2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWell, Now That Southern Blacks Have Voted, Hillary Throws Obama Under The Bus
With the majority of the south taken by Hillary, her husband has switched gears on messaging on his campaign stump speech. Yesterday, Bill said this:
Yep, she hugged Obama tight as she pushed to get the black vote in the south, and now, Obama's awful legacy can be put behind us.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/21/politics/bill-clinton-hillary-obama-legacy/
She really will say and do anything to get elected.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Response to FreakinDJ (Reply #1)
Post removed
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)The out of context screwjob has been debunked on DU.
Thanks for playing.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Dems held both house and senate for 2 of those years. ACA was passed and many more good things accomplished.
There is no way to look at Obama's term and call it an awful legacy, even with the obstructionism.
Keep splainin' away though.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)And it will go down in history books.
Bettie
(15,998 posts)that Clinton would face no obstruction? Or that she'd face less obstruction?
Anyone with a "D" after their name is going to face obstruction. That is simply a fact of our world at this time.
Republicans in congress will not work with anyone who doesn't walk their party line and they will have the House until we manage to deal with gerrymandering.
The only way a Democrat will get any cooperation is to adhere to the Tea Party agenda.
I'd like to think that Clinton would not go that far.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Ya know, an actual political revolution.
Bettie
(15,998 posts)majority Democratic, Senate rules allow for secret holds, silent filibusters...and the House can muck things up too and do on a regular basis.
So, is your contention that Clinton would face no obstruction because congressional Republicans love her so very much?
My point is that saying that there would be no obstruction is simply wrong.
It is not a Clinton or a Sanders issue, it is simply the world we live in at this point.
Anyone with a "D" after their name will face it and it will ramp up unless that person is willing to rubber stamp any stupid thing Republicans want. Again, I'd hope that no one from the Democratic party would do that.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Well they are different people, but very close in ideology, so it is possible Hillary will rubber-stamp a lot of things the Republicans want, I remember how closely Bill worked with Gingrich on rubber-stamping bank deregulation, media consolidation, welfare destruction (err I guess the proper euphemism is "reform" or the way Bill put it "an end to welfare as we know it. He was working on SS "reform" with Gingrich as I recall until he was cut short by scandal. Perhaps she will start with that, where he left off on draconian reforms on behalf or her very dear friend and adviser to he Clinton family on "reform" for deficit reduction Pete Peterson.
Bill signed most of what Republicans wanted that we are paying a great price for now. Maybe, that is why Bill believes she can end Obama's legacy including his refusal to rubber-stamp most of their legislation as Bill had (even if Obama did promote some of Republican dream legislation, like Romney care which values human life as commodities, Bronze people left with premium bills for insurance they can't use to get actual care due to deductibles they can't afford, while Gold people get great care with minor deductibles they can pay right out of their parking change and movie money, (all of which has doubled the value of Insurance Co. stock and increased their revenue) and his rubber-stamping of he TPP ready, pen in hand, waiting to sign, but overall refusing to do all or even mot of the Republican's bidding.
Maybe the rubber stamp is already created and lies in her pocket just awaiting her coronation. He does after all know how to be a Vichy collaborator to Republican dream legislation, and he is an expert on his wife as much as anyone might hope to be.
I expect an end to gridlock under another Clinton presidency and all of the things the Republicans dream of passing getting a ready signature, what else could Bill be referring to?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)No difference in commitment between them on that.
brush
(53,475 posts)A key phrase was edited out of his remark.
This is what he actually said:
"If you believe we can all rise together, if you believe we've finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that where we were practicing trickle-down economics with no regulation in Washington, which is what caused the crash, then you should vote for [Hillary], the former president said on Monday.
The bold type is what was edited out:
"before that where we were practicing trickle-down economics with no regulation in Washington"
Any thinking person without an anti-Clinton agenda can clearly see that he was referring to repug obstructionism and trickle down, no regulation, repug pollicies.
This is about the tenth thread from Sanders supporters pushing this lie. And I understand Bernie himself actually tweeted this.
Guys, please stop accepting, believing and spreading these these smears and hurting your credibility.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)They got nothing, so now its down to making shit up.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)also used as an avatar in nasty posts.
quickesst
(6,280 posts)... like a pitbull with an old tire, or to put it in easier terms... Like a republican holding on to a Clinton smear job.
Merryland
(1,134 posts)I wonder how & if Obama will react - does he care? Does he really support her?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Haven't sent me one in a while though, I'm starting to wonder if you still think of me that way.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)You have mastered that...
I am sure that wasn't what Skinner intended when he lifted the five hides = a time out rule.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)I had one and it went on for hours. Weird weird stuff too.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Just cause you say it ain't so, don't make it that way.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)of the word context. This is why these smears lost their effectiveness and the Democratic electorate didn't buy any of them. At this point the smears are nothing but entertainment for Hillary bashers as they watch her march to the nomination.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)it, are Hillary fans.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Meanwhile, in the real world, Hillary is trouncing Bernie in the primary. The voters aren't buying what you're selling. Maybe if Bernie supporters had tried flooding the internet with substance rather than misleading smears, it could have gone your way.
But they didn't, and it's not.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Your interlocutor called you "sweetie".
If I may pry do you have a prior relationship with him or her.
Thank you in advance.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)I doubt he is from texas
Dem2
(8,166 posts)Clearly you're trying to make Bernie's supporters look desperate and unhinged.
Why?
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)People who talk about the unintended consequence of Hillary's Campaign Message Change are desperate now? Got it. Did you coordinate that on the other site?
Dem2
(8,166 posts)You're not helping Bernie.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Dem2
(8,166 posts)Every single word I use are words that I come up with on my own, if you don't like it or if you have comments of your own, please counter using actual arguments. If you're going to toss random accusations at me, that is not my problem, that is your problem.
desmiller
(747 posts)if you support Obama, you should be absolutely offended by this. It's common sense that the only politicians with an 8 year limit (if they win re-election) are the President and the second in command, the Vice President. The President in this case, and the one with an eight year legacy, is, currently, Obama. Calling this post desperate is extremely absurd. Especially when the evidence is right in front of your face.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)Somebody made some wildly ridiculous nonsensical accusation in the O/P and I commented appropriately. You are not defending the O/P, you appear to saying some random words that make no sense to me.
desmiller
(747 posts)you do know what I'm talking talk. This so wildly accusation has evidence to back it up. You're just denying to accept it. Your response to my post is proof that you condone Clinton's words. Saying that I'm throwing words out is like calling me crazy, and it's a bit over the top. I'm too much man to rely on a petty jury system that can be easily abused. I'll handle your behind myself. Welcome to my naughty list and good riddance.
Tarc
(10,472 posts)#17: http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm
Let us know how well this lying "message" resonates at the ballot box today.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Being an ex-President and all, he was very clear about his words.
Tarc
(10,472 posts)It is daft political opportunism to pounce upon a misstatement and attempt to use it for gain, but I guess that's what people do when they've run out of actual substantive arguments.
Tsk.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)He is going to be buying a lot of dinners and nightcaps.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)artyteacher
(598 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)Tarc
(10,472 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)Are you saying she'd compromise with them more than Obama has?
Tarc
(10,472 posts)Funny how 2 replies appear within minutes to a comment I made over 12 hours ago.
Marr
(20,317 posts)... I'm not in on it.
For the record, I think it's pretty obvious that Clinton wasn't referring to Obama's presidency. That would be a ridiculously self-destructive comment for any Democrat to make, and completely out of character for both Bill and Hillary Clinton. I'm not sure exactly what he meant; whether he was referring to economic policies or Republican obstructionism or what-- but if it was the latter, I don't see how electing Hillary would change anything, that's all.
By the way, I'd like to apologize for my snark in my initial post. I think we're actually on the same page here.
LexVegas
(6,005 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)by the Clintons and the coalition members still hold to their coalition.
This suggests to me that at least the leaders of the coalition groups, but probably also majorities of those groups members, see the coalition as more important than their own groups interests.
Getting dinged and having to rationalize at least creates the potential for pent-up frustration, and thereby the need for an active effort to manage potential break-away groups...
I wonder how much the dinging explains BLM, the Sanders movement, and the apparent anxiety about defections that results in constant inquiries about 'backing the nominee'.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Sanders crowd won't stoop to in their desperation ?
randome
(34,845 posts)Some have already admitted Sanders can't win. Others will come around after Arizona. And another 'batch' will wait until Sanders loses New York. But those who wait the longest also carry the most vitriol.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
WDIM
(1,662 posts)8 years seems pretty specific to Obama.
UMTerp01
(1,048 posts)He said the awful legacy of the past 8 years and the 7 years before that. But nice GOP tactic.
Mike__M
(1,052 posts)(A Bernie supporter, even) that what he was referring to was the economic collapse and its aftermath --eight years-- and the other seven years of Bush before the collapse-- he explicitly referred to Bush economic policy. Considering the odd way he divided the time spans, its plain that he was not dissing President Obama; that would have been "the legacy of the last seven years," and the eight years of Bush before that. So even the campaign's explanation about Republican obstructionism is off the mark. Yes, he could have made his point more clearly, but this whole line of attack about rejecting Obama is wrong.
Sorry fellow Bernie fans. Let's win on real issues.
More meaningful to me is the fact that a former president, and bona fide Historic Figure gave a speech that 800 people lined up to hear, while the day before, more than ten times that many lined up across the street to hear the other guy.
6chars
(3,967 posts)It wasn't just "she praised Obama who is black."
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)Partially blame the last 8 years of rancor on Obama, target moderate Republicans and independents who are horrified by Trump, and assume progressives will hold their noses and vote for Hillary.
The Clintons are tone deaf about how how many people hate Hillary and will never vote for her.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)WDIM
(1,662 posts)Carry on his legacy.
By November she will be full Republican
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)DJ13
(23,671 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)suck up to Obama just long enough to win the primary and then spit in their face before the
general election, not to mention the next primaries in 2020 if she were to be involved.
So, I hate to do it, but I have to disagree with a fellow Bernie supporter on this OP.
It's not totally clear to me what Bill meant by his remarks. I've heard all the sides but it's still
ambivalent at best. Bill either literally meant to dis Obama or he was very careless with his
sentence structure.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)It isn't just this one, but since the southern primaries have ended (remember how SHE was the candidate to carry on Obama's legacy). . . well, now she has come out on many occassions to say where she thinks he was wrong and she'll do it differently.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)But, I was specifically referring to the flap caused by Bill's remark , followed up by your theory.
My point was that she would have to be politically "suicidal" to suddenly take a chance on loosing
the majority votes in the entire South East just to be able to turn away from Obama based on Bill's
remark.
Trust me, I am not a Hillary support. If you think otherwise, goggle any of my remarks since the start of the primaries. I'm a staunch fan of Senator Sanders.
However, since you had the impression that I was for Hillary, I'm sorry that I even responded to your
post in the first place. Without a doubt, every move she makes is the result of a political calculation
all aimed at getting more money into her bank account.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)artyteacher
(598 posts)Ugh...
I won't say it.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)What else is new?
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)So you're pretending to give a shit about him now?
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)sarcasm off.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)How would it benefit Hillary? Why would she have Bill suddenly throwing Obama under the bus? What votes would she gain? She'd lose votes that way.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)She "evolves" so quickly it makes the head spin.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Butterbean
(1,014 posts)that he was referring to congress. JMHO.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)Bill has always had a more tense relationship with the president than Hillary has. I am not going to assume he spoke for her on this one.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)... She can fool them, but can't fool those white male millennials.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... that Bill was talking about the Obama administration when he referred to "the awful legacy of the past eight years", there is no point in discussing it any further.
It astonishes me that anyone would actually think that now that the "black vote in the south" was secured, Hill (or Bill) would do an about-face and trash Obama.
Why would HRC do so? Even if, as you seem to be contending, she was only sticking with Obama in order to get that "black vote", what purpose would there be in distancing herself from him now? There are still AAs and PoCs in the remaining primary states - so why take the risk of losing their support at this stage of the race?
This isn't about Politics 101 - it's about COMMON SENSE 101. And there is absolutely NO common sense to what you're promoting.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)continue with this lie, it tells who you are. Because we know you know the truth.
Marr
(20,317 posts)from the Hillary camp, that it's exceedingly hard to take the protestations in this thread seriously.
For what it's worth, I agree with you-- I think it's pretty obvious that, whatever he was referring to, be it economic policy or Republican obstructionism, he was not referring to the Obama presidency.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)diverse as a gun show or something similar.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Flip it open to the page dated October 6, 2015.
It reads "Dear diary, I can't wait until the states with higher percentages of AAs are finished voting. That will be when I really get to hit Obama hard."
jillan
(39,451 posts)The last 8 years are the last eight years but that's not what he meant. Lol