We’re well beyond the point at which we can chalk David Axelrod’s strikingly antagonistic comments about Hillary Clinton’s campaign-in-waiting up to artlessness or a temporary failure to observe etiquette. At this point, it has become clear that President Barack Obama’s close advisor is deliberately undercutting the position of the Democratic candidate aspiring to replace him in the White House. [snip]
They haven’t seen anything yet. Speaking with Yahoo’s Katie Couric recently, Axelrod shed all self-awareness in order to make the point that Hillary Clinton’s supporters were cultivating a cult of personality around her and that was a dangerous condition. Yes, really! (hat tip to The Washington Free Beacon):
Either Axelrod genuinely believes that Clinton is blowing the race or he is not all that eager to see her succeed Obama in the White House.
Axelgrease is a scumbag. He is a filthy smear artist (along with Jen Psaki and Robert Gibbs in charge of a particularly nasty cult.
We’ve repeatedly bludgeoned Hillary in quite personal terms, even calling her, or at least questioning, whether Hillary is stupid (or SABOTAGED?). If this doesn’t wake Hillary up to the dangers we have previously discussed of allowing Obama cultists to infest and infect her potential organizations – then we have the answer to the question.
No “cult” we. “Tough love” when necessary from us. No Hopium guzzling here for any person.
The filth that elected Barack Obama have a problem. The problem is Hillary. They hate Hillary. But to rescue their beloved Obama they have to support/vote for Hillary. A Hillary presidency will be a return to Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton and prove that Obama was an historically meaningless burp. But the Obama filth have to support/vote for Hillary in order to salvage something/anything from their efforts.
The Obama thugs of 2008 want Hillary Clinton in 2016 to be the Shield Maiden of Chappaqua. That’s why the Obama thugs of 2008 infest Hillary Clinton 2016 organizations and will do all they can to force Hillary to not do what she must – which is to wholly and vigorously separate herself from Obama and Obama policies.
The Obama 2008 thugs know without a Hillary Clinton 2016 victory their “transformational” Barack will forever be an object of ridicule (Brookings already smells the stink of Obama’s presidential ranking). The Obama thugs only support Hillary because they think that a successful “Obama third term” will revise the two failed Obama terms into a less poisonous eight years.
The filth that elected Barack Obama have a problem. In 2008 they called Hillary a “racist”, a “hag”, the “past”, a “corporatist”, slime, Shillary, Hitlery…. Now the Obama thugs that declared Hillary everything they hate are in support of… Hillary. Alec MacGillis at a website we thought was defunct asks the question – Have Obama’s supporters forgotten how much they once disliked Hillary Clinton?
Have Obama’s supporters forgotten how much they once disliked Hillary Clinton?
As a presidential candidate, says one political veteran, Hillary Clinton does not offer the country a “fresh start.” “For all of her advantages, she is not a healing figure,” he continues. “The more she tries to moderate her image … the more she compounds her exposure as an opportunist. And after two decades of the Bush-Clinton saga, making herself the candidate of the future could be a challenge.”
Who said this? Marco Rubio? Scott Walker? A consultant for their fledgling 2016 campaigns? In fact, none of the above. They are the words of David Axelrod, the uber-strategist for Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, and are drawn from his new memoir, Believer. The hefty, engaging book has been dissected mostly for Axelrod’s analysis of his former client and his presidency, but it’s actually far more remarkable from another vantage: It is a reminder of how far liberals who were in the pro-Obama camp in 2008 have traveled in their view of Hillary Clinton—and how much they’ve allowed themselves to forget along the way.
The Head Kook at DailyKooks and other Obama supporters accused Hillary Clinton 2008 of darkening Barack Obama’s skin color in photographs and other racist evils. Now these kooks support Hillary. Are they so corrupt they will support a racist for president or are they so depraved they lied about the racist charge?
This website was born because of the Big Media and allied blog attacks against Hillary in 2008. We remember 2008 very well. Alec MacGillis rewrites history to make Obama supporters the aggrieved party. But MacGillis is right about the “ill will” in 2008 even if MacGillis writes as an Obama boot-licker:
The reconciliation of Obama’s following with the presumptive 2016 Democratic nominee has been the great underexamined story on the Democratic side of the ledger heading into an election year. One simply cannot overstate how much ill will there was between the two camps in 2007 and 2008—that historic, down-to-the-wire primary standoff was based not in policy contrasts (good luck recalling the differences in their health plans) but in a deeply personal clash about the meaning and methods of progressive politics. “Triangulating and poll-driven positions because we’re worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won’t do,” Obama said in his breakout speech in Des Moines in November 2007. “This party … has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the American people when we led, not by polls, but by principle; not by calculation, but by conviction; when we summoned the entire nation to a common purpose—a higher purpose.”
Clinton fired back sarcastically three months later: “Now, I could stand up here and say, ‘Let’s just get everybody together. Let’s get unified. The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.’ ” The legions of young Obama foot soldiers in Iowa, South Carolina, and elsewhere were fired not just by airy notions of hope and change and making history but by the more negative motivation that the prospect of a Clinton nomination stirred in them.
Unlike MacGillis we cared and continue to care about policy. MacGillis doesn’t want to discuss the differences on 2008 health care plans because we now have proof that Obama devised his health care plan as a publicity stunt for a event he was set to attend. The Obama goons that worshiped Obama denounced Hillary as a great evil and now they support what to them is a great evil:
And yet here we are, eight years later, and it is almost as if that great showdown never happened. Some of those young Obama loyalists have now assumed leading positions in the vast Clinton apparatus, as have some of his most senior campaign staff. With no serious opposition looming in next year’s primaries, Clinton’s standing among Democratic voters is vastly stronger than it was at this point eight years ago (right around the time Obama announced his challenge), notes Nate Cohn in the New York Times. As was the case then, the papers are full of eyebrow-raising stories about overlap between her political backers and donors to the Clinton Foundation. Yet whereas in 2007 those stories were seized on by many liberals as confirmation of their wariness of Clinton, this time around there is little sign of the stories—or those about her continuing to rake in $300,000 speaking fees—causing any real agita on the left.
MacGillis explains the Obama thug support for “racist” Hillary as a product of Hillary and Obama “reconciled”. There is also sobriety after all the Hopium:
There is the letdown that some (many?) Obama liberals have felt about their man and his high-flown aspirations for changing Washington, which has led to a reassessment of Clinton’s more Earth-bound approach. There is the simple reality that there is not a credible rival to assume Obama’s spot in the field as the more liberal, dynamic, and idealistic alternative—were Sen. Elizabeth Warren to run, she would quickly remind liberals of their misgivings about Clinton, but it really looks like she’s not running.
They guzzled the Hopium. They look back and recall they added “Hussein” to their name. They remember the “yes we can” chants and feel stupid and stupider. Like college students who got drunk then “serviced” the baseball team the amnesia is collective:
The result is a sort of collective amnesia among Obama supporters when it comes to their former estimation of Clinton—a reluctance to reckon fully with their aversion to her then and what has come of it since. This amnesia may seem harmless now, but one can’t help but wonder if it might come back to haunt Democrats in the general election if it is not confronted more fully before then. Democrats, including Obama’s diehard 2008 backers, may now seem willing to accept Clinton with a shrug or even a hug, and let bygones be bygones. But will that acceptance hold once they start seeing her out on the trail again—giving the stump speeches they found so dreadfully dull in contrast to those of their chosen guy in 2008, giving such hyper-cautious answers in debates, coming off as stumbling and disingenuous in her efforts to align herself with the mood of the moment? Better for Democrats to reckon with that prospect now than in the heat of the 2016 campaign, when they might suddenly find themselves feeling as unenthusiastic about her as they did about another Democrat running to succeed a two-term president with a stronger claim to the party’s emotional core.
MacGillis is stirring up mud in order to fling it at Hillary. We are not surprised. MacGillis only cites the loathing from the Obama side in 2008 and what it means for the hypocrites:
That is why Axelrod’s new recounting of the 2008 showdown provides a service to Obama liberals—it cuts through the fog of forgetfulness, like some kind of Ghost of Primaries Past, to bring Obama-ites face to face with the Clinton they could not abide. [snip]
But, unlike Obama 2008 veterans, he has not signed up with Clinton this time around, and is willing to recount the grand clash in clear-eyed terms. He recalls Clinton’s weakness for gun-for-hire consultants like the “bloodless and calculating” Mark Penn, who “saw his mission as quashing any liberal impulses” and “justified himself with fuzzy polling numbers and a smug self-assurance that made everything grating.” He distinguishes Obama’s offer of change in Washington from Hillary’s copy-cat rhetoric: “The ‘change’ Hillary was offering was not much change at all—certainly not a move away from the raw, divisive politics that had come to define Washington. Rather, she seemed to revel in those politics. … The change she was offering was not away from Washington’s habit of parsing words and passing on tough issues. (She habitually sought safe harbor.) The change she was offering was not away from a system dominated by PACs and corporate lobbyists. (She had taken their money and defended their work.)”
He casts in distinctly unflattering terms Clinton’s turn to a more aggressive tone once it became clear how much trouble she was in, calling her “downright gleeful” about attacking Obama and describing “the ardor with which she bared her teeth,” all of which “validated our critique that she was a reflection of scorched-earth Washington politics rather than an answer to it.” He singles out for opprobrium Clinton’s clumsy suggestion that Bobby Kennedy’s assassination late in the 1968 primaries was proof that anything could happen and that she should therefore stay in the race until the bitter end—an “inexcusable” and “thoughtless” comment that Axelrod says “enraged” him.
And he reminds readers of Bill Clinton’s provocative efforts to rally white voters around his wife in the South Carolina primary, which he says set off another senior Obama adviser, Alabama native Robert Gibbs: “Gibbs was convinced that Bill Clinton was trying to tap into the ugly impulses in southern politics that he had done so much to allay during his political career. ‘This guy had risen above the Old South,’ Robert said, ‘Now their backs are to the wall, and look at what they’re doing. Campaigning right out of the Lee Atwater handbook!’ ” Axelrod even gets in a small dig once his narrative turns to the general election, speculating that Hillary was unwilling to speak out against Sarah Palin after the GOP vice presidential nominee gave her a shoutout in her introductory speech because she was “perhaps flattered by Palin’s tribute.”
MacGillis somehow forgets the gay-baiting Obama pushed in South Carolina as a weapon against Hillary. MacGillis does not mention the race-baiting coordinated by the Obama campaign. MacGillis forgets it all, except the revised history by Axelrod:
But make no mistake—Axelrod has not forgotten what the differences were that motivated him, and millions of other Democrats, to come to Obama’s side instead of Clinton’s not that long ago. And it would be better for their party’s sake if those voters grappled with those memories and realities sooner rather than later.
MacGillis fails utterly to write why Obama filth now support Hillary. Our first paragraph informs those that don’t know why these creeps are now sucking on Hillary Clinton 2016. Back in 2013 we laughed at the Obama goons now forced – forced – to support the woman they hate:
How long ago was that? Do you remember when Barack Obama was, according to his vainglorious self, “transformational”? Remember when the Obama Hopium Guzzlers thought the Obama Reich would last a thousand years?
Remember when these same Hopium Guzzlers declared Hillary Clinton a fossilized grandma never to be heard from again? Remember when the Obama Hopium Guzzlers celebrated the death of Iraq War-DLC lovin’-Terry McAuliffe huggin’-Lincoln bedroom tuggin’ Hillary Clinton and the relegated-to-the-dustbin-of-history Clinton political machine?
Remember when Barack Obama was such a colossus that the Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush cyclical competitions were at an end and never to happen again? Remember when the thought of Hillary Clinton excited screams of “dynasty!” from those that now drunkingly dream of a Hillary Clinton and scowling Michelle Obama ticket in 2016? [snip]
We don’t forget and neither should you.
Remember when Bill Clinton was a racist and enemy #1 (or #2 because Hillary was/is #1 on the Obama hit list) of the Obama Hopium Guzzlers? Remember when Barack Obama promised to “turn the page” on Bill Clinton and all those old battles that according to the Chicago narcissist no longer mattered?
So much for transformational.
Now the talk is all about a return to what “transformational” Obama was supposed to transform. Yup, Bush Clinton, Bush, Clinton with Barack Obama as an asterisk. A dirty asterisk.
Barack Obama is nothing but a dirty asterisk from Chicago. Obama will be remembered as a total failure who pushed through hated programs only to have the courts and the congress unite to block him and restore the rule of law.
Whatever happens in the elections of 2016 we are sure of one thing: Barack Obama will be the loser. Obama will be a dirty asterisk if Hillary is elected. Obama will be a dirty asterisk if a Republican is elected.
Whatever happens the shame of Obama voters will never be washed away and their choice for president in 2008 and 2012 will forever be a dirty asterisk.