Update: More evidence of what we write below emerges. Who’s to blame for the mess this election season? Why it’s useless, spent, powerless, Bill Clinton. That’s the not-too-subtle message from Obama Dimocrats in a fundraising email:
After President Clinton emailed you this morning to ask for help, we really thought we would be in a better place. But we aren’t. The Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, and the other Republican outside groups are spending millions against us. It’s the biggest spending spree of any midterm election EVER. So big — it doesn’t even look like President Clinton’s email can dig us out of this hole. There is still time, though. Things are rough, but we’re not ready to accept defeat. If we can bring in 5O,OOO donations before tomorrow’s ad buy deadline, we can get back on track. Will you answer President Clinton’s call-to-action today?
Obama’s losses will be blamed on old and useless Bill and Hillary by Obama Dimocrats. Any defense of the stupidity of Hillary and Bill’s grab for Obama stink is hollow and not very well thought out. No one can provide a cost-benefit analysis that justifies this level of stupidity in which nothing is gained but much is put at risk.
Hill and Bill are being set up and are either too stupid to realize it, too out of practice for this new era, or have surrounded themselves with Obama lackey advisers. Maybe they have not learned one damn thing from 2008. Or maybe this is all part of a farewell tour because with a stupid strategy like we have seen thus far Hillary Clinton 2016 is not going anywhere if this stupidity continues.
We promised “tough love”. Here’s some of it.
Can someone explain to us how in blazes Hillary helps Hillary Clinton 2016 with the few, yet one too many, campaign appearances in 2014? Will someone please explain the strategy? This situation reminds us more than anything of fear and loathing on the campaign trail 2007-2008.
We recall 2×4 Chuck Schumer (and Charlie Rangel, etc.) who pretended to be on board with Hillary but secretly prevented her from the needed attacks on Obama and who then secretly gave advice to the Obama campaign on how to defeat Hillary. We recall paid campaign operatives at the very top like Patti Solis Doyle who actively sabotaged Hillary in key states like Iowa (and later became a top source who provided key quotes for the pro-Obama anti-Hillary game-change book). Has Hillary learned anything?
We continue to pound on the message that November 2014 should be only about Barack Obama and his failures of leadership which lead to more nails on his party’s coffin. Barack is Ebola Obama (no more faints, the public walks out on his speeches now) and that is why Michelle Obama is forced from her luxury vacation perch onto the luxury campaign trail to shill and vouch for people the name of which she does not even know. The rejection of Barack Obama and every single one of his policies should be the story of November 2014.
However, as we have noted Bill and Hillary Clinton are determined to grab some of the stink of failure for November 2014. We continue to warn them against what they are doing. The warnings come in some very tough language from us. Our warnings will get tougher.
There is nothing in the current stupid Hillary strategy to campaign for Obama rubber stamps under the guise of “Clinton Democrat” that benefits Hillary Clinton 2016. Nothing. There are however plenty of downsides.
The stories on election night 2014 should all be about the rejection of Barack Obama. But the Hillary and Bill stupid strategy is already the subject of political prognostication and extrapolation. This is a headline we should never have seen if not for a stupid strategy from Bill and Hill: 2014’s ‘Clinton Democrats’ crashing and burning:
For all the analysis which correctly notes that associating with President Barack Obama is no relief for Democrats running in 2014, particularly those in red states, it is those Democratic politicians running as “Clinton Democrats” who are watching their campaigns implode.
“Self-proclaimed Clinton Democrats are struggling this election cycle, and not even their powerful namesakes may be enough to save them,” The Hill reported on Sunday. “Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have tried to turn on their charms to help centrist Democrats in Kentucky and Arkansas. But as candidates in both states are slipping, help from the party’s preeminent power couple is falling short.”
The articles note that Kentucky Secretary of State Allion Grimes and Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor are emblazoning themselves with the Clinton crest in order to save themselves. When they lose, and they will, the election night articles will be about Hillary’s failure (and Bill’s failure) to move the needle and get votes.
How does this help Hillary Clinton 2016? What Hillary should do is stay home with the grandchild and keep her mouth shut. Let the party sink under its own corruptions. Then after the loss every party official will realize Obama is Ebola and they will seek the cure: Hillary Clinton 2016. Hillary then would be a way to escape the bad headlines and the bad memories of a disaster of an election night.
On election night 2014 Bill Clinton will be the headline loser in Arkansas. This won’t help Hillary Clinton 2016 either.
Some might mistakenly believe this excerpt is positive news for Hillary Clinton 2016:
It’s not pro-Clinton moderates, but Obama-backing progressives who are most likely to head to the polls despite anti-Democratic headwinds.
That analysis is based on some excellent PEW polls about the probable 2014 electorate. So why then are Hillary and Bill campaigning to get out sane “Clinton voters” when the only voters headed to the polls in 2014 are those that want to save their precious Barack Obama? Does any of this “strategy” make sense?
Maybe Bill Clinton thought if he campaigned in Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton would go nuts and attack him. But Tom Cotton has been entirely smart and responded to Bill Clinton in a really smart way which makes Bill appear like a dunce. Tom Cottom respected Bill Clinton and used Bill Clinton, like a foil, to attack:
To some of those voters, there’s a certain continuity between supporting the moderate Democrat Bill Clinton, beginning when he was first elected governor in 1978, and supporting Cotton today. In a state that has rapidly switched from blue to red, they believe they have stayed the same, while the Democratic Party has changed. So for a young, ambitious Republican politician, it might not be a good idea to attack the man so many Republican voters once supported. And indeed, in an interview on his campaign RV as it bounced along the bumpy roads of rural Arkansas, Cotton not only refrained from attacking Clinton, he went out of his way to compare Clinton’s legacy favorably to the record of President Obama. [snip]
“The facts and the Clinton legacy look a lot better in contrast to the Obama legacy,” Cotton replied. “I’m not concerned about Bill Clinton’s support for Mark Pryor. I’m worried about Mark Pryor’s support for Barack Obama.“
See, no Monica, no attacks. Tom Cotton used Bill Clinton like a cigar against Mark Pryor.
Instead of a focus on Barack Obama and his many failures which lead to electoral defeat, Bill and Hillary Clinton are stealing some of the stink. Lot at the headline at The Hill:
‘Clinton Democrats’ falling flat [snip]
Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have tried to turn on their charms to help centrist Democrats in Kentucky and Arkansas. But as candidates in both states are slipping, help from the party’s preeminent power couple is falling short. [snip]
That raises questions not only for Hillary Clinton as she ponders a 2016 White House bid, but also for the Democratic Party as it finds itself increasingly unsuccessful in the Deep South and Appalachia.
Steal some more of that Ebola Obama stink Bill and Hill. That’s some real smart politicking.
Here’s the rationale for the stupid strategy:
Clinton allies and longtime observers of the 42nd president and his wife say that if anyone can make Southern states a battleground in 2016 – and at least force the GOP to use valuable resources to keep the South red – it’s Hillary Clinton.
There’s plenty of reason to believe the Clintons view the situation the same way. [snip]
“These appearances are really the beginning of their campaign to redefine the Democratic Party in their own image, [to] a party that can carry states like this,” said Al Cross, a veteran journalist and University of Kentucky professor.
“I think the Clintons believe they can carry Kentucky and I think that’s one reason why we’ll see them here again,” Cross added, also pointing to the Clintons’ longstanding friendship with Grimes’ father, Jerry Lundergan.
Clinton allies also insist that both Bill and Hillary have the sort of innate understanding of Southerners that has become increasingly rare within the Democratic Party. While more of the party’s base increasingly lives urban areas, they are among the few surrogates who can reach blue-collar and rural voters. [snip]
“You put a Democrat with 20 percent of the white vote in Mississippi and it becomes in play,” said Skip Rutherford, dean of the Clinton School of Public Service at the University of Arkansas and a longtime friend of the Clintons. [snip]
“I think she’s a good test case for how competitive the Democrats can be in the South, because she can pair her husband’s appeal in the more rural South and presumably draw support in the places where Obama did well,” Schaller said. “If she can’t start flipping states, then who is?“
Does any of that make sense? Prove how strong a candidate you will be in 2016 (against so far no opponent) by placing a losing bet on losers? That’s not very smart is it?