Week Of May "deadline" is looking somewhat impossible...

    On the bright side, that could give us President Warren.

    We obviously have a different idea of what constitutes the "bright side".. :D heh

    But that's what makes life interesting.. :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.