Immolation: #Hillary2016 #Bernie2016 At Situation Comedy #DemDebate

Update: Open thread: “No, I’ll grab more guns!” The Democrat debate. That’s what it might come down to. Guns? Really?


We expect utter stupidity tonight on NBC at 9:00 p.m. ET. Bernie Sanders will continue his imitation of one of the less intelligent members of the Bilbo Baggins family. Martin O’Malley will be a tree stump. Hillary Clinton will do her rendition of Brunhilde’s immolation scene as she flings herself onto the funeral pyre of her beloved and sets ablaze the world she once new.

The Shield Maiden of Chappaqua. Hillary’s beloved, for whom she sets herself ablaze is now Barack Obama. Hillary wants to be Obama’s third term because… well… insanity.

We’ve written for a long time about the foolishness of Hillary’s pursuit of Barack Obama’s “situation comedy coalition”. Our critique has been that the Obama cult is not transferable and that in either case it is a coalition that kills the chances of victory. We won’t beat that dead horse tonight.

Tonight we urge Hillary Clinton to read one of the architects (John Judis) of the Obama situation comedy “coalition of the ascendant” theory beat the dead horse into pulp at a premier Obama leftist publication:

Democrats are in more trouble than they think. And changing demographics won’t save them.

We urge Hillary Clinton to read that analysis in full. At the height of Obama lunacy on the left we provided our readers with the counter to the insane claims from the Obama left. Eventually John Judis and all the architects of the Obama “coalition of the ascendant” strategy capitulated to our argument – which we documented in Mistake In ’08, Part IX: Capitulation And The Lessons For Hillary Clinton 2016:

If Hillary Clinton 2016 comes into existence this July or later, the campaign strategy better consider our arguments and the ones that John Judis concedes he did not foresee. What happened in 2008 is not a question of historical interpretation. The “mistake in ’08” is the defining question for 2016. [snip]

It is going to be an impossible climb if Hillary Clinton 2016 is seen in any way as tied to Obama or Obama policies. Half-assed arguments of “stay the course’ but with “changes” will be too cute and will throttle Hillary Clinton 2016. And it gets worse, as John Judis just jived: [snip]

We always said it was a cult. The cult of not very well informed young people voted in 2008 and 2012 for Obama in the same way that blacks voted for skin color not character. Obama received meaningless victories personally but the party he headed withered. The party Obama heads will continue to wither. Any fruit on the Obama vine will wither and die. And that is what is happening now and will continue to happen in 2016 for anyone who is seen as in any way an Obama ally or tied to Obama policies:

Hillary Clinton chose to make the impossible climb which by definition is an impossible climb to make. CNN notes Hillary has chosen to be the Obama third term:

Clinton’s stump speech has long featured a prominent passage about how President Barack Obama doesn’t get the credit he deserves in rescuing the American economy. But in recent weeks his former secretary of state has been amping up her pro-White House rhetoric, seeking to tie herself even more closely to the popular president in the eyes of Democratic primary voters — a tactic that could intensify during the debate.

Hillary Clinton wants to be the Obama third term. In pursuit of that toxic goal, Hillary has made some truly stupid defenses and attacks. Again, we won’t go into the details because it is to painful to watch.

Suffice to say that on the Rachel Maddow show and in many campaign speeches Hillary attacks Bernie Sanders because Sanders is not in full worship of ObamaCare. Somehow it escapes Hillary and Hillary2016 that ObamaCare sucks and no one likes ObamaCare.

Obama Dimocrats defend ObamaCare but their defense is really just a defense of Obama, not ObamaCare. Obama Dimocrats want single payer. Idiot Hillary then defends ObamaCare as if ObamaCare was the issue.

Tonight, Bernie Sanders made it official, and he is for single payer so there go all of Hillary’s silly attacks. Hillary’s silly ObamaCare defense and Bernie Sanders’ counter should provide Bernie Sanders the margin of victory in Iowa. And if Hillary loses Iowa, her campaign is over and not even South Carolina will help her.

Bernie Sanders is a refugee from Hobbiton with permanent residence at the Prancing Pony in Bree. Still Hillary has proven ineffective in stomping out this weirdo. Hillary’s weapon of choice has been gun control. Expect Hillary to shoot herself in the foot on this issue tonight.

What would a sane Hillary Clinton talk about? How about the economy:

Stock market plunge dents Democratic narrative

Obama’s upbeat economic assessment is followed by a dramatic sell-off, with Clinton’s fate in the balance.

What would a sane Hillary Clinton talk about? How about the treacherous Iran deal wherein Iran gets $150 billion to attack the West?

What would a sane Hillary Clinton talk about? How about the economic consequences as Iran opens even more oil spigots in an already drenched oil market:

Stock markets across the Middle East saw more than £27bn wiped off their value as the lifting of economic sanctions against Iran threatened to unleash a fresh wave of oil onto global markets that are already drowning in excess supply.

All seven stock markets in the Gulf states tumbled as panic gripped traders. London shares are now braced for a second wave of crisis to hit when they open on Monday morning after contagion from China sent the FTSE 100 to its worst start in history last week.

Oh right, and a sane Hillary Clinton would also talk about the Obama economic disaster and the worst first week ever on Wall Street markets ever. A sane Hillary Clinton would denounce terrorism and appeasement. A sane Hillary Clinton would defend the working class against illegal immigration and the plans by big donors for a low wage society. A sane Hillary Clinton would want to make America great again.

Hillary Clinton is a great debater as is Ted Cruz. But you can’t win a debate when history and the facts are against you.

For those that loved Hillary Clinton in 2008 our advice is to not watch tonight. It’s gonna be ugly. We’ll watch, with tears – and comment, with snark.


112 thoughts on “Immolation: #Hillary2016 #Bernie2016 At Situation Comedy #DemDebate

  1. Obama Dimocrats defend ObamaCare but their defense is really just a defense of Obama, not ObamaCare. Obama Dimocrats want single payer. Idiot Hillary then defends ObamaCare as if ObamaCare was the issue.
    That logic is unassailable.

    It is like, I hate what Germany did in World War II, but I cannot bring myself to blame Hitler.

  2. President Barack Obama doesn’t get the credit he deserves
    I would say just the opposite.

    He get the credit he does not deserve.

    Without the blame he does deserve.

  3. Opening statements:

    Hillary: I remember seeing Dr. King. Moral Clarity. Dr. King set me on my path. We need a president that can do all aspects of the job. I’m prepared and ready.

    Sanders: Important to remember Dr. King’s vision and transform our country. The economy is rigged. 1% get all the rise in income. Rich buy elections. This is about a political revolution.

    O’Malley: I was born when Dr. King delivered his “I have a dream speech.” Barack Obama saved our country. We have work to do. We need new leadership to build on what Obama has done.

    Lester Holt: Top three priorities?

    Sanders: Think big. Health Care as a right for everyone. Minimum wage $15.00 per hour. Rebuild public infrastructure. End decline of middle class. Rich pay fair share.

    Clinton: Good jobs, infrastructure, raise minimum wage, equal pay for women. Improve ObamaCare by more stable functioning. We have too much division. We need to do things together.

    O’Malley: Wages go up. Equal pay. Unions. Comprehensive immigration reform. Climate change. New agenda for America’s cities.

    Holt: Guns. Immunity for lawsuits?

    Sanders: I have Dminus from NRA. Hillary is disingenuous. No military assault weapons. Background checks. Support Barack Obama on gun show loopholes. Charleston shooter tragedy should not be a political issue. I can bring people together.

    Holt: changed position?

    Sanders: Gun manufacturers immunity had some good provisions. Small mom and pop shops should not be held responsible for shootings but I will relook at it.

    Clinton: Sanders has voted against Brady Bill and for Charleston loophole and other matters with the NRA. He voted against research to save lives. 90 people a day die from gun violence in our country. Not a block from here 9 people murdered. I am pleased Sanders has reversed his position.

    Holt: Take guns away threat?

    O’Malley: Sanders and Hillary have both been inconsistent on guns. I’m the only one who passed comprehensive gun legislation.

    Holt: Heartache in this community. Walter Scott shot in back. African American men lives cheap?

    Clinton: That is a reality. Heartbreaking. Walter Scott killed by police. Systemic racism requires agenda to retrain police officers and end racial profiling. 1 out of 3 black men might end up in prison. Not the same as for white men.

    Sanders: Our criminal justice system is broken. We have more people in jail than China and many are minorities. Not satisfied that marijuana possession puts people in jail while Wall Street goes unpunished.

    Holt: Clinton beats you 2-1 with minorities?

    Sanders: Clinton used to be 50 points ahead of me. But now I beat Trump ahead of Hillary. When African American community becomes aware of my agenda they will become supportive of me. Momentum.

    Holt: Baltimore? Zero tolerance?

    O’Malley: In 1999 I ran for mayor because black lives matter. We saved lives. Civilian review board.

    Holt: Youtube video. Conflict of interest when local police investigate police?

    Sanders: Justice Department should automatically investigate. Demilitarize police. Diversity.

    Holt: Heroin?

    Clinton: Lives lost. I issued a comprehensive plan. Different approach. Police must be equipped to administer drugs to fight overdose. New courts.

    Sanders: I agree. Pharmaceutical industry also to blame.


  4. let’s get this straight…

    …so we give Iran seven criminals and they give us four of our people who have been treated as prisoners/hostages and we leave Robert Levinson behind

    in addition, we give them $150 Billion money for them to do whatever they want

    further…we give them another $1.7 Billion with more “claims” from Iran coming down the road…;_ylt=AwrC1C6IwZtWNGUAqITQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByNXQ0NThjBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM1BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg–

    US to pay Iran $1.7 bn in debt and interest: Kerry

    Washington (AFP) – The United States is to repay Iran a $400 million debt and $1.3 billion in interest dating to the Islamic revolution, Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday.

    The repayment, which settles a suit brought under an international legal tribunal, is separate from the tens of billions of dollars in frozen foreign accounts that Iran can now access after the end of nuclear sanctions.


    and the O admin leaves behind Robert Levinson

    Family of Robert Levinson, who went missing in Iran in 2007, upset he wasn’t among freed prisoners, say reports

    CBS Miami is reporting that the Coral Springs family of Robert Levinson, who went missing in Iran in 2007, wasn’t among the four prisoners freed by Iran this weekend.

    In statement, Levinson’s family said they were “devastated” that Levinson was “left behind” in the prisoner swap with the U.S. government, the TV station reported.


    unbelievable…we need Donald…fast!

  5. i’m sparing myself from the torture of listening to Hillary prop and praise O
    and watching Downton Abbey instead

    for all that suffer through it imagine the drinking game of having a drink every time Hillary praises O…don’t know how long you would make it without passing out…

    let us know if she speaks up on behalf of the women attacked by the “refugees” in Europe

  6. Mitchell: Unfair to say Sanders wants to kill ObamaCare?

    Clinton: I fought for health care and never quit. But the details matter. The 9 bills he introduced we questioned. Tonight he has a new plan. The Democratic Party worked to get ObamaCare passed. I don’t want to see Republicans repeal it. Defend and improve ObamaCare.

    Sanders: Clinton did not answer the question. She says I want to end Medicare and child insurance. My Medicare for all is a right. I was on the ObamaCare committee that wrote ObamaCare. We pay highest prices in the world for drugs. My proposal gets health care out of the private companies.

    Clinton: Which plan? The 9 plans or the plan from tonight. Obama is the greatest accomplishment. 19 million Americans. Women not paying more. No preconditions. Young people with insurance. To repeal Obama is the wrong thing to do.

    Sanders: She neglects to say that even more are under insured. Health Care for all is a right. We will improve ObamaCare.

    O’Malley: Instead of attacking each other let’s talk about where we agree. I have a plan. Build on ObamaCare.

    Clinton: That’s what we can do to build on ObamaCare. Get rid of unnecessary costs. But to start all over again would set us back. Obama saved ObamaCare with his veto.

    Mitchell: New plan two hours from the debate? Vermont walked away from your plan?

    Sanders: I’m the Senator from Vermont not the governor. Our campaign finance system is corrupt and private insurance companies won’t allow the reforms needed.

    Clinton: I have experience standing up to health insurance industry. Even with Democrats in charge we could not get the public option. We have ObamaCare, let’s make it work. Bring down individual costs.

    Holt: Obama could not get the country together how can you?

    Clinton: I will go anywhere. I worked with Tom Delay to reform adoption. I worked with Lindsey Graham. What I did as Secretary of State. You have to work at it every single day.

    Sanders: I worked with McCain on veterans health care. With all due respect you miss my main point. The real issue is that congress is owned by big money and refuses to do what the people want. Minimum wage, infrastructure, pay equity, higher taxes for rich.

    Holt: Democratic Socialist?

    Sanders: The Democratic Party needs major reform. A 50 state strategy. No Super-Pacs. Small contributions. Excitement from young people and contributions for my campaign.

    O’Malley: You never campaigned for Vincent Shaheen, neither of you.

  7. Sanders: We all denounce Trump. But we need a political revolution.

    Holt: Via youtube. Young voters.

    Clinton: This election is about the future. I’ve laid out my ideas on college affordability, student loans, jobs, community college free, debt free tuition, voting rights, women’s rights, gay rights.

    Holt: Why is Sanders beating you 2-1 with young?

    Clinton: I hope to have their support when I am the nominee.


  8. Minimum wage $15.00 per hour.
    If the goal is to increase unemployment

    Then St. Bernard is on the right track.

    By why stop there?

    Why not be a real hero–

    I’ll see your $15 and raise it to $20

    It will give employers the perfect incentive to automate

    And the same time illegals are flooding in here

    And taking 17% of the jobs, according to Pew

    Perfect progressive logic

    Which belongs in the state mental hospital

  9. Sanders: We all denounce Trump. But we need a political revolution.
    Great idea Bernie.

    Will you bring the guillotine?

    Or should I??

    Admin, I have finally figured out who Bernie is:

    He is a latter day Robespierre.

    Leader of what Burke called “the Paris rabble”.

  10. I quite agree that the young people are getting screwed.

    But do they really believe this fossil is the answer to their prayers?

  11. Free health care for EVERYBODY in America, free college for all. How in the world is Bernie going to pay for all this?

  12. free college for all.
    Yes! The need to be highly trained for a life on unemployment. Meanwhile, the teachers union silently applauds. They are the only real beneficiaries of this nonsense.

  13. Holt: Big Banks?

    Sanders: I don’t get speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. Bring up Glass-Steagle. Break up big banks. Too much financial power over our economy.

    Clinton: We agree on No Bank Too Big To Fail. We disagree on Sanders’ attacks on Obama. Called Obama weak. Wanted to primary Obama. Obama was great on Dodd-Frank. I defend Barack Obama.

    Sanders: In 2006, Obama campaigned for me. I campaigned for him in 2008 and 2012. Can you really reform Wall Street when they spend millions on campaign contributions and give speaker fees to certain individuals.

    Clinton: Your profusion of feelings about President Obama are strange considering what you said about Obama in 2011. I go after hedge fund billionaires and Karl Rove. I’m the one they don’t want to be up against.

    O’Malley: What she said is not true. I have a plan. Unlike you I support a new Glass-Steagle. You have a cozy relationship with Wall Street. Protect Main Street.

    Clinton: Franks has endorsed me. I want to go further. You raised money on Wall Street.

    O’Malley: Not this year.

    Sanders: How corrupt is this system? Goldman Sachs gave Hillary over $600,000 in one year speakers fees. Not one Goldman Sachs executive is prosecuted.

    Clinton: You voted to deregulate Wall Street. Took away law to prosecute derivatives.

    Sanders: Check my record. I’ve always fought against Wall Street and Wall Street contributions.

    Mitchell: Free education, $15.00 minimum wage… how to pay for it all?

    Sanders: I want to rebuild, create 13 million jobs, remove loopholes on Cayman Islands. I want our kids to go to college. I pay for it with a tax on Wall Street speculation. The Middle Class bailed out Wall Street now Wall Street should bail out middle class.

    Clinton: I have a plan and pay for everything in my plan. I will not raise taxes on middle class.

    Mitchell: Taxes on middle class?

    Sanders: This is a Republican criticism Clinton is using. She knows I will get rid of private costs and the result will be savings for the middle class. A little more in taxes but it’s a good deal.

    Mitchell: Family leave and healthcare raise taxed on middle class?

    Sanders: I save $10,000 in overall costs.

    O’Malley: I had to make cuts but we made investments as governor. Let’s get rid of marginal tax rates for rich.

    Holt: Climate change, via Youtube. Give up fossil fuels?

    Sanders: Young people understand the problems of climate change. The debate is over. Climate change is real. Republicans are owned by fossil fuel industry. They won’t listen to the scientists. Trump believes climate change is a hoax invented by Chinese. I have a plan.

    O’Malley: We believe in science. I have a plan.


  14. One of Hillary’s big differences with Obama in 2008 was her support of the public option. Tonight Hillary dumped the public option and gave a full throated defense of ObamaCare.

  15. How in the world is Bernie going to pay for all this?
    Special drawing rights.

    (the new global currency Soros and Obama are promoting to replace the dollar. Obama however is having second thoughts, because he and his minions want Washington off the $1 bill (old dead white men, etc.) and a head shot of Obama amid styrphome columns grinning like a possum eating shit out a hairbrush, footnote to read e pubis diviso.)

  16. Mitchell: Open embassy in Iran?

    Sanders: I support the agreement Obama reached. A thaw. But no embassy tomorrow.

    Clinton: I am proud of this agreement. I helped bring sanctions. So far Iran does what is required. But we have to keep watch. There is other bad behavior.

    Mitchell: Syria troops?

    Clinton: No. I have a plan. Sunni fighters, Kurdish fighters. Disrupt supply chain of fighters and money. Fight they on line. I support Secretary Kerry’s efforts.

    Sanders: I applaud Obama. Republicans have not learned lesson of Iraq.

    O’Malley: Coalition. Obama knows bests. Develop new alliances.

    Mitchell: Did Obama (and Clinton) create a vacuum in middle east?

    Sanders: No. There was no thought as to what happens after you get rid of Sadamm Hussein. I support Obama.

    Mitchell: Red lines Obama failure?

    Clinton: Obama’s policy resulted in a positive outcome. Got rid of chemical weapons. I spent many hours in Situation Room advising Obama. Prime Minister of Iraq and Assad to blame for mess.

    Sanders: I agree with most of this. But on Syria our priority must be destruction of ISIS. Then get rid of Assad.

    O’Malley: We still don’t have the human intelligence to know what happens next.

    Holt: Russia reset button?

    Clinton: We got agreements. Russia signed on to Iran sanctions too. Putin came back in 2011 and I spoke out against what fraudulent elections. Putin has a mixed record. My relationship with Putin is “interesting” and one of respect. Tough dealings with one another. He is a bully that must be stood up against.

    Holt: Privacy rights versus national security, via youtube.

    O’Malley: Warrant should be required. Cooperate with Silicon Valley.

    Holt: Lone wolves?

    Sanders: I voted against Patriot Act. I worry not only about government but also private corporations with information on citizens. On lone wolves must get cooperation with Silicon Valley. We can do that.


  17. Can’t wait to see the ratings on this debate. Also the drop-off rate after the first ten minutes must be astronomical.

  18. Clinton: Obama sent leaders to work with Silicon Valley which made me happy. It is shameful to hear the comments from Republicans on Muslims.

    Mitchell: But the leaders were turned down?

    Clinton: That’s not what I heard, I’ll leave it at that.

    O’Malley: I have a plan. Trump wants to start a registry. I oppose Trump’s fascist appeals.

    Sanders: Our intelligence budget is too large and fights Cold War style. Fundamental change for defense department is needed.

    Holt: Spouse?

    Clinton: It will start at the kitchen table and we’ll go on from there. I will have the best advisers. Bill raised incomes. I will ask for his advice and use him as a good will ambassador.

    Sanders: An administration stacked with Wall Street appointees won’t bring change. A Sanders administration will not have a Goldman Sachs Treasury Secretary.

    Mitchell: Bill Clinton’s behavior?

    Sanders: I have run an issue campaign. I was asked a question. His behavior was deplorable.


  19. Holt: Anything you want to say?

    O’Malley: Immigration camps, Puerto Rico oppressed by hedge funds… New era.

    Clinton: Outraged last week about Flint Michigan. Lead contaminated water. Republican governor did not care. If it was white kids…. I issue a statement. Went on TV show.

    Sanders: I demanded the resignation of the governor. We are a great nation. But little will be done to transform our economy and help the middle class we need with our current campaign finance system. Get rid of superpacs and Citizens United. Revolution. Working people and young people. Government of U.S. belongs to all of us.


  20. NBC take on the debate:

    JAN 18 2016, 1:12 AM ET
    Sanders Thrives in Democratic Debate, Despite Sharp Attacks by Clinton

    CHARLESTON, South Carolina – Bernie Sanders shined in Sunday night’s Democratic debate here, at times overpowering Hillary Clinton in a format she typically controls. With polls showing Clinton on the ropes in Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders’ strong performance may have further imperiled Clinton’s once-inevitable path to her party’s presidential nomination.

    Touting his surging poll numbers in the two key early states, Sanders was prepared and in command throughout the two-hour debate sponsored by NBC News and YouTube. In previous appearances, Clinton has easily dominated the stage. But turning in his strongest debate performance yet, Sanders drove the conversation – brushing aside her attacks as he doggedly returned to his core message of political revolution.

  21. Thanks for transcription, admin – I didn’t even know there was a debate. Maybe it’s true they’re trying to “hide” them…

    I noticed not one of them can count. When asked their top 3 priorities, they all listed more than 3.

    Hillary is just not defending Obama, she’s using every opportunity she can to promote him, praise him. It’s really, really, really strange. And how can she possibly think this will HELP her? I’m really leaning towards 2008 being a fake Hillary. Especially with with the “new her” favoring Muslims over women’s rights.

    She has the wrong plans for America.

    And a republican governor didn’t fix the water because the dead were black kids? What century are these people living in?

    I want to say they’re a broken record, but we don’t play records anymore – but perhaps it fits, because they all seem stuck in 1940.

    Do they have NOTHING but cards like the race card? How can I believe they really have anything to offer when they’re fighting an old war still? All they have is fear and division to make people vote for them….?

    I’m so glad we have Trump. The more I learn about him, even listening to old youtubes about how on the ball he was even 30 years ago, the more I put hope in him. Imagine if our choice was between a democrat and a republican…. oy…. (I don’t believe Trump fits in a category)

  22. I went to the NBC website. There I found an article. It makes clear the fact that the debate had a clear winner: Andrea Mitchell. You go girl!:

    On a sleepy Sunday night of a three-day weekend, NBC’s Democratic primary debate was surprisingly lively, thanks to sharp questioning by Andrea Mitchell and plenty of split screens to showcase Bernie Sanders’ eye-rolling reactions. (a known side effect of viagra)

    Social media was quite kind Mitchell for asking tough questions and then stepping in quickly to tryto tease out differences between the candidates who often seemed to start their answers out with “I agree” – a quirk that marred previous Democratic debates.

    Mitchell won praise for pressing Sanders several times to answer how he would pay for his proposals and for her widely probing questions about the Middle East, including an illuminating exchange with Clinton about the Obama administration’s response to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons in Syria. Clinton seemed to suggest she’d have been tougher on Assad.

    “Excellent question from Andrea Mitchell to Clinton on the ‘red line’ in Syria. Shows why it’s so hard to run as a legacy candidate,” tweeted Yahoo’s Matt Bai.

    Read more:

  23. Hillary lost this debate. Donald Trump was the REAL winner because Bernie Sanders only sharply contrasted that these politicians are BOUGHT products and robots of big banks

    Donald Trump won because the anger Bernie Sanders came with is what America is feeling right now and Hillary Clinton wants to just “continue” the “continuity” of this deceit.

    She is NOT the 08 Hillary for damn sure.

    I don’t recognize this woman


  24. admin
    January 17, 2016 at 10:46 pm
    After last GOP debate Trump up 4 Cruz down 3 in South Carolina.

    Even if Cruz manages to turn the Iowa caucuses into an evangelical tent revival he will still lose his ass in NH and SC. His “deal” with Trump blew up too early. His “purity” arguments for the Republican party are not going to cut it this year. And of course he “forgot” he was born in Canada. Lucky, lucky Trump. The greatest line-up of Republican candidates EVER turned out to be a bunch of mokes.

  25. lorac: I’m really leaning towards 2008 being a fake Hillary. Especially with the “new her” favoring Muslims over women’s rights
    I agree more than I will say at this time.
    And if true, it is a devastating revelation.

  26. no.

    2008 Hillary was/is the real one. something made her back down then. and something is forcing this.

    I am convinced there is a knife being held to her throat. Whatever it is we may never know.

  27. My daughter and I have gone crosswise over DT. She has Muslim friends, that I have never said anything about. She has picked up the brown shirt mantra that Trump is instilling hatred against Muslims. Well, I disagreed and took the position that he has only opened discussion on a situation full of hatred already.

    The New Years Even attacks on women were organized and involved mostly Muslim migrants, but also Muslim residents and from all over, including the US. It was not a cultural misunderstanding, it was an organized attack. Europe is not responding effectively.

    I suspect Merkel invited the Muslim migrants in to the country to destroy it, to cover up the fact that the EU was failing anyway. Now she will have a scapegoat.

  28. Southern Born
    January 17, 2016 at 10:02 pm

    Free health care for EVERYBODY in America, free college for all. How in the world is Bernie going to pay for all this?

    SB He won’t pay.
    You and I will. 😡

  29. The defense of Obama by Hillary2016 inspires as much voter enthusiasm in me as a wet noodle, and there is no way in the universe that I will ever vote for a communist like Sanders.

  30. The legacy of Obama?

    War is peace.

    Freedom is slavery.

    Ignorance is strength.

    Truth is racism.

    Kim Jo Ill= fremeny

    Muslims are moderate.

    Workplace violence.

    Allah Akbar does not show intent.

    Guns kill. People don’t.

    Berghdall is a hero.

    ISIS is JV

    Iran can be trusted

    Inside every terrorist is an American just waiting to get out.

    Hillary: stay the course. Praise be to Obama.

    Hell, probably a winning formula

    Given the trancendental stupidity of the electorate

    All kidding aside, Andrea was the star of the show–everybody thats anybody is saying it.

    And even nobodies, like me.

  31. And even nobodies, like me.

    Who refused to turn in.

    But was influenced by what everyone else was saying.

    And deferred to them because of their moral and intellectual superiority.

  32. At some point, one has to wonder whether this whole damn thing is not a movie trailer for a really big shew in the theater of the absurd.

  33. Would you believe:
    Right now DJT is live at Liberty University.
    Right now has a live feed button to UK debating whether to let him in.

  34. No. Strike that. It is exactly what Professor Sheldon Wollen (and Chris Hedges an honest man of the left) called it:

    1. inverted totalitarianism, and-

    2. “managed democracy”.

    A grudging concession by the elites to the McGovern commission that restructured the rules and thereby allowed absolute control over the nominating process to slip away from the party bosses–and into the grimy hands of radicals of the left and right, who realize the people are being fucked like a house cat by Goldie Sox, Sittie Pretty Bank, GE and their ilk. But like Bernie (or Mad King Lear from Shakespeare) all they are capable of doing is screaming at the heaven and howling at the moon from more and more government. Trump on the other hand is different. He actually believes there is a productive role for the private sector and the nation’s problems are solvable if you take them out of the hands of political hacks like Jeh Johnson who are there because of race, and put them in the hands of competent managers. I have got to say I agree with him.

    Roger Stone’s characterization is very apt.

  35. eff the UK

    I noticed Hillary never mentioned Bill Clinton’s era last night

    She has chosen to go with the loser versus the winner

    Ask any Democrat who they fared better under .. Obama or Bill Clinton

    Ask any American and if they dont’ lie it will be Bill Clinton

    What ever happened to Hillary it’s like she is a completely different person

    There is not ONE policy of hers that she has not flip flopped on

    She’ll be cautioning the “clinging to your guns and bibles” next

  36. The idea to even compare Hillary with a right wing bully like Trump is just really… incredible.
    Or to call the president ‘Barry’!
    Any decency left here?
    How in the world could this blog fall so low??

    Bye, bye

  37. woman4power
    January 18, 2016 at 12:42 pm
    How in the world could this blog fall so low??

    Bye bye.
    I take it you have been asleep these past eight years.

  38. woman4power
    January 18, 2016 at 12:42 pm
    How in the world could this blog fall so low??

    Bye bye.
    must be hard to breath when your head is constantly in the sand. Glad to see you came up for air.

  39. wbboei
    January 18, 2016 at 1:22 pm
    I take it you have been asleep these past eight years.
    Well, it’s 2016, absolutely; so, questions that seem important are:

    Whom do you trust on health care? Hillary or Trump?
    Whom do you trust on supreme court judges? Hillary or Trump?
    Whom do you trust on foreign policy Hillary or Trump?
    Whom do you trust on dealing with global warming? Hillary or Trump?
    Whom do you trust in general Hillary or Trump?

    One way to find an answer (just if that for whatever reason is not absolutely obvious..) might be asking

    Who has presented reasonable plans for dealing with important policy issues? Hillary or Trump?

    From that I would in all modesty conclude, that it might be time, to join Hillarys campaign.
    Obama does not happen to be on the ballot, that was 8 years ago…

  40. But Hillary has become an Obama clone. Hillary will be a 3rd term Obama. And to answer your questions above: Trump, Trump, Trump…etc.

    Obviously you have not been reading this blog for some time.

  41. Whom do you trust on health care?

    Trump. Barry cost me a fortune.

    Whom do you trust on supreme court judges?


    Whom do you trust on foreign policy Hillary or Trump?

    Trump. The world is on fire thanks to Barry and Hillary.

    Whom do you trust on dealing with global warming?

    LOL. Seriously? Still, I’ll bite: Trump!

    Whom do you trust in general Hillary or Trump?

    Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump!!!

  42. No one here is happy to have to see the transformation of Hillary 08 to the Hillary of 2016. I know I personally was devastated by her loss in 08 and had hoped that this would finally be her time. Sadly, contrary to almost everything people here have expressed(and remember most of us still love her on a certain level) she has abandoned the many principles that made us so passionate in 08.

  43. jbstonesfan – I am with you !

    And it boggles my mind that “woman4power, January 18, 2016 at 2:49 pm” will accept this version of Hillary. As far as I can tell someone has a knife to her throat forcing her run, someone who hates both her and Bill. And I will not participate.

    Please go home Hillary, if you can.

  44. I (we) went through hell for Hillary. She will always have a place in my heart. But she told us she would stay the course and stick with Barry. There is no way to run to the middle with his coalition in tow.

    So, as someone once said, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them.”

    I do. And I no longer like what I see.

  45. woman4power
    January 18, 2016 at 2:49 pm
    January 18, 2016 at 1:22 pm
    I take it you have been asleep these past eight years.
    Well, it’s 2016, absolutely; so, questions that seem important are:

    Whom do you trust on health care? Hillary or Trump?
    Whom do you trust on supreme court judges? Hillary or Trump?
    Whom do you trust on foreign policy Hillary or Trump?
    Whom do you trust on dealing with global warming? Hillary or Trump?
    Whom do you trust in general Hillary or Trump?

    One way to find an answer (just if that for whatever reason is not absolutely obvious..) might be asking

    Who has presented reasonable plans for dealing with important policy issues? Hillary or Trump?

    From that I would in all modesty conclude, that it might be time, to join Hillarys campaign.
    Obama does not happen to be on the ballot, that was 8 years ago…
    First, lets stipulate that we we are not talking about 2008. If it was 2008 then Trump would be in the running, the country would not be in the shape it is in now, and Hillary was my candidate. I campaigned for her in four states, I wrote letters to superdelegates, I made phone calls, I wrote papers, I promoted her on several blogs every day. If she were the same candidate she was in 2008, I would be doing the same thing.

    Second, lets stipulate that the past eight years are relevant. If you are willing to do that, then you must acknowledge that we are worse off today as a nation than we were then, and you cannot ignore who is responsible. If your position is Hillary was just following orders, then be mindful of the fact that this defense did not work at Nuerenmberg and it will not work here. What we have seen in the past eight years is clear signs of her leadership or lack thereof, and her mad embrace of Obama. To deny this history, to pretend it did not happen, is magic thinking.

    Third, you must acknowledge that Hillary is an establishment figure who is tied to big donors, whereas Trump is his own man. Why is that important? Because there is clear cogent and convincing evidence that the establishment (of both parties) is moving us toward a globalist European model, and what was once thought to be tin foil hat stuff in now an emerging reality–which must be resisted, in my humble opinion. Let me break it down for you, as I did here the other day. To see this however you must look past the false canards of identity politics, political correctness, and the punch and judy puppet show between the two parties which serve to obscure the truth:

    A. THE NATIONALIST MODEL OF GOVERNMENT: under the nationalist model of government, as envisioned by the Constitution, the power structure, and order of priorities look something like this:

    1. American People (Sovereign)
    2. Elected Officials (Serve the People)
    3. Political Parties (reflect interests of members.)
    4. Media (inform the public—and accept their feedback.)
    5. Donors (small donations limited by law)

    (Note: this is a bit theoretical because, if you read historian Charles Beard, economic interests were pivotal in shaping the constitution, and the slavery question was one manifestation of this.)

    B. THE GLOBALIST MODEL OF GOVERNMENT: inverts the triangle above. Under the globalist model the power structure and order of priorities looks is similar to the EU and it looks like this:

    1. Donors/Lobbyists (rent seeking special interests—domestic and foreign)
    2. Elected Officials (who are paid to vote for donors, and play game of failure theater. with voters.)
    3. Globalist Bureaucrats (to run a vast administrative apparatus and control the people—reflected in a scarcely noticed change in curriculum at Harvard Law School.
    4. Big Media (a tower of babble, whose role is to brainwash the electorate)
    5. Consiglieres: Campaign Consultants, Pollsters, Beltway Law firms, Political staffers, Pet Academicians
    6. American People: rubes to be plundered, disenfranchised, monitored and replaced (through open borders, surveillance, gun confiscation, and relaxation of drug laws)

    (Note: this is the Soros/Zuckerberg model: as in: breathes there a man so dead that never to himself has said this is my native land—I am a citizen of the world, i.e. rootless cosmopolitan pursuing my narrow self interest whenever and wherever it takes me, and regardless whom it injures. I am also a sociopath)

    1. Point 1: Trump will reinstate the National Model of Government
    2. Point 2: Trump will invert the triangle back to the original one–with the people in charge
    3. Point 3: Trump will drive the money changers from the temple (see B. 5. above)
    4. Point 4: Trump will stop this forced march toward the New World Order
    5. Point 5: Trump will, through Ican, address a sea of corruption in corporate board rooms.
    6. Point 6: Trump will, through aggressive prosecutors, send mega banksters to jail
    7. Point 7: Trump will force congress to do its job–like reading bills before passing them
    8. Point 8: Trump will use the his legendary skills to negotiate better trade deals for us
    9. Point 9: Trump will show power to a world which respects power, not apologies.
    10. Point 10: Trump will deliver prosperity at home, peace abroad, through strength

    D. CONCLUSION: Donald is changing the model of campaigning in ways we see and in ways we do not see. And he will also change the model of government. No wonder the elites despise him. No wonder they are keen to take him down. And no wonder he is always one step ahead of them. The transition to a new world order is in jeopardy because the masses whom the globalists believed they could seduce with smoke and mirrors and buying off big media are waking up. The tea party is not the enemy. The globalists are. And Donald stands between them, and the achievement of their perverse ambitions.”

  46. I too cried when Hillary didn’t fight all the way to the convention floor in 08. Thinking back, perhaps I should have seen then that she was just hot air versus backbone. We all questioned WHY she refused to fight and it has become apparent to me at least .. she is just not the person we thought she was.

    I still think daily about that photograph of her in PA standing in the rain …. campaigning. That was the Hillary I gave my heart to and I cried for days when she just caved.

    Yes, I have followed her still through the years and I still had hoped to see her *Hillary08* in the White House.

    Hillary2016 is not the one I choose to get behind now.

    Needless to say, I did learn a lesson with Hillary08 … that was to NOT get emotionally involved again.

    It was painful

  47. dot48
    January 18, 2016 at 4:43 pm
    I too cried when Hillary didn’t fight all the way to the convention floor in 08.
    We all did.

    And we swore we would be true to the Hillary of 2008.

    And we have been.

    She is the one who has changed.

  48. I will never forget the rules and bylaws committee meeting -May 31. Never.

    I will never forget the DNC convention. Never.

    I will never forget Donna Brazile telling me my vote was not needed. Never.

    I will never forget the theft my whole vote. Never.

    I will never forget the caucus fraud. Never.

    I will never forget the theft of the half vote I did get and it was given to B-A-R-R-Y. Never.

    If she is so happy with Barry and everything he did to her and me, then so be it. Have him. She can visit him in the Middle East in his mansion and have tea.

    I want someone that will fight for me and my country. I don’t want someone who kisses commie-anarchist ass.

    So, me: Trump. Trump. Trump. I

  49. I did not leave Hillary…she left us for Obama and she is telling the world that she will fight for his legacy and go further…that comes directly from her…

    …sadly Hillary is now the past…she wants to continue with the policies that have left a mess in their path…she stands for the status quo and the establishment…she is the ultimate insider…

    she had a chance to come out of the gate as the metaphorical ‘Joan of Arc’ to save the day…but she clings to needing O’s coalition and her adoration of his Presidency…which is blowing up in her face because a large part of that coalition is going to Bernie Sanders…and some of it is going to Donald Trump…

    …it is hard to let go and some refuse to see or hear what she is unambiguously telling you…all I can say is if you support O’s agenda then stick with Hillary…if you want bold changes that actually favor us forgotten Americans then think twice…

    …trust is important…and it is gone…

    …sadly Hillary does not represent many of us anymore…so the answer is Trump…

  50. bottom line…O is Hillary’s downfall…all the problems she has can be traced back to her becoming O’s Secretary of State…Benghazi, email problems, Russian reset, on and on…all come from being connected to him…

    She should have stayed with the Clinton Foundation projects and bolted out of the gate as her own person…and free to roar as Hillary…now she is stuck to O…reduced to being his sidekick…

  51. woman4power
    January 18, 2016 at 2:49 pm
    January 18, 2016 at 1:22 pm
    I take it you have been asleep these past eight years.
    Well, it’s 2016, absolutely; so, questions that seem important are:

    Whom do you trust on health care? Hillary or Trump?
    Whom do you trust on supreme court judges? Hillary or Trump?
    Whom do you trust on foreign policy Hillary or Trump?
    Whom do you trust on dealing with global warming? Hillary or Trump?
    Whom do you trust in general Hillary or Trump?

    One way to find an answer (just if that for whatever reason is not absolutely obvious..) might be asking

    Who has presented reasonable plans for dealing with important policy issues? Hillary or Trump?

    From that I would in all modesty conclude, that it might be time, to join Hillarys campaign.
    Obama does not happen to be on the ballot, that was 8 years ago
    As you can see, you are not getting the answers you hoped for for the people on this blog.

    They are too sophisticated to answer these questions the way you thought they would.

    Furthermore, we did not throw in the towel when Hillary conceded–like Taylor Marsh and others did.

    We got threatening phone calls, and computer hacking from Obama People.

    But we continued the fight for her as her army in exile.

    And watched in despair as Obama wrecked the county and she supported him.

    No. You are asking for too much. You are asking us to renounce our values for identity politics.

    And that . . . is a bridge too far.

    If you can do it, then more power to you.

    Perhaps some day you will open your eyes.

  52. woman4power

    January 18, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    Well, it’s 2016, absolutely; so, questions that seem important are:

    Whom do you trust on health care? Hillary or Trump?
    Whom do you trust on supreme court judges? Hillary or Trump?
    Whom do you trust on foreign policy Hillary or Trump?
    Whom do you trust on dealing with global warming? Hillary or Trump?
    Whom do you trust in general Hillary or Trump?


    Is this a parody account?

  53. woman4power
    January 18, 2016 at 2:49 pm
    I will join the Hillary Campaign when I see the woman who went to Beijing and declared that Women’s Rights are Human Rights, when I see the woman who stood in the rain and campaigned for herself and her constituency.

    I see now the destructive, divisive specter of Obola rhetoric and spew in nearly everything she says. It is as revolting. The best I can do is ignore it for now and taut her on her FB page.

    I changed my party affiliation to vote for Trump in the primary, although I have not considered myself a Dimocrat for some time. If things do not radically change before the GE, I will play the Trump Card there, too.


    Splice the three quotes I started this piece with into a TV ad. Throw in a visual or two of Obama and Clinton laughing or hugging. And whammo! You’ve got a terrific negative ad that puts lie to Clinton’s past insistence that she won’t simply be a continuation of Obama’s policies.

    Now Republicans were already making that attack. And with or without Clinton’s strong defense of Obama on Sunday night, Republicans were going to keep making it. But the strongest (read: most effective) ads in this cynical time are the ones featuring the candidate herself saying things that seem to contradict other things she’s said.

    Clinton handed that ad to Republicans on Sunday night. She might have had to do it — you can’t win the general election if you can’t get to the general election — but it comes with a major downside that Clinton will feel if she is the Democratic nominee this fall.

  55. The entire article because it is so worth reading:

    Hillary Clinton had a clear strategy going into Sunday night’s fourth Democratic presidential debate: Hug President Obama — at all costs.

    “We have the Affordable Care Act,” Clinton said. “That is one of the greatest accomplishments of President Obama, of the Democratic Party, and of our country.”

    “I’m going to defend Dodd-Frank and I’m going to defend President Obama for taking on Wall Street, taking on the financial industry and getting results,” she said.

    “I was very pleased that leaders of President Obama’s administration went out to Silicon Valley last week and began exactly this conversation about what we can do, consistent with privacy and security,” she said.

    That’s a sound tactical move in the context of a Democratic primary — particularly when trying, as Clinton is, to slow Bernie Sanders’s momentum among liberals and avoid allowing him any momentum with black and Hispanic voters. All three of those groups remain some of the most loyal supporters of Obama, so praising him makes sense.

    But it also represents a marked shift in Clinton’s rhetoric on Obama. Remember back to last fall when Clinton was fond of saying: “I’m not running for my husband’s third term. I’m not running for President Obama’s third term. I’m running for my first term.”

    That phrasing was born of a desire to ward off Republican attacks on Clinton in a general election. She — and her team — knew that, among critical independent voters, being regarded as simply an extension of Obama’s eight years in office is very problematic.

    What changed? Sanders’s poll numbers, which now suggest he is in a dead heat with Clinton in Iowa and ahead of her in New Hampshire. Clinton no longer has the luxury to keep a polite distance from Obama to stave off general election attacks from Republicans. She now knows she faces the possibility of not making the general election, so plotting and planning for that race has to be put on hold.

    That shift comes with a cost, of course. And the cost is that Republicans now have Clinton, in her own words, praising Obama on, well, everything, during Sunday night’s debate.

    Splice the three quotes I started this piece with into a TV ad. Throw in a visual or two of Obama and Clinton laughing or hugging. And whammo! You’ve got a terrific negative ad that puts lie to Clinton’s past insistence that she won’t simply be a continuation of Obama’s policies.

    Now Republicans were already making that attack. And with or without Clinton’s strong defense of Obama on Sunday night, Republicans were going to keep making it. But the strongest (read: most effective) ads in this cynical time are the ones featuring the candidate herself saying things that seem to contradict other things she’s said.

    Clinton handed that ad to Republicans on Sunday night. She might have had to do it — you can’t win the general election if you can’t get to the general election — but it comes with a major downside that Clinton will feel if she is the Democratic nominee this fall.

    We wrote it all a long time ago. This can’t be walked back after the fight with the left ends. As we wrote: Immolation.


    Talking about picking the losing horse! In the past year, there has not been a single poll that shows a majority favoring the Affordable Care Act; in fact, the last one to show that was three years ago, almost ten months before the disastrous implementation of ObamaCare. Only three polls since have shown even a plurality in favor of ObamaCare, and all three were within the margin of error. Most polling show majorities opposed to the law, and the margins have widened of late.

    So this is an unusual strategy for the general election. Does it really help Hillary in the primaries? The threat from Bernie Sanders comes from the progressive-populist grassroots who demonize corporations like insurers, and who demand health care as a right provided by government for “free.” Hillary tries to feign hostility toward insurers in her answer, but the knock on ObamaCare for the Left is that (a) it didn’t go far enough, and (b) it provided a captive market for Big Insurance.

    Bernie’s plan, on the other hand, gives progressives both the single-payer system they demand and the soak-the-rich tax plan of their dreams:

    The country hates ObamaCare. Hillary embraces ObamaCare. Immolation.

  57. ObamaCare:

    Gaming of Obamacare Poses a Fatal Threat

    In November, UnitedHealth abruptly reversed its previously sunny take on Obamacare and said that the company would have to pull out of the government-run exchanges if market conditions didn’t improve. The problem: People signing up during “special enrollment” (the majority of the year that falls outside of the annual open enrollment period) were much sicker, and paying premiums for much less time, than the rest of the exchange population. The result: Those policies were losing a ton of money.

    UnitedHealth’s bombshell raised the specter, once thought safely in the grave, of the “adverse selection death spiral,” the phenomenon where sick people are more likely to buy insurance, which raises the average expenditure, which means higher premiums, which makes insurance a worse deal for the healthiest members of your insurance pool, which means they drop out, which means your pool is even sicker and average expenditure goes up even more … and there goes the insurance market.

    The mandate was supposed to prevent this, but the mandate has pretty skimpy penalties, meaning that it may be economically rational to forgo insurance, and buy it only if you get sick. This sort of strategic behavior was very risky before Obamacare, because insurers generally refused to cover pre-existing conditions that popped up while you were uninsured. With insurers forbidden to exclude such conditions, or price the insurance to cover their added costs, it suddenly became a viable tactic.

    Pundits and wonks worried a lot about this when the law was being debated, but over time, a consensus developed that restricting signups to open enrollment would make the system too hard to game for this to be much of a problem. But then suddenly, UnitedHealth described a pattern in its insurance claims that sounded a lot like gaming, as I noted at the time.

    But it was hard to know how seriously to take that threat. It’s just one company, said the law’s supporters, and not a major player on the exchanges. I found UnitedHealth’s warnings more worrying than the optimists did, but even I was skeptical that there was much gaming going on. Special enrollment is only for people who have had major life events like changing jobs, getting married or having a baby. So I assumed that the folks who had a qualifying life event, and actually signed up for insurance during special enrollment, were more likely to be sick people who really needed insurance, while healthier folks who had a qualifying event decided to wait until they got a new job, or until open enrollment rolled around again. That would certainly skew the pool, but probably not disastrously.

    But yesterday, Politico published a long article giving more support to the “gaming” hypothesis. People who sign up during special enrollment, insurers say, “run up much higher medical bills and then jump ship, contributing to double-digit rate increases and financial losses.” Customers are also exploiting the three-month “grace period” when they can stop paying premiums and still get treatment from providers. And the article suggests that at least some Americans have realized that under current regulations, they need to be insured for only nine months of the year to avoid the mandate penalty. So you can sign up for insurance, cram all your spending into that shorter time frame, and then stop paying for the last three months.

    This is not just UnitedHealth, either. Blue Cross Blue Shield, the mainstay of the marketplaces, appears to be seeing similar problems, as does Aetna. This is not just the experience of one outlier.

    I don’t want to overstate the threat here. But I really can’t. Unless it’s gotten under control, this sort of behavior poses an existential threat to the exchange marketplaces. The more people game the system, the more people will have to game the system. People who game both incur more in costs than regular consumers do and pay less in premiums, which means everyone else has to pay more. As the insurance gets more expensive, those regular consumers will be increasingly tempted to convert to gamers themselves, and the marketplaces may well collapse.

    We wrote pretty much all of this would happen back in 2009. ObamaCare is a mess. We wrote that people are not stupid and would game the system as would the insurance and pharma companies. ObamaCare is stupid. There is no defense for ObamaCare Hillary.

    The writer of the article is a long time ObamaCare apologist but even she sees the danger. The proposed solutions don’t work because they are politically impossible to achieve unless you blow up ObamaCare and start a sane system.

  58. Lu4PUMA, Trump did not misquote the bible today. When we heard the hubbub we thought Trump had substituted “Satan” for “Jesus” or claimed Moses was a Christian or something like that. Fearing the worst, something like “In the beginning Lucifer…” we researched what the horror is.

    Turns out Trump referred to the second book of “Corinthians” as “Two Corinthians” instead of “Second Corinthians”. That the critique and comedy comes from anti-Christian writers is astounding.

    Observe the horror and the crescendo of boos that followed:

    It’s over for Trump.

  59. I don’t think it was that Trump misquoted the Bible as much as it is that it sounds strange that Trump keeps saying that the Bible is his favorite book just ahead of his own book over and over yet he had no idea that it was not called Two Corinthians. Hum.

  60. By Megan McArdle is an idiot.

    The problem of adverse selection was obvious at the beginning

    The needed to set the penalty higher to discourage withdrawal.

    At this point, the program is in trouble.

    There is only one answer:

    Bring back Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

    A leading expert on national and world health issues, according to a local fox affiliate.

    If she is not too busy with the elites in Aspen.

  61. admin
    January 18, 2016 at 8:06 pm
    Geeze, you are right. They are nit picking. Kind of desperate, huh. And they are really pushing Cruz. Anybody but Trump.

  62. This election is now practically Trump’s to lose. It’s just so sad to watch Hillary self-destruct when she had a great opportunity to become the next POTUS.

  63. Information for Hillary on guns:

    NYT’s Kristof: Time for liberals to face some uncomfortable facts about guns

    Yesterday, Nicholas Kristof explained a few “inconvenient gun facts” to fellow liberals, and underscored why voters consider their ranting to be nothing but demagoguery:

    We liberals are sometimes glib about equating guns and danger. In fact, it’s complicated: The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half.

    Then there are the policies that liberals fought for, starting with the assault weapons ban. A 113-page study found no clear indication that it reduced shooting deaths for the 10 years it was in effect. That’s because the ban was poorly drafted, and because even before the ban, assault weapons accounted for only 2 percent of guns used in crimes.

    Move on to open-carry and conceal-carry laws: With some 13 million Americans now licensed to pack a concealed gun, many liberals expected gun battles to be erupting all around us. In fact, the most rigorous analysis suggests that all these gun permits caused neither a drop in crime (as conservatives had predicted) nor a spike in killings (as liberals had expected). Liberals were closer to the truth, for the increase in carrying loaded guns does appear to have led to more aggravated assaults with guns, but the fears were overblown.

    Kristof then goes to the question of Congressional resistance to gun-control regulation. Progressives blame the NRA for frightening politicians into ignoring polls showing broad support for universal background checks, but Kristof says they have no one to blame but themselves:

    So why does nothing get done? One reason is that liberals often inadvertently antagonize gun owners and empower the National Rifle Association by coming across as supercilious, condescending and spectacularly uninformed about the guns they propose to regulate. A classic of gun ignorance: New York passed a law three years ago banning gun magazines holding more than seven bullets — without realizing that for most guns there is no such thing as a magazine for seven bullets or less.

    As if Kristof’s scolding wasn’t curious enough, we also have Charles Blow making some sense on gun issues at the Gray Lady, too. Five days earlier, Blow wrote that the debate over guns had gotten derailed by efforts to impose broad new restrictions on people who don’t actually pose a threat. Why not, the progressive columnist asked, focused on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals?

    Our current discussion about increasing gun regulations often centers on efforts that would mostly affect people who legally buy firearms. Many of them make sense, in theory, but the truth is that they would not be likely to have a huge impact on criminal gun violence, because many of those criminals obtain their weapons illegally.

    So, when the gun lobby and gun owners make this case, we must admit that they have a point. …

    In a 2003 book, “The Challenge of Crime,” published by Harvard University Press, authors quoted researchers who found the following:

    “They learned that 32 percent of the felons had acquired their most recent weapon through their own theft; an additional 14 percent knew that their friend, family, or street source had stolen the weapon before conveying it; and an additional 24 percent thought that the weapon probably had been stolen by his source. At least 46 percent, then, and possibly as many as 70 percent of felons’ most recently owned firearms had been stolen either by the offender himself or by the source from whom he acquired the weapon. In addition, 47 percent of the respondents quizzed as to whether they had ever stolen a firearm during a crime admitted to so doing and 86 percent of the felons who admitted prior stealing of firearms reported multiple thefts.”

    Rather than focusing on all guns, the vast, vast majority of which are owned by responsible people and are never used in the commission of a crime, we have to focus on keeping guns out of the hands of this relatively small number of criminals.

    We’re not particularly big defenders of guns. But… We succumb to facts.

  64. woman4power

    Calling Barack Obama, Berry, is a name he used for himself.

    It is true I use the name Barry for him sometimes because when he was given some of Hillary’s earned votes in 2008, and she still won the majority of votes in the primary…I was more than angry.

    We all watched as the DNC stabbed Hillary in the back and carried Barack Obama on to the White House. 18 million Hillary voters were kicked in the teeth, dismissed by the Democrat party and most of us here have not been in a party since then. You would know all of the details of how we have evolved to this perspective if you read the blog every now and then and also read Admin’s posts.

    Many people have stopped blogging and are now just reading Admin’s posts and a few by others here. Some have stayed, and most that are here now, support Trump.

    A very few of us still hope Hillary breaks away from Obama’s failed policies and runs on her own merits. I for one, hope she becomes our next President.

    I lost respect for Barack Obama in 2008 and that is why I don’t treat him with the respect you think he deserves.

  65. Reality intrudes:

    Austria has “temporarily suspended” its involvement in the Schengen Area, and has deployed troops to deal with migrants attempting to pass through Germany. Making the announcement, the country’s chancellor, Werner Faymann, said that failure to secure the European Union’s (EU’s) external borders soon would bring the survival of the EU into question.

    On Sunday Faymann insisted that the Union must regain control of its external borders if Austria is to resume its participation in the Schengen Area, a borderless zone which permits free movement across much of Europe without identity checks, Euractiv has reported.

    “All refugees must be controlled, economic migrants must be sent to their countries of origin,” he told Austrian periodical Österreich.

    Austria is now implementing a strict monitoring system for asylum seekers and will be following in Germany’s footsteps by introducing tighter border controls and deporting failed asylum seekers more readily.

    If the EU does not manage to secure the external borders, Schengen as a whole is put into question…Then each country must control its national borders,” he said, adding that if the external borders are not brought under control soon, “the whole EU [will be] in question.”

    His comments come just a day after the Austrian Defence Ministry announced that it would be deploying troops to deal with migrants who plan to pass through Germany and not claim asylum there.

    “What is the situation currently on the German-Austrian border? That only those who want asylum in Germany are being let through, and those who want to travel onward are sent back,” Austrian Interior Minister Johanna Mikl-Leitner told state broadcaster ORF.

    We will stop them directly on our southern border [with Slovenia] as of the end of next week,” Mikl-Leitner added.

    Meanwhile, the soldiers’ presence will be “clearly visible” at the Austrian border to deter migrants trying to cross into Austria illegally.

    In further signs that the Schengen Area is on the brink of collapse, Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble has conceded that the Area is “close” to an end, as more countries reinstate border checks.

    In a bid to cling on to their dream of European integration, talk of a possible mini-Schengen has resurfaced between Germany, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, France and the Netherlands.

    The idea was first floated in November, minus France, but appears to have been unpopular with the Germans at the time. Bert Koenders, the Dutch foreign minister, confirmed that there were “very exploratory talks,” following the Paris massacre in which 130 people lost their lives to Islamic terrorism.

    However, Thomas de Maizière, Germany’s interior minister, said at the time: “Our political goal must be that the Schengen area as a whole functions. Everything else would just be supplementary considerations.”

    Yet over the last few months, Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Slovakia, and Sweden have all reintroduced checks on EU internal borders, in defiance of the Schengen agreement, bringing the whole project into question.


    MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said there are Reagan Democrats across the country that are just “waiting” to vote for Donald Trump. Matthews even conceded his home state of Pennsylvania, once a swing state that has consistently voted Democratic in the last several election cycles, is “in play” if Trump is the Republican nominee for president.

    “I think there’s a lot of Reagan Democrats waiting to vote for him,” Matthews said on the Friday broadcast of his MSNBC show Hardball. “I think Pennsylvania might well be in play if he’s the nominee because he’s unpredictable. Whereas you get Cruz up there you put him over on the far right, Hillary takes the center back, right? And you win.”

    Roll Call’s Jonathan Allen said there is a “divide” among Democrats when it comes to Hillary Clinton facing off against Trump. Allen reported some believe she will wipe the floor with the Republican frontrunner, however, he said there is “increasing” concern among key Democrats that Trump could attract Democrats.

    “There’s absolutely a divide among the Democrats,” Allen said. “There are some who think he will still fail and fall and some who believe he has the lowest floor among the Republican candidates, that Hillary Clinton will wipe the floor with him if she’s the nominee. But increasingly what I’m hearing from people is there’s some concern that he could attract some Democrats. He has the most un-Republican positions in the Republican party.”

    We continue to warn and wave red flags. We are scorned until we are proved correct.

  67. Former French President Nickolaus Sarcozy to the big media beloved Messiah.

    We live in the real world. Not a virtual one.

    Case in point . . .

    It Happened on the Way to the Legacy

    One of the current media themes is that people are too stupid to realize how good they’ve got it. For example, Matthew Yglesias tweets that the people are worried about terrorism simply because they have quit worrying about the economy.

    “Dems’ big problem — improving economy is leading to terrorism paranoia not a more upbeat outlook.” This is his way of explaining a Gallup poll showing a dramatic uptick in public worry about terrorism. “Satisfaction with security from terrorism down 16 percentage points since 2015. This year’s drop follows a 10-point drop from 2014 to 2015.”

    The administration narrative — which is Hillary’s too — is that is all is well. Obamacare is fine, the economy great, world peace at hand. If you’re worried, it’s because you’re irrational; a dumb hater. By contrast, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are running on the theme that things are bad and the average Joe is being screwed over by the banks, the insiders and the Man.

    One side is running on Hope and Reassurance. The other is running on Anger. So far, anger is holding its own and may be gaining the upper hand.

    The denial of anger is baffling Hillary Clinton’s strategists. Ann Althouse quotes a New York Times article titled “Clinton underestimated Sanders strengths” which notes that, unable to spot the anger, Hillary is focusing on improving her style and delivery vs Bernie. Clinton’s poll numbers are falling because “they did not push for more debates…. Some Democrats also believe Mrs. Clinton may have benefited from a more competitive primary season with big-name rivals, like Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., who might have brought out the fighter in her.”

    In this view she needs a better hairdresser, a more talented speech coach, better lighting. Althouse, citing one of the most popular comments on the NYT piece, argues Hillary is missing the point. The comment goes, “it’s a sad commentary that Hilary Clinton’s campaign sees her mistake as a failure to ‘undercut’ Bernie Sanders…rather than a failure to realize just how desperately many people are seeking what Bernie has to offer.”

    But Bernie’s not offering anything, not really, except a chance to throw a pie at the Clintons’ collective face. Althouse writes:

    What gets me is the cession of the party to the Clintons. How can a party be so inert, so uninspiring? Why did Obama leave it in such a condition that it should offer up only the elderly woman who lost to him 8 years ago, offer her up as if she’s so decidedly right that no one else should even compete? What deadness! Such deadness that a significantly more elderly man drops in and feels like the future. How could a party lapse into this predicament?
    How? Maybe because liberalism is in a holding pattern. All it knows how to do is buy off competitors with taxpayer money and “send” anointees, like it’s done since the end of WW2. It used to work. The problem is that it doesn’t work anymore. In his book, Spoiled Rotten, Jay Cost argues that the Democratic Party “first formed by Andrew Jackson in 1824, that has always prided itself as the party of the poor, the working class, the little guy, is anything but that—rather, it’s a corrupt tool of special interest groups that feed off of the federal government … a modern-day national Tammany Hall.”

    Hillary’s problem is she’s Boss Hillary, like Tweed was Boss Tweed. Her qualifications are her damnation. The historical Tammany Hall finally collapsed not from the efforts of its political opponents, but from the consequences of its own corruption. It finally provoked “an international crisis of confidence in New York City’s finances, and, in particular, in its ability to repay its debts. European investors were heavily positioned in the city’s bonds and were already nervous about its management – only the reputations of the underwriters were preventing a run on the city’s securities. New York’s financial and business community knew that if the city’s credit was to collapse, it could potentially bring down every bank in the city with it.”

    A similar process of decline may now be threatening the status quo. The trillion dollar debt, the foreign failure, the economic insecurity. The themes that Donald Trump beats on relentlessly. It’s not reeling from the punches of the Republican party. It’s staggering under the weight of its own failures. The significance of Clinton’s weakness is that it represents unrest among Democrats, from people who are supposed to have benefited from the system but have not — and are mad as hell. As Alan Rappeport of the New York Times notes in his post-debate survey, Sanders is channeling anger while Hillary is still selling faith in Hope and Change.

    “If Hillary hugged Obama any tighter tonight Michelle would’ve had to step in.” — Jason Johnson, political science professor at Hiram College and politics editor at The Root.
    “Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders offered the louder and bolder vision tonight in South Carolina, channeling some of the anger that’s blossoming in both parties in 2016.” — Rick Klein, political director of ABC News.

    Unrest from the faithful is the most dangerous kind of rebellions. Even so, the only way the Hall knows how to deal with such problems is to buy silence or suppress dissent and that’s not working as well as it used to, even though it is being applied in ever-larger doses. How large a dose was illustrated by reports that the administration is considering demoting David Petraeus retroactively. “The Pentagon is considering retroactively demoting retired Gen. David Petraeus after he admitted to giving classified information to his biographer and mistress while he was still in uniform, three people with knowledge of the matter told The Daily Beast.”

    Reducing Petraeus’s rank, most likely to lieutenant general, could mean he’d have to pay back the difference in pension payments and other benefits that he received as a retired four-star general. That would amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars over his retirement. According to Pentagon figures, a four-star general with roughly the same years of experience as Petraeus was entitled to receive a yearly pension of nearly $220,000. A three-star officer would receive about $170,000.
    Dissatisfaction with Obama’s — and Hillary’s — foreign policy now runs through 3 former administration Secdefs and its most famous general officer. Does Yglesias still believe terror fears are all imaginary? Of course he does. To admit otherwise is not to concede error, it is to admit despair.

    Glenn Reynolds writing in USA Today argues that the giant administrative state is straining to keep the gravy train rolling uphill at all costs. For this reason, it opposes a proposed constitutional convention that may outflank the current practice of changing the Constitution by administrative or judicial processes.

    opposition to a convention is more about locking in changes made through other means — Supreme Court decisions like Roe v. Wade and Baker v. Carr, or just longstanding bureaucratic practice that courts and the public have come to accept — rather than through a formal convention where the changes would have to be approved by the American people as a whole.
    The real fear, I suspect, is that the proposals urged by Abbott, which would roll back much of the political class’s successful power-grab over the past century, would prove popular enough to pass. If that happened, the federal government would become both smaller and more accountable, two political-class nightmares.

    The status quo really has no other strategy except to push blindly on. The rebels on both sides are dangerously close to challenging the Narrative. The successes of Sanders and Trump are principally due to a real, not an imaginary, dissatisfaction. While the Democratic rebels and the Tea Party may not share a single principle, they share a common perception. Each feels that the current system isn’t working.

    Clinton’s fatal weakness is that she was a big part of the Obama administration. Hillary’s Royal Progress is faltering not from any defect in her wardrobe, mien or inflection. Her problem is that the commoners are fed up with queens.

  68. From Plato to Aristotle to Thucidides to St. Augustine to Hobbs the consistent theme has been that the first duty of the state, indeed the inducement that leads them to forsake the freedom of the state of nature for the sanctuary of the city is to be protected from the imminent fear of death. At it core, that is the primal role, the raison detre for all governments, bad ones as well as good ones. If a government cannot fulfill that essential duty then it must fall. That is what Obama and the democrats are tinkering with when you combine their reckless policies of open borders with their indifference to the seeds of terrorism death and destruction which follow in its wake. Let us hope that if it comes to that the first victim is Zukerberg, because he as much as anyone is pushing these policies.

  69. NYT’s Kristof: Time for liberals to face some uncomfortable facts about guns
    What a fucking idiot this guy is.

    He thinks the motive for confiscating guns from law abiding citizens is public safety.

    That defies common sense.

    How many of the killings big media sensationalizes were committed by law abiding citizens?

    The motive for gun confiscation is clear and unambiguous.

    It is part and parcel of the globalist manifesto–which is the end game of progressivism.

    It is one of the several factors outlined above which they use to disenfranchise the people, and put major decisions in the hands of bureaucrats, and beyond the reach of democratic majorities.

    Gun safety is one thing, gun confiscation is its opposite.

    East is east. West is west. And ne’r the twain shall meet.

  70. indigo – you could be right, that 2016 is the fake Hillary and a knife is being held to her throat. But I wonder, why would that knife be gone if she is elected? I’ve thought about that, too, that she is being blackmailed – but I can’t see the conditions changing, if so.

    If they’re forcing her to run a campaign this way, wouldn’t they want her to act that way in office?

    That’s where I can’t see any hope, no matter which Hillary is real….

  71. What a fucking idiot this guy is.
    Well said.

    lol wbboei and jbstones talking legalese to each other 🙂

  72. As Alan Rappeport of the New York Times notes in his post-debate survey, Sanders is channeling anger while Hillary (and Trump) is still selling faith in Hope and Change.

    In the Fernandez article, he’ sure right about this.

  73. IMO, it’s pretty clear that woman4power remained an ideologue and hasn’t actually “learned” anything but soundbites and whatever the NYT and NPR tell her (what I used to be). We have different opinions here, but the people who still support Hillary have paid attention to both Hillary and Trump – they have made an honest decision, they didn’t just wake up and go automatically running back to party lines.

    woman4power – my former gal, your current gal, cares more about Muslims and their disgusting treatment of women than she cares about you, a woman. So, you might as well change your screen name, because you must not really want to be empowered.

    And if you were a PUMA, that means you knew how dangerous Obama would be for this country, and you didn’t vote for him in 2008 (and I assume not 2012 either). But if you vote for Hillary (which you’re free to do, I’m just pointing out what I see is your lack of honest thought), you will be voting for Obama now.

    hmmm maybe you were an obot in 2008 – so then never mind! lol

  74. Southern – maybe it’s disrepectful for us to call Hillary by her first name, we should have asked her lol

  75. And if true, it is a devastating revelation.

    holdem – I know. Well, I really can’t put it any better than you did.

  76. I still think daily about that photograph of her in PA standing in the rain …. campaigning. That was the Hillary I gave my heart to and I cried for days when she just caved.


    That photo is still my avatar – geez, I’ve probably had it almost 10 years. It doesn’t show up here, but on wordpress blogs it does. Even when I go on conservative sites lol

    I suppose I’ll have to change it someday. It’s a mourning process, is the best I can figure out. One day I’ll know it’s time to change it.

  77. Shadow – I wish Trump hadn’t gone so personal (“he’s nasty”, “no one likes him”). I know Iowans, and they’re not going to like that. I think the odds are that Trump will probably win Iowa – but if he doesn’t, I wouldn’t be surprised if that had something to do with it.

  78. I will never forget the DNC convention. Never.

    Felix – I’ll never forgot watching her walk up to the stage surrounded on both sides like they were holding a gun to her side.

  79. Many times, I have suggested similarities between Obama and Hitler. One is their messiahanic style and their cult followers. Another is their reliance on a flack catcher who is able to exercise undue influence over their thought process, i.e. Boreman in the first case, Jarret in the second. Both seem to believe that war boils down to a contest of wills, as opposed to arithmetic and thanks to that delusion, Hitler met his Waterloo at the Battle of the Bulge, and just as surely Obama is meeting his in around the world and here at home, and the phone and pen will not save him. But the broader and more significant comparison lies in the fact that both men are irrational in terms of unrealistic goals, and both are insane because they both live not in the real world but in a virtual one of their own imagination. The most shocking part is that as both men moved with dramatic precision to destroying their respective nations, no one–and especially not John Roberts stepped forward to stop them, until now, thanks to Donald Trump. I will let Richard explain, he is far better at this than I am:
    Like the doomed loser of the Battle of the Bulge, Obama does not seem to believe in arithmetic. He believes in drama. In historical pivots. The Iranian “nuclear deal” is being heralded in the rapturous style of a game changer. Obama may arithmetically be everywhere on the retreat. Iran is $150 billion richer, ISIS a little bigger, Syria a little more wrecked, Europe a little more overwhelmed.

    But none of this matter if the administration can create a ‘new atmosphere’. Newsweek writes that American contingency planners preparing for a Russian invasion of the Baltics note “that there are fewer U.S. forces in Europe today than there are policemen in New York City.” But this won’t really matter, if Obama can make the sympathetic connection.

    Eli Lake at the Chicago Tribune describes the price for these magic moments. ISIS outhouses are off limits in Afghanistan. “There are real restrictions about what they can do against the ISIS presence in Afghanistan,” according to Mac Thornberry, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

    Thornberry said that the rules of engagement, combined with what he called micro-management from the White House, have led military officers to tell him they have to go through several unnecessary and burdensome hoops before firing at the enemy.

    “My understanding is it’s a very confused, elaborate set of requirements,” Thornberry said. “I think the effect of going through all of that makes it harder for our people to conduct their missions.”

    He would not get into specifics about the rules, saying, “If the public were able to know all the restrictions placed on our troops, they would be unhappy about it, and if the enemy knew this they would have more of a leg up than they do now.”

    Perhaps even more striking is an article in the Washington Post by David Petraeus, who essentially confirms what Thornberry says. “At present, U.S. and NATO airpower in Afghanistan is used only to attack validated al-Qaeda targets, to counter specific individuals or groups who have attacked coalition forces previously and to respond directly to attacks on coalition forces. According to leaders on the ground, U.S. and NATO forces are otherwise not allowed to attack Taliban targets. The situation appears to be in flux in regard to Islamic State elements, but through 2015, they too could be targeted only under narrow circumstances.”

    You can’t bomb them too hard if you’re going to negotiate with them. In many ways the Obama administration’s style is the very opposite of FDR’s winning method in WW2. Where FDR was strategically clear and operationally flexible, Obama is strategically secretive and operationally overcontrolling.

    Obama has launched his great offensive in the Middle East. He has his deal with Iran. Will it, even now, turn the tide of the last seven years? What has saved the administration till now is the overpowering might of the US military but if President Obama were ever to be challenged by a near peer competitor he would be in trouble very quickly.

    “What if Hitler were to possess Putin’s body in 2016? What if Obama were president during the Battle of the Bulge.” Makes a good story right? Can you write the book? It will have to be science fiction because the former is unlikely and the latter is, as far as we know, impossible.

  80. Betty, indigo – you both mentioned that you think Hillary is being threatened in some way to act this way, that 2008 was the real Hillary. I’m really curious what you think about what I am wondering in my comment at
    January 19, 2016 at 12:48 am

    In other words, if it is true (and I have wondered myself), why would it change once she is elected? (ie, why would she be allowed to become Hillary 2008 again?)

  81. This business of being two things, i.e.

    1. IRRATIONAL (e.g.pursuing unrealistic goals—like Arab Spring, etc.),

    and, at the same:

    2. INSANE (e.g. living in a virtual world of his own imagination, rather than the real world—Iran)

    explains to a fare thee well what Obama really is, and why he is failing in the world.

Comments are closed.