Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

CheshireDog

(63 posts)
Thu Oct 29, 2015, 08:17 PM Oct 2015

If Hillary is part of the oligarchy...

...and has been "chosen" to win because of her support for the status quo, why the hell didn't she win in 2008??

I remember browsing on this site in 2008 and Hillary supporters felt exactly the same way Bernie supporters do now - that the media was in the tank for Obama, that superdelegates were choosing Obama against the will of their own constituents, that the DNC had purposely fixed the rules (proportial representation instead of winner take all which benefited Obama).

If Hillary's support is entirely because those in charge "want" her to win as Bernie supporters keep claiming, why didn't they want her to win in 2008? It makes absolutely no sense.

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

think

(11,641 posts)
1. Goldman Sachs. JP Morgan, Citigroup, Time Warner etc were all big backers of Obama
Thu Oct 29, 2015, 08:29 PM
Oct 2015
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

Most of us just didn't see it.

The fact that he chose to appoint Eric Holder to the DOJ should clue you in as to how that worked out for the big banks and the American people.

Eric Holder is now back to representing Wall Street at his old place of employment Covington & Burling

http://www.portside.org/2015-07-11/after-years-not-prosecuting-banks-eric-holder-returns-home-defend-them
 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
2. I think the media did favor Obama. Obama was no different from Clinton on economic policy.
Thu Oct 29, 2015, 08:47 PM
Oct 2015

So maybe the oligarchy just shrugged.

TheKentuckian

(25,020 posts)
3. Because she isn't the only one and sometimes it takes a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go do
Thu Oct 29, 2015, 08:51 PM
Oct 2015

Some things Obama was better or more easily able to sell than Clinton was possibly the call.
Also, sometimes it is close enough to not really matter. Obama just appointed Clintonites, Turd Wayers, and outright TeaPubliKlans to about every critical position.
The differences are mostly superficial and/or personality rather than policy, power bases, priorities, or agenda.

I think it was pretty mapped out. The one that lost would be Secretary of State to increase perception on foreign policy and remain in the spotlight and would be the party approved candidate the next time around.

 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
4. She claimed to have run from snipers and would not back off of that
Thu Oct 29, 2015, 08:52 PM
Oct 2015

insane claim for weeks.

There was no way to pass her off as a possible Commander In Chief after that.

If she does something equally crazy after winning the nomination then we are all screwed.

It makes perfect sense once you realize how terribly flawed a candidate she is. Terrible candidate. Not worth the risk.







Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»If Hillary is part of the...