and don't think the invective serves a positive purpose.
It's the opposite of Obama, so why portray Obama as authoring it?
The American Enterprise Institute's "Tea Party" is muttering in a dead-end alley, at this point, and only had a voice through enormous astroturf operations. Their guy is now Donald Trump - to a "T" (haha). Trump won't win, except if the Dems are idiots and choose to run with Hillary Clinton, in which case all bets are off. She's such an incredible target for ads that'll turn off the left, that'll turn off thinking people, and that'll totally depress turnout because her campaign antics to date - especially the long-term excoriation of Sanders' and "Sanders' supporters" for promoting a concept of economic equality - have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to address the concerns of what turns out to be a majority of people. Her distrust/disfavor stats are insurmountably bad already. They won't get better - it's past time to hope for that.
It's like a huge dose of WTF, is what it is - $140 million in speaking fees alone in the past decade, $25 million in the past year and half, as she made her now habitual rounds? Her "charitable foundation" that launders money from criminal regimes like the House of Saud, etc., as if those psychopath criminals gave a damn for "women's rights", or anything but buying Hillary Clinton, betting on her being the future POTUS and discovering that yes, absolutely, she can be bought. And for relatively little in the scheme of things at that. Her record on war, her recent speech to Brookings, her friendship with Kissinger her devotion to Netanyahu even after the recent Republican/Netanyahu disgrace? That's way out there stuff, and it's not just a lot of Dems who look askance, but all people of good will look askance. She doesn't make the cut.
= new reply since forum marked as read
