Update: Thanks to Powerline for making us a “pick” of the day. Hillary Clinton’s bitch slap of Obama will now resound.
Barack Obama with his usual class (low) and style (crass, sleazy) responded to Hillary Clinton truth-telling by calling critiques of his failed Syria policy “horseshit”. Obama’s scatological obsessions are lately on full display. Obama was aware of the coming Hillary attack and he made his shitty remarks to a group of lawmakers at the White House.
The scum called Axelrod also rises with a defense of Obama on Twitter. “Axelrod hits back at Hillary: When we say “don’t do stupid stuff,” we mean stuff like occupying Iraq“:
I … did not expect to see big-name Democratic strategists needling the party’s next nominee over her biggest foreign policy liability in a public forum, but maybe Ax figures he has nothing to lose. [snip]
He’s better off protecting his and O’s legacy, he probably figures, by reminding a skeptical base that she voted for “Bush’s war” while Obama opposed it.
Just one really obvious problem with that logic, though. Jake Tapper, who normally stays out of political food fights on Twitter, couldn’t resist the obvious counterpoint:
Hmmmmm and can you think of any former senators/secretaries of state who voted to do that? https://t.co/wV39HaJ228
O’s inner circle was and is a who’s who of believers in “stupid sh*t.” His first Secretary of State voted for war in Iraq, as did her successor (who was, by the way, the party’s nominee for president in 2004). So did his handpicked VP.
Hillary Clinton better realize, and she is as we document below in our main article, that Barack Obama will do anything for himself and that means making sure Hillary Clinton 2016 is not his legacy. Keep those bitch slaps of Obama coming Hillary.
On 25 September 2013 we warned Hillary Clinton 2016 that it was a Muddled Message Mess:
Republicans and the Republican 2016 candidate? Republicans will reason with the electorate and say things are off track and it is “time for a change!”.
Hillary Clinton 2016? Is it “time for a change”? Or is it “stay the course”. Thus far, it is mush. In recent interview articles with Hillary we read of policy “disputes” with Barack Obama at the same time as support for Barack Obama. This is too cute by more than a half.
We understand the challenges Hillary Clinton 2016 faces and we have written about the need for the “gull ’em then cull ’em” strategy. First sedate the Obama hordes now in possession of what was once the Democratic Party, then the kill, the cull. But the “gull” has turned into more of a “lull” as Hillary Clinton 2016 meanders about without a winning message for 2016.
On August 25, 2014 the smart Jay Cost advised his cohort on how to defeat Hillary Clinton. Jay Cost is very worried for his Republican/conservative party. He thinks if Hillary Clinton runs, Hillary Clinton wins. Jay Cost is providing the same advice to Republicans/conservatives that we gave to Hillary. First Jay Cost flatters Hillary with the truth Republicans/conservatives prefer to deny:
Hillary Clinton’s Reputation
Don’t laugh—it’s better than you think.
The rollout of Hillary Clinton’s new memoirs, Hard Choices, was not a resounding success for the former secretary of state. [snip]
Yet her poll numbers remain surprisingly solid. Surveys conducted by Quinnipiac University, Fox News, and Rasmussen Reports—all taken since the book’s release—show her with comfortable leads nationally over Rand Paul, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush. A mid-July CNN poll shows her with generally strong favorable ratings, although not as positive as they were when she wrapped up her tenure at State. Even so, respondents said they thought her to be a “strong and decisive leader” who “generally agrees” with them on the issues, can “manage the government effectively,” and “cares about people” like them.
What lessons are there to draw from these numbers? The first, and probably most obvious, is the disconnect between the political class and the greater public. Clinton’s book rollout was a disaster among politicos and cable news obsessives, but people who do not dedicate inordinate time to politics and policy hardly seemed to notice. [snip]
The second lesson becomes apparent when we think of Clinton’s numbers in terms of Weekly Standard online editor Daniel Halper’s new book, Clinton, Inc. As Halper shows quite clearly, the Clintons are obsessed with brand management and have become exceedingly skilled at maintaining the improved reputation they have developed since the dark days of the Lewinsky scandal. This reputation is not going to fall apart simply because of a bad book rollout. The collapse of the Barack Obama foreign policy—of which Clinton was an integral part—apparently has done little to diminish it. Even Benghazi has hardly made a dent. [snip]
Republicans hope that a faltering Barack Obama will damage Hillary Clinton’s presidential chances. It’s true that unpopular presidents generally drag down their successor nominees.
Read the entire Jay Cost article not just our snipped excerpts. It is an intelligent, mostly historically accurate representation of Hillary’s herstory and reputation. Indeed, Jay Cost and Big Pink mostly agree on the landscape of the 2016 battlefield:
The early signs of the 2016 Clinton campaign suggest a subtle break with Obama that will reinforce her unique identity. Writing for the New Republic, Anne Applebaum took a careful read of Hard Choices as a piece of early campaign literature and concluded that Hillary Clinton is planning to run a campaign akin to Richard Nixon’s 1968 “man in the arena” strategy. She is battle-tested, experienced, ready to make the hard sacrifices for the country, and above all somebody who can be counted upon:
Clinton hopes to be . . . deeply non-ideological, a centrist. She intends to run as a hard-working, fact-oriented pragmatist—someone who finds ways to work with difficult opponents, and not only faces up to difficult problems but also makes the compromises needed to solve them. Again and again she portrays herself sitting across the table from Dai Bingguo or President Putin, working hard, searching for a way forward. Similar methods, presumably, can be applied to the Republican leadership.
The problem for Republicans here is stark: They have run a campaign like this for the last half-century. It has met with little success in the last 20 years, and it has never worked against the Clintons; Hillary Clinton’s numbers suggest she would be able to “sell” the public on this problem-solving image better than the GOP nominee could. Given a choice between a Republican and a Clinton offering basically the same thing, there is little reason to believe that the country will select the Republican. Nor, for that matter, can Republicans rest on their oars and assume that Obama’s sinking reputation will pull Hillary Clinton down as well. After all, it hasn’t yet.
It hasn’t yet. But it will. And that’s where things get interesting because Hillary Clinton likely sees the problem as Big Pink and Jay Cost do. Read what we suggest Hillary do in 2016 and what Jay Cost suggests Republicans do in 2016:
What, then, is the best response for the GOP? It is simply this: The party must wrap itself unabashedly in the garb of reform. If Hillary Clinton offers herself as the wise and learned hand who will rely upon her decades of experience to guide the ship of state, Republicans have to argue that her experience is exactly what the country doesn’t need at this moment. They need to convince the public that, by being in Washington for the last quarter-century, she is too committed to a broken status quo that is in desperate need of change. The party then needs to lay out a credible and salable agenda for that change.
This should sound familiar, for it is how Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in 2008. A message of reform resonated six years ago, and it could very well resonate again (so long as it is carried by somebody other than Obama!). Now as then, the country is tired and frustrated with the status quo. The people appear to want a change in course. [snip]
If Hillary Clinton offers a Return to Normalcy in 2016, it is a fair bet that the GOP will not be able to beat her by competing on the same terrain. Instead, Republicans should focus assiduously on maximizing their gains in this midterm election, take a few weeks to enjoy (hopefully) their victory, and then have a serious conversation about exactly what kind of change they want to offer the country in 2016. For that appears to be the best—perhaps the only—way to beat Hillary Clinton.
“That’s the only way to beat Hillary Clinton.” Exactly right. Exactly on point. Exactly what we have been hammering and will continue to scream and shout.
And don’t think it is just Jay Cost following the trail blazed by Big Pink. Hillary Clinton sees the same thing we all do and she is fortifying her position so that attacks against her will fail. That’s why Hillary has gunned up and shooting holes into Barack’s tiny grapes. It’s why Hillary is bitch-slapping the bitch-boy:
Hillary Clinton: ‘Failure’ to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS
The former secretary of state, and probable candidate for president, outlines her foreign-policy doctrine. She says this about President Obama’s: “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”
Before we continue we’ll clear up three points. First, the actual Barack Obama quote about his (ha, ha) foreign policy is “Don’t do stupid shit.” That was the actual phrase the White House worked so hard, in so many interviews, to inject into the national consciousness. That phrase fits Obama perfectly because he is… well, you know… a stinking piece of….
Second, “bitch-slap”. What is that? Is it an insult we direct at Hillary? No, the contrary. The definition of bitch-slap: To open handedley slap someone. Denote disrespect for the person being bitch slapped as they are not worthy of a man sized punch. Suggests the slap was met with little resistance and much whining. As to “bitch boy,” it is not just a Swedish punk band.
Third, Hillary is not alone in her assertions. “James Steinberg, formerly the President’s Deputy Secretary of State, and Robert Ford, formerly his Ambassador to Syria” have said much the same as Hillary. Democrat Eliot Engel the minority leader in the House Foreign Affairs Committee said “I cannot help but wonder what would have happened if we had committed to empowering the moderate Syrian opposition last year. Would ISIS have grown as it did?”
Now back to Jeffrey Goldberg’s interview with Hillary Clinton in which she bitch slaps bitch boy Barack Obama:
President Obama has long ridiculed the idea that the U.S., early in the Syrian civil war, could have shaped the forces fighting the Assad regime, thereby stopping al Qaeda-inspired groups—like the one rampaging across Syria and Iraq today—from seizing control of the rebellion. In an interview in February, the president told me that “when you have a professional army … fighting against a farmer, a carpenter, an engineer who started out as protesters and suddenly now see themselves in the midst of a civil conflict—the notion that we could have, in a clean way that didn’t commit U.S. military forces, changed the equation on the ground there was never true.”
Well, his former secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, isn’t buying it. In an interview with me earlier this week, she used her sharpest language yet to describe the “failure” that resulted from the decision to keep the U.S. on the sidelines during the first phase of the Syrian uprising.
“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said.
As she writes in her memoir of her State Department years, Hard Choices, she was an inside-the-administration advocate of doing more to help the Syrian rebellion. Now, her supporters argue, her position has been vindicated by recent events.
Professional Clinton-watchers (and there are battalions of them) have told me that it is only a matter of time before she makes a more forceful attempt to highlight her differences with the (unpopular) president she ran against, and then went on to serve. On a number of occasions during my interview with her, I got the sense that this effort is already underway. (And for what it’s worth, I also think she may have told me that she’s running for president—see below for her not-entirely-ambiguous nod in that direction.)
Of course, Clinton had many kind words for the “incredibly intelligent” and “thoughtful” Obama, and she expressed sympathy and understanding for the devilishly complicated challenges he faces. But she also suggested that she finds his approach to foreign policy overly cautious, and she made the case that America needs a leader who believes that the country, despite its various missteps, is an indispensable force for good. At one point, I mentioned the slogan President Obama recently coined to describe his foreign-policy doctrine: “Don’t do stupid shit” (an expression often rendered as “Don’t do stupid stuff” in less-than-private encounters).
This is what Clinton said about Obama’s slogan: “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”
Oh no she didint. Oh she didn’t just bitch slap Obama did she. Oh no she diddnt. Oh yes she did. Oh yes she did.
We’re going to have a lot more to say on this coming soon as we chronicle the continuing war between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.