HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » If Hillary is part of the...

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 08:17 PM

 

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, 933 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to CheshireDog (Original post)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 08:29 PM

1. Goldman Sachs. JP Morgan, Citigroup, Time Warner etc were all big backers of Obama

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CheshireDog (Original post)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 08:47 PM

2. I think the media did favor Obama. Obama was no different from Clinton on economic policy.

 

So maybe the oligarchy just shrugged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CheshireDog (Original post)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 08:51 PM

3. Because she isn't the only one and sometimes it takes a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go do

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CheshireDog (Original post)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 08:52 PM

4. She claimed to have run from snipers and would not back off of that

 

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.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #4)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 08:58 PM

5. she doesn't have to do anything new......they will run that sniper ad and call her delusional

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread