"Yes, the email scandal was a load of bunk, but why in the world would she make the stupid decision to set up a private server in the first place, which gratuitously provided endless rounds of ammunition for her many political enemies? She knew she'd be running for president again, and it’s not like the right hasn’t been hellbent on destroying her for, oh, the past quarter-century or so. It’s worth pointing out that President Obama has had the discipline and smarts to avoid that kind of self-destructive behavior. He and his administration never gave off the faintest whiff of scandal, which is why his enemies were never able to bring him down, try as they might."
This paragraph is a shining example of how completely DELUDED and out of touch with thinking Americans the left has become. I've been saying for 2 years what is obvious to any honest person - that Hillary Clinton didn't set up a private server "for convenience" as she claimed, but rather so that NONE of her communications would be subject to Congressional oversight or to FOIA requests from the American people. Anyone with an IQ over 80 that isn't a deluded hack knows this. The question therefore, is how were democrats ignorant enough to look down their noses at the unwashed masses - those "rubes in flyover country" and assume *they* were the ignorant ones who could be attacked and discredited into submission? Midwesterners have long been known for one attribute that is far less commonly attributed to those who live on the coasts - possessing common f*cking sense. It's not in our nature to twist and turn and grasp for reasons to believe something that appears on the face of it to be a complete joke or lie (such as Hillary's lies about the reason for her secret server). Instead, we most often go with the clearly obvious truth. And in this case, that truth was that she was the most corrupt and dishonest person to EVER win a major party's nomination for the presidency. But the author of this piece - like almost ALL democrats - clearly learned nothing about their failed view of the entirety of Middle America. Second, the part about Obama is every bit as deluded as the one about Clinton. He's presided over FAR more scandals than she seems to even remember: Fast and Furious IRS targeting of conservatives IRS Chief caught lying about targeting of conservatives to Congress - who is still in office DOJ targeting of AP and James Rosen - including illegal surveillance NSA illegal surveillance of Americans Benghazi and the lies that followed from Obama, Rice, and Hillary Clinton GSA scandal EPA poisoning Colorado waters EPA chief using alias and private email for government business Hillary's email scandal and accepting hundreds of millions from foreign governments Obama's lies about Obamacare Obama's lies about paying ransom for hostages held by Iran Obama trading FIVE terrorists for one deserter - who STILL hasn't been served justice Obama's unconstitutional expansion of executive power countless times; he's been smacked down by SCOTUS more than any president in modern times: http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/obama-has-lost-in-the-supreme-court-more-than-any-modern-president/ So much for being touted "a brilliant constitutional law professor", or a brilliant anything, with the possible exception of "lying politician". Just because the deluded left and their owned mainstream media in America failed ENTIRELY to scrutinize Obama doesn't mean ordinary, thinking Americans did. On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 12:04:53 PM UTC-5, MJ wrote: > > > NOVEMBER 28, 2016 > > *The Clintons’ Dominance of Democratic Politics Is Over -- And They Will > Not Be Remembered Fondly * > *Self-inflicted wounds, an out-of-touch candidate and a party more > concerned about Wall Street than the working class sealed the Clinton > campaign’s defeat. *BY KATHLEEN GEIER > > In the aftermath of a political catastrophe as devastating of the election > of Donald Trump as president of the United States, you've got two choices. > You can blame the elites or blame the people. I'm gonna go with the elites. > > Many liberal journalists, however have taken the opposite view. To > paraphrase Bertolt Brecht, in the aftermath of Hillary Clinton’s stunning > loss, they have demanded that we dissolve the people and elect another. The > Clintonistas have attempted to pin the blame for this fiasco on the voter > groups they detest the most: the white working class > <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/10/misogyny-us-election-voters>, > > the millennials, and the Left > <http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/why-clinton-lost-bitter-bernie-crooked-comey-and-wounded-working-class>. > > Clinton supporter Jill Filipovic opined that Hillary was too good for us: > “Sorry > America, you didn't deserve her,” > <https://twitter.com/JillFilipovic/status/796396691113017344> she > tweeted. Many other Clintonites in the media concurred. To Virginia > Heffernan > <http://www.lennyletter.com/politics/a613/hillary-clinton-is-more-than-a-president/>, > > Hillary Clinton was not just a candidate. Instead, she “is an idea, a > world-historical heroine, light itself” who “did everything right in this > campaign… She cannot be faulted, criticized, or analyzed for even one more > second.” > > But outside the pro-Clinton media bubble, ordinary Americans had a far > less rosy view of Dear Leader Hillary. > > Clinton came within striking distance of winning this thing; that much is > clear. Normally, when, like Hillary, you begin your campaign with approval > ratings that are already under water > <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/poll-hillary-clinton-unfavorable-numbers-118532>, > > and you're also running when your own party has held the White House for > two consecutive terms, I'd say it would be an uphill climb to victory. On > the other hand, Hillary was running against Donald Trump, a man who, at the > time of the election, was despised by even more people > <http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/08/politics/first-exit-polls-2016/> than she > was. Against a normal Republican like McCain or Romney, Hillary probably > would have lost decisively. But against Trump, she was the odds-on > favorite. The polls were tight but they almost always showed Hillary in the > lead. And it ended up being a close, and therefore winnable, election. The > margins were close enough that a competently run campaign could and should > have put Clinton over the top. > > What we saw instead was gross political malpractice on the part of > Democratic Party elites generally and Team Clinton specifically. Yes, > factors outside of the campaign's control, ranging from the Comey letter to > racism, sexism, and more, surely contributed to her defeat. But it's also > become clear that a series of fatal miscalculations and spectacular > strategic blunders by the party and the Clinton campaign is what ultimately > sealed their candidate's fate. > > Here are some of them: > > 1. This one isn't so much why-Hillary-lost but why-the-Democrats-lost: the > Clintons did the most thorough job of clearing the Democratic primary > field > <http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a32840/if-not-hillary-who-1114/> > > of any candidate in modern history. They threw their weight around and made > certain that they had endorsements and support from just about every major > donor, party official, party organization, and interest group organization > (such as labor, reproductive rights groups, environmental groups, etc.). > > The Clintons have a history of punishing perceived disloyalty > <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/hillary-clinton-hit-list-102067>, > > so it’s easy to see why these groups knuckled under. Every potential > candidate stayed out except Bernie, who shocked everyone when what was > supposed to be a protest candidacy turned into a major threat. But if the > primary process had been open and competitive, we almost certainly would > have ended up with a stronger and more popular candidate. I don't know who > that would have been–maybe Elizabeth Warren, maybe Joe Biden, maybe Sherrod > Brown, maybe Kirsten Gillibrand, maybe someone else. In any case, the > party, and the country, would have been far better off. Democratic Party > elites share the blame here, because they never challenged the Clintons’ > attempts to ensure a coronation. > > 2. Clinton also shot herself in the foot by her own arrogant behavior. > Setting up the private email server at the State Department, making those > buckraking Wall Street speeches, refusing to cut her ties to the Clinton > Foundation (and thus avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest)–all of > those were Clinton's freely made choices, and as such they were completely > avoidable. > > Yes, the email scandal was a load of bunk, but why in the world would she > make the stupid decision to set up a private server in the first place, > which gratuitously provided endless rounds of ammunition for her many > political enemies? She knew she'd be running for president again, and it’s > not like the right hasn’t been hellbent on destroying her for, oh, the past > quarter-century or so. It’s worth pointing out that President Obama has had > the discipline and smarts to avoid that kind of self-destructive behavior. > He and his administration never gave off the faintest whiff of scandal, > which is why his enemies were never able to bring him down, try as they > might. Seriously, what was Clinton’s excuse here? > > Every one of those dangerous misjudgments was a self-inflicted wound that > never stopped bleeding, and confirmed the well-founded perception that > Clinton was entitled and out of touch. That Clinton never seemed to learn > from her past was an ominous sign that her presidency would have been > chockful of similar misadventures. After decades of Clinton drama, the > public was weary, and no wonder. > > 3. Relatedly, when Hillary made these foolish decisions, why didn't the > people around her stop her? And that points to another reason why she lost: > the mediocrity of her advisers and campaign staff. The Clintons, who seem > to prize loyalty over competence, have a long and troubling history of > surrounding themselves with extraordinarily unsavory people–sleazeballs and > hacks like Mark Penn, Lanny Davis, and Dick Morris, to name just a few. > This time around, there weren’t any members of Team Clinton who seemed > quite *that* clownish, so I assumed the personnel decisions were wiser. > From the outside, the campaign look professional and competent. But as > we’ve been discovering, that perception belied the reality. > > 4. There is also abundant evidence that Clinton’s campaign royally screwed > up its strategy and badly misallocated resources. Clinton won the popular > vote by over 2 million votes > <http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-lead-popular-vote-2016-231790> > yet lost key Rust Belt states by razor-thin margins. Clinton’s much-hyped, > data-driven get-out-the-vote operation was a shocking failure. Working with > outdated voter lists, it mistakenly targeted > <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clintons-vaunted-gotv-operation-may-have-turned-out-trump-voters_us_582533b1e4b060adb56ddc27> > > large numbers of Trump voters. In Michigan, state and local officials “were > running at roughly one-tenth the paid canvasser capacity that Sen. John > Kerry (D-Mass.) had when he ran for president in 2004.” In states like > Ohio, Team Clinton’s efforts neglected traditional Democratic > constituencies > <https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/clinton-campaign-gotv-unions-voters-rust-belt/> > > like African-Americans in favor of targeting far less favorable > demographics like upscale Republican women. Clinton did not appear > <http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/17/report_neglect_and_poor_strategy_helped_cost_clinton_three_critical_states.html> > > in Wisconsin, a state that she lost, after the primary in April, and > neither did Barack or Michelle Obama. One Clinton official admitted > <http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/17/report_neglect_and_poor_strategy_helped_cost_clinton_three_critical_states.html> > > that the campaign didn’t do more in some states where they knew were > vulnerable because they were too busy playing mind games with Trump: they > believed they “could keep Trump awayby acting overly confident about their > chances.” Heckuva job, Team Clinton! > > 5. Theda Skocpol has cited > <https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/theda-skocpol-responds-to-judis> > another factor in Clinton’s loss: the Democrats' lack of organizational > infrastructure in non-urban areas. The GOP has a strong organizational base > in these regions, including get-out-the-vote efforts run by the Christian > right, the NRA, the Koch organizations, and the Republican Party itself. > But the Dems have let their own party organizations wither on the vine, and > the unions which were once the Democrats’ stronghold in the critical Rust > Belt region have declined dramatically. When it comes to getting voters to > the polls in rural areas, the Democrats are now at a tremendous structural > disadvantage. To be sure, this a party-wide, rather than a Clinton-only, > failure. But Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama bear strong > responsibility > <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/16/obama-built-a-policy-legacy-but-didnt-do-enough-to-build-the-democratic-party/> > > here. Each them served for two terms but showed little interest in building > the party. > > 6. Finally, perhaps most consequential of all was the campaign's failure > to advance a strong economic message. Team Clinton’s central strategy was > not to mobilize the base, but to appeal to crossover voters. That > irrepressible Clinton instinct to triangulate reared its ugly head one more > time, and the result has been a world-historic catastrophe. Clinton’s ads > and messaging stressed the Trump’s déclassé boorishness rather than a > populist economic message that would have resonated with working class > voters of all races. But the votes of Republican college-educated women > they were chasing never materialized, while turnout and Clinton's vote > shares among African-Americans, Latinos, millennials, and working class > whites were significantly down > <http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/clinton-votes-african-americans-latinos-women-white-voters/> > > from Obama's in 2012. In stroke of bitter poetic justice, the fruits of > Clintons' own long-ago policies came back to haunt them. NAFTA and other > Clinton “free” trade deals devastated the Rust Belt and created the ravaged > communities and the despair that compelled many working class voters in > those areas pull the lever for the despicable Trump. > > A post-election report > <http://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Dcor_PE_RTR_Ealert_11.15.2016_for-release.pdf> > > by the pollster Stanley Greenberg confirms that Clinton's decision to shun > a progressive economic appeal was a fatal error. Greenberg found that > “polls showed fairly resilient support with white working class women, > until the Clinton campaign stopped talking about economic change.” When the > Greenberg team tested a Democratic message attacking Trump for his > character vs. a message “demanding big economic changes” and attacking > Trump for “supporting for trickle-down and protecting corporate special > interests,” they found that the economic message “performed dramatically > better,” particularly among key voter groups like millennials, white > unmarried women and white working class women. > > The election is over, and with it, so it is the Clinton’s quarter-century > long domination of Democratic politics. And so lately I've been thinking > about the Clintons' historical legacy. It’s not a pretty picture. The > neoliberal economic policies of Bill Clinton, which Hillary strongly > supported–free trade, deregulation, the obsession with deficit > reduction–led to soaring levels of economic inequality, flat or declining > wages for most Americans, and record low rates of labor participation. The > Clinton crime bill ruined countless lives, especially black lives. Welfare > “reform” immiserated poor families and led to a dramatic upswing > <https://www.amazon.com/2-00-Day-Living-Nothing-America/dp/054481195X> in > rates of extreme poverty. Under the watch of Presidents Clinton and Obama, > the Democratic party at the state and local level was allowed to slowly die > away. Today, the Democratic party as an institution is probably weaker than > it's ever been at any time in its long history. The Democrats now control > none of the three branches of government and only 18 governorships > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_governors> > and 13 state legislatures > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_state_legislatures>. > In the weeks leading up to the election, many political observers were > confidently predicting an historic Trump defeat followed by a meltdown of > the GOP. But–plot twist!–it’s the Democratic party that has collapsed into > a smoking heap of rubble. > > Team Clinton repeatedly reassured us that Hillary was the most highly > qualified > <http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article92327687.html> > > and most hyper-competent person evah! to run for president. They possessed > the unshakeable conviction that they, the best and the brightest > <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-data-campaign-elan-kriegel-214215>, > > could not possibly fail–so much so that on election day, her aides > prematurely > uncorked > <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-james-comey.html> > > the celebratory champagne. So extreme was their recklessness that they > actually *wanted* > <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428> > to > run against Trump > <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428>. > > Out of the outrageous hubris, complacency, and incompetence of Hillary's > presidential campaign came the Clintons' horrifying parting gift to > America: President Donald Trump. *This* is where the Clintons led us. > Trump's election, and the nightmare to which America is awakening, is on > *them.* And it is unforgivable. > > I suspect that history is not going to look kindly at Bill and Hillary > Clinton. No, not very kindly at all. > > > http://inthesetimes.com/article/19674/hillary-clinton-democratic-party-neoliberal-trump > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
