Because of the ongoing internal debate at Hillary Clinton 2016 we have been advised to hit harder, tougher. We’ve been told the time is now to lambaste Hillary Clinton 2016 with critiques of what must be done and not to be too polite or too kind. There are many in the Hillary Clinton 2016 discussions who agree with us and they need ammunition and our voices as the informal strategy deliberations continue. Unlike 2008 when we communicated behind the scenes and gave advice sotto voce this time we do not intend to be quiet when something is wrong in the campaign. We will be brutal in our assessments and make them public. It’s tough love time, girlfriend.
Today’s article was going to be much more bare knuckle and was to be published last week after the Virginia election results. But we waited and today we’ve had a lovely surprise. We might be making progress and Hillary Clinton 2016 might be finally listening and acting on our advice.
Our advice of course is that Hillary Clinton must denounce ObamaCare. Hillary Clinton 2016 must be about “it’s time for a change” from the Obama years debacle and not a “stay the course” Obama embrace. Towards that end we thought that right after November 30 Hillary Clinton should attack Obama’s lies and the entire obamination that is ObamaCare. We might be getting our wish.
Today, instead of Hillary Clinton denouncing ObamaCare, Bill Clinton dipped his toe in the water thereby protecting Hillary and beginning the pivot away from the Obama debacle, ObaminationCare.
Bill Clinton: Obama should honor his promise about keeping your plan if you like it. The DrudgeReport headline is “Honor Thy Commitment“ (which has a double meaning – one of which relates to Obama’s actions in 2016 – and the other more obvious critique of Obama’s lie about not losing health plans/doctors).
“So I personally believe, even if it takes a change to the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got,”
Bill Clinton well knows that for various reasons the rickety contraption of corruption known as ObamaCare cannot survive if his suggestions are adopted. Taking away health plans and doctors was an integral part of ObamaCare. It was deception birthed by a deceiver. Bill Clinton is pirouetting for the pivot:
“The remarks suggests the Clintons may be starting to reposition themselves away from President Obama and trying to dissociate themselves from the Obamacare rollout debacle as Hillary Clinton gears up for her expected presidential campaign.”
Bill Clinton is not alone. Those that want to survive 2014 and remain in office are running to the truth for protection:
“Dem. Rep.: ‘I Think the President Was Grossly Misleading to the American Public‘
Rep. Kurt Schrader, a Democrat from Oregon, said that President Obama was “grossly misleading” on Obamacare:
“Very misleading,” the Democratic congressman says of Obama’s promise that you can keep your health care plan, if you like it. [snip]
But a lot of Americans, a lot of Oregonians, have stayed with the same policy for a number of years and are shocked that their policy got cancelled.
“So I think the president saying you could stay with it and not being honest that a lot of these policies were going to get cancelled was grossly misleading to the American public and is causing added stress and added strife as we go through a really difficult time with health care.”
Schrader also accused White House press secretary Jay Carney of “double talk” for also misleading on Obamacare.”
The catastrophic debacle which is Barack Obama and his Frankenstein monster ObamaCare is going to get worse not better. Every month next year as premiums rise the anger will rise. And the premiums will rise, as ObamaCare architect David Cutler explains:
If the numbers aren’t there then the premiums in the exchanges will be very high, because the people who will go through the most hoops to get that coverage are those for whom the costs are highest and their coverage is the worst. So it is very important that enough people get enrolled through the exchanges.
Why does anyone who wants to be elected or reelected stick by ObaminationCare? Hillary are you listening? Every month as insurance bills are paid the anger will build and anyone who is a part of this horror will be bloodied.
It’s time to run against Barack Obama and against ObamaCare. Who wants or needs the support of that rickety has been and his defunct, condemned ObamaCare ruin? It’s time for change and for Obama there will be no change for the better:
“History says President Obama’s sagging approval ratings — which this month have neared the lows of his entire presidency — aren’t going to improve before he leaves the White House in 2017. And that’s a troubling trajectory for Democrats feeling the pressure of reelection next year.
Historically, presidents whose approval plummets in their second term don’t recover. Such was the case for Harry Truman back in 1950, according to Gallup surveys. After reaching a high of 46 percent in July of 1950, the 33rd president’s approval never rose above 35 percent during the last two-and-a-half years of his presidency. The precipitous drop coincided with America’s involvement in the Korean War.
Another war helped bring about a more recent president’s downfall. George W. Bush never topped 50 percent after March 2005 and spent most his remaining tenure mired in the low to mid-30s, thanks in part to the unpopularity of the Iraq War. His approval further declined near the end of his presidency, when the financial crisis of 2008 left the economy in tatters.
In fact, no president in the last 60 years has watched his approval ratings bounce back during their second term. [snip]
“In a second term, once a president’s numbers decline, they never come back up,” Ed Goeas, a Republican pollster, told reporters last week during a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. “There’s a good reason for that: they don’t have a reelection campaign going on. They don’t have the air cover on air. They’re not putting back together a campaign in contrast to the opposition.”
Goeas suggested Obama has reached a similar point-of-no-return in his presidency.
Barack Obama is the kiss of death:
“Obama and his supporters like to say he’ll never face reelection again, so his numbers don’t matter. But other Democrats — namely red-state Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas of North, Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Begich of Alaska — will face voters again, during next year’s midterms. And a slumping president has been nothing but bad news for his party colleagues.
Democrats lost 28 House seats and five Senate seats during the first two years of Truman’s second term. In 2006, Republicans lost their majority in the House and Senate, losing 30 and six seats, respectively, under Bush’s leadership. Presidential parties with a popular chief executive have managed to actually add seats at the six-year mark, like Bill Clinton in 1998.”
Barack Obama’s support will be important in the primary elections, poison in the general election of 2016. For the DailyKooks and the totalitarian left the 2016 primaries will be more important than the general elections. They know, as we know and have written, that if Hillary Clinton is the nominee of the party their heads will roll down rivers of blood through the corridors of the DNC.
The DailyKooks and the totalitarian left want to maintain their death grip on the party apparatus and money rather than win an election. They do not intend to let Hillary Clinton crash their party in 2016.
In April of this year we predicted much of what is happening. Big Media and the totalitarian left will attempt to outflank Hillary Clinton 2016 and the second wave of attacks has begun – in the pages of the New York Times by Hillary Hater Frank Bruni:
“Hillary in 2016? Not So Fast
Hillary Clinton of all people knows how political fortunes turn on a dime. But she must be puzzled nonetheless, and spooked, that over a six-month period when she made no big news whatsoever, her popularity took a double-digit tumble. [snip]
Here we go. The beginning of the end of her inevitability.
It’s about time, because the truth, more apparent with each day, is that she has serious problems as a potential 2016 presidential contender, and the premature cheerleading of Chuck Schumer and other Democrats won’t change that.”
Bruni and the others in his kook coven are ecstatic that their reservoirs of bile, unused against Barack Obama for five years, can now be flushed against Hillary Clinton. Of course the coarse Bruni, who pictures himself a debonair swell, masks his hatred with highfalutin analytical disguises about how the public is sick of the wrong track America is on and looking for something new which for Bruni is not Hillary:
“These unusually big numbers suggest a climate in which someone who has been front and center in politics for nearly a quarter-century won’t make all that many hearts beat all that much faster. Voters are souring on familiar political operators, especially those in, or associated with, Washington. That’s why Clinton has fallen. She’s lumped together with President Obama, with congressional leaders, with the whole reviled lot of them.
And some of the ways in which she stands out from the lot aren’t flattering. She comes with a more tangled political history of gifts bestowed, favors owed, ironclad allegiances and ancient feuds than almost any possible competitor does. We’ve had frequent reminders of that: in the Anthony Weiner saga; in reports of mismanagement at the Clinton Foundation; in coverage of Terry McAuliffe’s bid to become Virginia’s governor.
Bruni’s hit piece was published on the day Terry McAuliffe was set to win the Virginia election for governor. If there is one person the DailyKooks and the Bruni coven hate more than the Clintons it is McAuliffe. They’ve always hated McAuliffe more than Republicans/conservatives hate McAuliffe. This time the hate was even more infuriating because they were forced to support McAuliffe over the Republican because they needed to show some support for Obama and a victory in Virginia would allay their fears. Still ObamaCare as an issue almost cost McAuliffe the election and Hillary Clinton 2016 better learn that lesson. McAuliffe won because he had tons more money, a much better organization and campaign, and McAuliffe had a unified party ready to elect him while the Republican establishment wanted to teach the Tea Party a lesson.
McAuliffe won and the DailyKooks and the Bruni coven had to hold their bladders of bile. But the idea of McAuliffe in Virginia ready to help Hillary Clinton 2016 during the primaries against their candidate (whoever that is) galls them. So Bruni let the bile flow on the very day of the Virginia election like a drunken sailor with too much beer in him:
“We’ve also had glimpses of the Clintons as an entrenched, entitled ruling class. To a degree that has turned off even some of the couple’s loyalists, Bill and Hillary have been unabashed lately in their coronation of Chelsea as the Clinton in waiting, the heir to the throne.
They renamed the family’s foundation to give her billing equal to theirs, with Hillary telling New York magazine that Chelsea’s elevation was “in the DNA.” They tug Chelsea onto pedestal after pedestal, tucking her into the folds of their own glory.
And it works. In an interview in September, Piers Morgan asked Bill Clinton whether Hillary or Chelsea would make the better president.
“Over the long run, Chelsea,” Bill said. “She knows more than we do about everything.”
Such dynastic musings square oddly with what’s shaping up as an anti-establishment passage of American politics, and the Clintons’ overexposure is a dicey fit for the revved-up metabolism of the Twitter era, which wants next, more, new.“
That “dynastic” aversion would not be a problem for the DailyKooks and the Bruni coven if it was Michelle Obama running for Senate and it certainly does not offend them when it is a Kennedy or a Udall in the dynastic swamp. For now the DailyKooks and the Bruni coven are cruising for their man, or if necessary a stalking horse woman, to be their challenger to Hillary:
“Hillary’s shot at shattering the ultimate glass ceiling, an overdue milestone, might be newness enough. But would she be spared a potentially disruptive challenger from the left in the Democratic primaries? The ascent of Bill de Blasio and the cult fervor for Elizabeth Warren demonstrate an appetite right now for liberal firebrands.
And what would the argument for a Hillary presidency be? Something interesting happens when you ask Democrats why her in 2016. They say that it’s time for a woman, that she’ll raise oodles of dough, that other potentially strong candidates won’t dare take her on. The answers are about the process more than the person or any vision she has for the country. There’s no poetry in them. That’s not good.
“Competence,” said one prominent Democratic strategist, articulating Hillary’s promise. “And by the end of Obama’s second term, that may be more than enough.”
She sailed high as secretary of state because, apart from Benghazi, she could and did position herself mostly above the partisan fray. The hellcat had become a cool cat, wearing shades instead of thick glasses, the meme of all memes.
But nine months since she left that job, it’s hard to pinpoint what, other than all those dutiful miles she logged, her legacy is. She has returned to her earth, and it’s a fickle place.
One of the widely circulated nuggets from the just-published book “Double Down: Game Change 2012” is that Obama’s advisers considered knocking Joe Biden off the ticket and putting Hillary on. The anecdote has been cast as an insult to Biden.
But he remained, because internal research apparently suggested that Obama wouldn’t get a meaningful bump from the swap.
What does that say about Hillary? “
What does that say about Bruni and the DailyKooks? The misogyny of “hellcat” to describe a woman is tolerated at the New York Times. Imagine if an equivalent racial adjective had been used to describe Barack Obama? Imagine if we called Bruni an “hysterical little woman hating queen”?
What it does say is that the Red Storm is about to hit Hillary Clinton 2016. It’s time for Hillary Clinton 2016 to be proactive and get ahead of the fight, not reactive and timid as in 2008.
[In our next installment we will discuss why Republicans/conservatives and those unhappy with Hillary should care about the 2016 primary fight in both parties. We mostly will discuss Fauxcahontas Elizabeth Warren and her claque.]