What did Gruber do for the money besides lie to the “stupid” public? Gruber created the “Gruber Microsimulation Model” which mimics the model used by the Congressional Budget Office to make evaluations of programs. The “Gruber Microsimulation Model” was a flim-flam scam to get the CBO numbers to come out as phony as needed to pass ObamaCare. The “Gruber Microsimulation Model” was a variant of “garbage in, garbage out”. Gruber provided the garbage lies to CBO and CBO provided garbage lies to the public. What once was your/our government at work is now our masters who lie to us.
Some of those states should sue Gruber to get their money back. Force Gruber to testify under oath in a trial setting. Time to play sadomasochism with us holding the whip.
Courts have inherent power to sanction those who lie in any proceeding before the court. Jonathan Gruber has several times submitted amicus briefs in ObamaCare cases.
We wrote about the latest developments on the ObamaCare chessboard recently. We wrote about “ObamaCare architect” Jonathan Gruber back in April of this year in How Big??? ObamaCare Jonathan Gruber #HalBIG. In April the news about Jonathan Gruber was the discovery of a videotape in which Gruber explicitly undermined the contentions of his fellow ObamaCare scam artists. On the vital question of subsidies, Gruber is seen/heard on the video to uphold the central contention of ObamaCare opponents.
Soon after, another videotape of Gruber – in prepared remarks saying the very same thing again – appeared. We predicted the courts would take judicial notice of Gruber’s ObamaCare scam flim-flam remarks. Soon after, that is exactly what happened:
Gruber’s repeated remarks contradict the Obama administration’s legal argument, made in Halbig v. Burwell and threerelatedlawsuits, that it is implausible that Congress would have conditioned those subsidies on states establishing Exchanges. His remarks likewise contradict the amicusbriefs Gruber himself filed in two of those cases. [snip]
Gruber’s remarks, combined with other evidence the Obama administration knew it did not have legal authority to dispense these subsidies or impose the related taxes, call for further investigation into how the administration came to take these actions anyway.
Yesterday, the State of Oklahoma filed a motion to apprise a federal judge of Gruber’s remarks. Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt was the first to challenge the Obama administration’s illegal taxes and subsidies way back in September 2012 (Pruitt v. Burwell). Solicitor general Patrick Wyrick noted Gruber’s remarks are highly relevant, because the government itself has repeatedly relied on Gruber as an expert in these cases:
“Defendants themselves relied on evidence from Professor Gruber in an attempt to show the supposed “implausibility” of Congress having made something as important as the subsidies hinge on the States’ willingness to establish exchanges. Plainly, this newly-discovered evidence squarely controverts Defendants’ evidence on this point, and establishes that it is far from “implausible” that the drafters or Section 36B intended to withhold tax credits and subsidies from states who declined to set up exchanges in order to place pressure on those states to set up exchanges. To the contrary, it is not only plausible, it now appears to be demonstrably true.
As we wrote above, the courts have inherent power to investigate and sanction those that fed the courts false information under oath. But let’s be realistic. The courts generally avoid these types of sanctions and the courts here will likely do nothing to punish the ObamaCare liars.
Should the courts investigate and punish those ObamaCare supporters who lied to the courts? Sure. But that should not be the focus at this point. To borrow from Hillary Clinton, “what difference at this point does it make?”
The “point” right now for ObamaCare opponents is to continue to win the ObamaCare political fight for public opinion and ultimately to destroy ObamaCare root and branch. To that end, what should be done?
Let’s inventory the rather small problems for ObamaCare opponents. Problem #1: Big Media ignores Jonathan Gruber’s remarks. Problem #2: ObamaCare supporters other than Big Media mostly ignore Jonathan Gruber’s remarks. Problem #3: We are sure the Supreme Court will decide against the government but even if does the political landscape to make such a decision easier for the court to reach and the political battlefield after the Supreme Court issues such a decision must be prepared as well.
Those three small problems are intertwined. All three of those small problems can easily be overcome.
Consider the Big Media problem. There is a near total Big Media blockade of Jonathan Gruber’s remarks. Something has to be done to force Big Media to broadcast and publish Gruber’s grubby remarks.
Ditto the ObamaCare supporters near total blockade of Jonathan Gruber’s grubby remarks. Again, something has to be done to force ObamaCare supporters’ faces into the dung pile which are Gruber’s videotaped remarks.
Combine those two situations with the Supreme Court landscape “problem” and we see one obvious solution. Congress should hold hearings early next year, (not earlier, not during Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday season when no one will pay attention, but before the Supreme Court arguments in March are heard on ObamaCare) – which feature Jonathan Gruber. If necessary the rules of the hearings must be changed to allow the videotapes of Gruber to be played over and over and over again.
Senate hearings across various committees will force Big Media to cover and broadcast Jonathan Gruber’s remarks. Senate hearings across various committees will force ObamaCare supporters to confront the reality of Jonathan Gruber’s “stupid” remarks.
Most importantly Senate (and House) hearings before March of next year will prepare the political landscape for a Supreme Court rejection of ObamaCare subsidies contrary to the letter of the law.
Senate (and House) hearings will also prepare the post Supreme Court ObamaCare decision battlefield landscape. Be assured that after the Supreme Court restores the law as written, ObamaCare scam flim-flam artists will then try to force the states to impose exchanges on their citizens. Senate (and House) hearings will prepare the battlefield and put steel into the spine of the many states which have thus far refused to join in the ObamaCare scam.
The opportunities for ObamaCare opponents as we go forward are very good.
Maybe Nancy Pelousy should call Howard Dean. You remember Howard Dean? Howard Dean, the man who did not notice the misogyny and woman hate of 2008 (directed against Hillary Clinton by his best friends, Barack Obama, and the leadership of the Democratic Party) because, as Howard explained – he did not have cable TV. Howard thinks we’re stupid. Now liar Howard is using the word “stupid” to describe Obama’s lies and liars:
Former DNC Chairman Howard Dean gave an excoriating critique of his own party’s key piece of legislation saying the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, was “put together by a bunch of elitists” who “don’t fundamentally understand the American people.”
“The problem is not that he said it–the problem is that he thinks it,” Dean said. “The core problem under the damn law is it was put together by a bunch of elitists who don’t fundamentally understand the American people. That’s what the problem is.”
Brzezinski cringed after repeating Gruber’s quote.
“Jesus!” Dean exclaimed after hearing that one of Obama’s key health care advisers would call the lack of transparency “critical” in passing the massively unpopular law.
A new video has surfaced of a key architect of Obamacare slamming voters once again.
“American voters are too stupid to understand the difference,” Jonathan Gruber said in a clip of remarks he made last year discussing the passage of Obamacare. The clip aired Tuesday on Fox News’ “The Kelly File.”
It is the second video of Gruber, a professor at MIT and former Romney adviser, taking aim at the intelligence of the American electorate.
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter, or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” he said in a video that has recently emerged — and touched off an uproar. Those remarks as well, were from a separate event in 2013.
As Congress voted on the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, in 2010, one of the bill’s architects, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, told a college audience that those pushing the legislation pitched it as a bill that would control spiraling health care costs even though most of the bill was focused on something else and there was no guarantee the bill would actually bend the cost curve.
In recent days, the past comments of Gruber — who in this 2010 speech notes that he “helped write the federal bill” and “was a paid consultant to the Obama administration to help develop the technical details as well” — have been given renewed attention. In previously posted but recently noticed speeches, Gruber discusses how those pushing the bill took part in an “exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter,” taking advantage of voters’ “stupidity” to create a law that would ultimately be good for them.
In this fourth video, Gruber’s language is not as stark as in three previous instances, but his suggestion that Obamacare proponents engaged in less-than-honest salesmanship remains.
That’s on CNN. Just like ObamaCare, the Big Media blockade is crumbling.
Howard Kurtz, host of the Fox News Channel’s “Mediabuzz” slammed the media for failing to report the controversial comments of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber, arguing that the “inexcusable,” “virtual blackout” was an example of liberal media bias on Wednesday’s “O’Reilly Factor” on the Fox News Channel.
“It’s been a virtual blackout, Bill, and it’s inexcusable, nothing on the network evening newscasts. One mention on CNN, not a word in the New York Times. On what planet is this kind of embarrassing admission not news? Maybe on that comet where the spaceship just landed” he stated.
The Washington Post has discussed Gruber’s “stupid” remarks but in a context that smears Republicans. The point of discussion for the Washington Post is the GOP reaction to Gruber, not the insult of Gruber’s remarks. Still, we’re glad to see some talk about hearings:
GOP’s anti-Obamacare push gains new momentum in wake of Gruber video
The Republican Party’s ardent campaign against President Obama’s health-care law gained new momentum Wednesday as lawmakers reacted angrily to assertions by an architect of the policy that it was crafted in a deliberately deceptive way in order to pass Congress.
On both sides of the Capitol, leading conservatives said they may call economist Jonathan Gruber to testify about his remarks, which were made last year and surfaced this week in a video on social media. In the video, Gruber suggests that the administration’s signature health-care legislation passed in part because of the “stupidity of the American voter” and a “lack of transparency” over its funding mechanisms.
“The strategy was to hide the truth from the American people,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who is slated to chair the Senate Budget Committee next year. “That is a threat to the American republic.”
Hearings floated as Hill Republicans seize on Gruber Obamacare comments [snip]
“We may want to have hearings on this,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), an influential voice among GOP hardliners and a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in an interview at the Capitol. “We shouldn’t be surprised they were misleading us.” [snip]
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes,” Gruber said. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the ‘stupidity of the American voter’ or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.” [snip]
Jordan said House Republicans have been sending each other a blizzard of e-mails and text messages this week, and he expects the interest in “bringing [Gruber] up here to talk” will gain traction as members return to Washington. House Republicans will gather Thursday evening for their first series of votes since the election.
“I just had a colleague text me saying, ‘We’ve got to look into this!” Jordan said as he glanced at his phone outside the House floor Wednesday morning.
Investigate. Hold hearings with Gruber on the grill. But keep Darryl Issa away from this. Let the Senate take the lead on this then let the House follow. Issa is a loose cannon that does not know how to conduct an investigation nor a hearing. Wait until very early next year, before March, then hold hearings.
The American people must be informed of “ObamaCare architect” Jonathan Gruber’s comments. The media blockade and protection of ObamaCare must be broken. The time to do so is early next year.
We received a good gift just in time for Veterans Day 2014. It came from a shy reader who does not comment but faithfully reads every day. She sent us pictures a family member (David) had sent her.
One picture in particular graced us:
Talking with one of WWII’s first heroes, 99 year old Lt Col Richard Cole, who was Gen James Doolittle’s’ co-pilot on the first B-25 to take off for the raid on Tokyo. Cole is one of only four living Raiders, is still sharp as a tack. He said that he was scared, but that he didn’t want to be recognized for anything other than just doing his job.
Ninety-nine years young and Lieutenant Colonel Richard Cole can still probably get more dates than a Hollywood pinup boy. He’s a veteran that like so many has an amazing story to tell:
On December 7, 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and U.S. commanders wanted to strike back. The way to do it? A secret bombing run over Japan led by airmen like Lt. Col. Richard Cole, reports CBS News correspondent Anna Werner.
He’s 98 years old now, but he still remembers the moment when he joined the mission called the “Doolittle Raid” as a 26-year-old Air Force pilot. A message on a bulletin board was seeking people who wanted to sign up for a dangerous mission.
“There were already other people’s names there, so maybe it was a little bit of inspiration,” Cole said.
CBS News met Cole at the National Museum of the Pacific War in Fredericksburg, Texas, where a permanent exhibit tells the story of the mission.
The pilots’ mission was to hit back by doing what no one had ever done before: take off in their B-25 bombers from the deck of an aircraft carrier in the Pacific then fly 600 miles to the Japanese coast to drop their bombs.
The man who would lead them was Gen. James Doolittle, a master in military aviation.
Cole still remembers what Doolittle said about the mission.
“He said that it was a very dangerous mission. Anybody wanted to back out, they could without any repercussions.”
No one backed out.
On the morning of April 18, 1942, they took off, headed for their key target: Tokyo. Cole and Doolittle led the fleet in their plane.
Congressional Medal of Honor winner Richard Cole and three other of Doolittle’s Raiders did a whole lot for this country. We owe them and all veterans a debt that cannot be repaid.
Lately it seems like we owe them a debt we will not repay.
Recently the Veterans’ Administration scandals insulted the memory of those who gave their lives in service to us all. The insult extends to those veterans still with us and in need of care as well as those who will one day need to be cared for. They did a lot. We are the ones that do little.
President Abraham Lincoln in his second inaugural address set as a point of honor that the nation would “care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan”. We have not fulfilled that debt with the honor and devotion due.
Indeed, recently, insults are freely spat upon those whose deeds provided us with that continued freedom of speech. In a shameless article at the rancid Salon Magazine a snake wrote of our veterans “You don’t protect my freedom: Our childish insistence on calling soldiers heroes deadens real democracy.” We won’t link to that anti-white racist filth although the trash can be read at other sites critical of the insult:
The best way to recognize Veterans Day is to thank a vet. Just walk up to a veteran, shake their hand and thank them for their service.
Let the fools at Salon defend their own freedoms.
The picture of Richard Cole is not the only one we received. Along with the picture of the DidAWholeLot Raider (all the pictures were taken in late October 2014 in New Orleans) we received these fun photos of these pretty planes that helped save the world from tyranny (captions by “David”):
A P-51D getting ready for takeoff:
B-17 taxiing out”:
The world’s only flying SB2-C Helldiver:
Sarah and the Victory Belles who had just performed a tribute to the Andrews Sisters. They were great singers! Brought tears to the eyes of some of the old veterans:
The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart and Jessica Williams points out a rather interesting irony on the huge Republican win this week. On the more popular races, the Republican Party looked as diverse and fresh as the Democratic Party. Actually, it seemed quite a bit fresher. [snip]
“Jon, Republicans didn’t just take Democrats’ seat,” Jessica Williams said. “They stole their essence. The GOP went from a Brooks Brothers catalog to a United Colors of Benetton ad. [snip]
Jessica Williams then enumerated the list of ironies. “But sorry Democrats,” Williams said. “Utah just elected a young black congresswoman. Conservative Arkansas passed a minimum wage increase. What the f$ck kind of bizarro world is this Jon?” [snip]
This skit is funny. It is worth looking at the deeper message within and what it means for both parties.
Bathe in gasoline and light a match. Do you really need an autopsy to determine cause of death? Stand in a pile of nuclear waste. Is it difficult to determine cause of death? Lick the juices oozing from an Ebola Obama. You don’t need a medical examiner to tell you what mistake you made.
Obama Dimocrats are about to spend some of their borrowed cash for an autopsy of 2014. We’ll save them that deficit expenditure. We performed the Democratic Party autopsy back in 2008. The autopsy was in our series “Mistake In ’08″ (which will likely have a new installment after Veterans’ Day). It’s all there in Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, and Part VIII.
There’s also our series on the “Barack Obama Situation Comedy” coalition of death which explains it all. Read it Debbie and save yourself some money: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV.
Vito Corleone did not need an autopsy report to figure out what killed Sonny.
The Democratic National Committee is planning a “top-to-bottom assessment” of its campaign strategy after suffering worse-than-expected defeats in last week’s midterm elections.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.), who leads the group, announced Saturday that a committee will examine the party’s performance in the 2014 and 2010 elections.
“We are going to look at where we fell short. We’re going to identify our mistakes,” she said in a video that was sent to party supporters.
“Our party has a problem,” she added.
The committee will specifically look at messaging, get-out-the-vote efforts and digital operations. It will form in the next few weeks and present a report at the organization’s winter meeting in early 2015. [snip]
“I’m not going to gloss over the facts: On Tuesday, the Republicans had a good night. We didn’t. We worked hard for months, we even won a few tough races, but it wasn’t enough,” she said.
In addition to losing control of the Senate this week, the Democratic party has lost 69 seats since Obama took office.
The problem is Barack Obama. The mistake is the Mistake in ’08. ‘Nuff said.
After 2012 the Republican Party held an inquest and autopsy too. The geniuses of the GOP came up with two conclusions. One of those conclusions was smart. One of those conclusions was stupid.
The smart conclusion, or rather the obvious conclusion was that the Republican Party had great need to catch up with the technology of elections. A modern campaign must utilize all modern technology and not go to sleep after an election. They spent money to come up with that brilliant conclusion. Mitt Romney’s ORCA system fell completely apart on election day so yeah, um, the GOP technology did fall short beyond a doubt so they spent money to uncover the obvious.
The stupid conclusion was on comprehensive immigration reform. This is another way for the “leaders” of the party to say “we have to pass amnesty on illegal immigration because that is what our Chamber of Commerce moneybags want to keep wages low”.
Fortunately for the GOP the rank and file as well as some leaders, like Ted Cruz, realized that amnesty was not a solution but a deadly draught. Amnesty, comprehensive immigration reform, was not the solution. In 2014 Republicans did much better with Latinos in part because they began to talk honestly about illegal immigration and their legitimate reasons to oppose amnesty.
In Texas Greg Abbott won 40% of the Latino vote. Part of his unique ability to garner Latino support came from the fact his mother-in-law is Latina. But the reason that fact was a benefit was because Abbott made sure the electorate knew he was not a Latino hater even if he opposed illegal immigration amnesty and supported border security.
“I believe that in ways large and small, peaceful and sometimes violent, that the biggest threat to the future of our children and grandchildren is the poison of identity politics that preaches that our differences are far more important than our common humanity.”
We’ve seen the bitter fruit of identity politics in the Barack Obama harvest. But if Obama Dimocrats are gonna play that card, the GOP had to learn to play the game too. And they did in 2014. With Tim Scott, Mia Love, Susanna Martinez, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, Allan West, Brian Sandoval, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, George P. Bush, Columbia Bush, Joni Ernst, and Ben Carson, identity politics can cut both ways especially if Republicans continue to expand their minority gains as well as continue to gain with their already large support base among the white working class. The GOP has a lot of identity politics chips to play with in this scurrilous game.
What will be the biggest lie to come from the Obama Dimocrat autopsy? Willie Brown who thought Obama Dimocrats would win in November 2014 writes the plan for 2016:
Veteran California politician Willie Brown has warned this weekend that presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton “is going to lose” in 2016 “[u]nless there are some serious readjustments to the Democratic operation.” [snip]
“Everybody keeps asking me, “Why did this happen?’” Brown wrote. “Beats me. When it came to the elections, I was a dreamer who thought the Democrats were going to retain the Senate. Instead, we got walloped.”
Brown suggested that Democrats erred by running away from President Barack Obama, “which simply played into the Republicans’ strategy of portraying him as a failure.” The party also failed to turn out young voters, he said.
“Hillary Rodham Clinton must be wondering whether she really wants to run for president. Unless there are some serious readjustments to the Democratic operation, she is going to lose,” Brown concluded.
Last year, Brown had predicted Clinton would win easily in 2016: “..[A]ll she has to do is continue to breath[e] and in 2016 she’ll be elected to the presidency of the United States,” he said.
In fairness, Brown appears to be saying that Hillary Clinton 2016 will fail unless the apparatus of vote turnout improves. But the suggestion that anyone should get closer to Ebola Obama is malarkey. On every issue he cites as reasons why Obama is popular, the polls state that the public as a whole is opposed to Obama’s policies – which were on the ballot in 2014 – every single one.
We wrote about Halbig HERE. It’s a big, big, big, decision which almost surely forces an an Obama appeal to a full panel of the appellate court. Obama will win that fight because he packed the court when Harry Reid ended the Senate filibusters on judges to courts other than the Supreme Court. But then the case will go to the Supreme Court and we’re walking on the sunny side of the street and believe the Supreme Court will ratify today’s three judge panel decision. [snip]
Here’s a complication: There is another case on the same issues in the Fourth Circuit. It is likely the Fourth Circuit appeals court will rule in favor of ObamaCare. The losers in that case will then be able to appeal directly to the Supreme Court if they so choose and force the issue faster than anyone expects but still after the November 2014 elections.
We have been proven correct. Plaintiffs in an Oklahoma ObamaCare case have moved to supplement the record with Jonathan Gruber’s helpful comments and history. For our non-regular readers, here is a video hilarity of Gruber’s helpful comments for ObamaCare opponents:
The Fourth Circuit plaintiffs could have asked the full panel of the Fourth Circuit to take up the case and therefore tie themselves down alongside the ObamaCare plaintiffs in the D.C. Circuit where the ObamaCare scam artists ask the full en banc court panel to take up the case. ObamaCare lawyers, it was widely presumed, would appeal their loss in D.C. to the full en banc panel which is packed with Obama appointed judges after Harry Reid destroyed the Senate and its filibuster rules. The likelihood was (although this was before Jonathan Gruber’s comments came to light) that the full D.C. panel would uphold ObamaCare and thereby end the “split” decisions in the circuits making it less likely that the Supreme Court would take up the ObamaCare HalBIG cases.
But we suspected and predicted that the Fourth Circuit plaintiffs would skip the full panel in the Fourth Circuit and instead go directly to the Supreme Court. This they did and we go to the head of the class.
Oh dear, we’re on the verge of being immodest. What will mater and pater say? But damn it to blazes, we were right and so right that old articles we wrote are as daisies fresh sprung from the soil:
Under the court’s rules, lawyers who lose in an appeals court have 90 days to seek a review in the Supreme Court. And normally, lawyers take the full time. But in this instance, the opponents of the Affordable Care Act want the court’s conservative justices to have a chance to take up the new healthcare case in a few months so they can rule by next spring.
The Obama administration has the opposite strategy on timing. The Justice Department said it planned to ask the full appeals court in the District of Columbia to reconsider last week’s ruling by a three-judge panel. If so, that could delay a final ruling from the appeals court until next year and push off a Supreme Court decision to 2016.
By then, millions of Americans will have relied for several years on having health insurance they could afford thanks to the subsidies. A single adult with an income up to $45,960 and a family of four with an income up $94,200 may obtain insurance on an exchange at a reduced cost.
Did we ever tell you we are great at chess? Since childhood. Great at chess. And ObamaCare is a great chess game. Like Deep Blue we here at Big Pink knew how the chess pieces would move before the players knew what they would do. We wrote it is one giant political chess game on ObamaCare and that was the reason the Supreme Court would checkmate King:
The Writ Of Certiorari filed so quickly, not waiting 90 days, comports with the strategy we have espoused of avoiding as much as possible an election year fight which will fill Chief Justice Roberts with angst. A non-election year ruling right after the November 2014 elections but well before 2016 is just what Roberts needs to calm his nerves.
It’s all come to pass. The Supreme Court waited to read the election returns. Now the Supreme Court will move against ObamaCare before the 2016 election and safely after the 2014 elections. ObamaCare has been hit by an electoral truck and is off to the Sarah Palin death panel.
If you doubt ObamaCare is about to die read the analysis of the Greg Sargent analysis. It’s a hoot. Obama high-priest and ObamaCare scorched earth defender Sargent unwittingly wrote the Supreme Court decision against ObamaCare even as he thought he wrote a brilliant defense for ObamaCare! Hilarius. Sargent and Gruber will eventually be seen as the ObamaCare supporters that buried ObamaCare.
The pearl clutching dummies will see a Supreme Court checkmate of ObamaCare as great for Barack Obama because it will give him an issue on which to fight. But that is a non starter. ObamaCare is hated just about everywhere. If anything a Supreme Court checkmate which destroys ObamaCare will strengthen the newborn Republican congress. Obama will have to crawl to Republicans for help to rescue his “legacy” disaster. Republicans will prove to not be in a giving vein.
Ebola Obama, this wretched creature who believes he is a black king is about to be checkmated by the Supreme Court. The knights, bishops, rooks, Queen, pawns, and the opposing White King will do Obama in. The name of the White King in this game of chess?
We recently asked “Is Hillary Clinton Stupid? Or Sabotaged?” The answer at this moment in time, before the big meeting on November 21st in New York City, has to sadly be: BOTH. If you are angry at us for this answer read the evidence we provide below and honestly ask yourself the same question and you will come to the very same answer.
In “Is Hillary Clinton Stupid? Or Sabotaged?” we denounced the stupidity of Hillary Clinton campaigning for any Obama Dimocrat in 2014. The results came in on Tuesday and aside from incoherent blatherings about how “Hillary won” the evidence is clear that Hillary should have stayed home with her mouth tightly shut.
The “Hillary won” crowd says Hillary got “chits” from campaigning. Replace the “c” with an “s” and that is what Hillary got. Hillary should have sat back, shut up, and have the party come crawling to her. She doesn’t need no damned dirty chits. Begala: Democrats have no one but Hillary for 2016.
Look at what another ostensible Hillary supporter provides as a strategy for Barack Obama in the next two years and if you can still defend Hillary Clinton’s intelligence you are far too too generous:
“We’ll never see 51 percent again, maybe not even 50,” predicted one of his former campaign aides.
If there’s a ray of hope—and this is the paradox of a late-stage 21st-century presidency—it’s that people will start ignoring him.
Veteran Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg says Obama’s secret weapon just might turn out to be Hillary Clinton—who could divert attention from the White House and allow him to attack multiple crises without the klieg-light scrutiny he has faced in the past. “Once Hillary becomes more important than Obama, the attention shifts,” says Greenberg, who helped advise Clinton’s husband. That’s a good thing, Greenberg argues, because Obama and his team have been so lousy about messaging what he believes to be a fundamentally competent and accomplished presidency. “I think there might be a shift to the job he’s doing versus what he’s saying about the job he’s doing. … That’s important because he’s demonstrably failed on communicating about his economic plans and on his health care reforms and on his environmental record—everything really,” Greenberg says. Scathingly, he concludes: “No one knows about any of it. … There is no part of that he has been successful at.”
Hillary as human shield for the boob Barack. Lovely. Hillary listens to this guy??? Stupid!!!! Still think we’re wrong?
Hillary Clinton wasted 2014 in campaigns for people like Bruce Braley. Braley in 2008 begged Hillary to raise money for him. Hillary raised money for Braley. Braley then endorsed John Edwards. Braley in 2014 asked Hillary to campaign for him. Hillary campaigned for him. Hillary now has the first woman elected statewide in Iowa who will be fully justified when she attacks Hillary.
“I would also add, it’s not enough to be a woman. You have to be committed to expand rights and opportunities for all women,” Hillary Clinton said at a Wednesday campaign event for Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate Bruce Braley, Joni Ernst’s opponent in Iowa.
The “eighteen million cracks in the ceiling” battle cry ends with a crackpot remark on behalf of a John Edwards supporter. We guess the courageous Beijing speech on behalf of womens’ rights was only for certain women. The rights of women ends at the thin blue line? Women who dissent on “progressive” issues need not apply? Women who think third trimester abortions are a problem have to go not in the back of the bus but under the bus? Is this a way to inaugurate a smart campaign for the first woman president? And all this on behalf of a man who stabbed Hillary in the back to endorse that paragon of virtue John Edwards??? Is any of this smart???
And when I heard that, I heard people in the middle getting permission from Hillary Clinton to reject her based on gender alone. In other words, you don’t need to vote for me just because I’m a woman.
If Hillary Clinton decides to run in 2016, after the November 21st meeting, expect to see the video of those stupid remarks played repeatedly every time Hillary or any Hillary supporters mentions that it is time for a woman in the White House. There will be no “context” provided for the remarks because the video will send the message Hillary opponents need. And this on behalf of a John Edwards supporter who fuc*ed her over in 2008.
That’s the “good” news focused on Hillary’s Losers. Now comes the really bad stuff. Hillary Clinton is being sabotaged by Barack Obama supporters and she is apparently too stupid, thus far, to realize it. Think that’s harsh? Read on.
For their election issue Politico Magazine featured on the cover an article by Hillary Hater Extraordinaire Maggie Haberman. That article is the latest marriage of Big Media Hillary Haters with Barack Obama Cult leaders. It was a stunning bit of writing because it was packed full with historical revisions and sought to force Hillary Clinton to become a human shield for Barack Obama. We hope that Hillary Clinton wakes up from her stupor when she reads that article as well as the one we write here today.
To fully appreciate the viciousness of Haberman’s article you must compare the picture we use of Hillary Clinton stared down upon by a jut jawed nasty Barack Obama, with the picture chosen by Politco. Take a good long look at the picture in the Politico hit piece. The picture Politico uses is of a haggard, worn out, mean looking Hillary Clinton looking at Barack Obama with evil intent. That picture tells you everything you need to know about the Hillary Hater Maggie Haberman’s article.
The picture tells you all you need to know. The people quoted in the article is the next clue you need to understand that Big Media Politico and Barack Obama Hillary Haters have joined to force Hillary Clinton to be Barack Obama’s human shield.
Lastly, before you read the article, recall what happened in 2008. In 2008 Big Media defended Barack Obama for every lie and nasty remark he made. Big Media swooned every time Barack Obama yapped some banality or stupidity. Big Media protected Barack Obama and attacked anyone who dared admonish Barack Obama in any way.
In 2008 Big Media did not just protect and swoon over Barack Obama. Big Media actively attacked Hillary Clinton (later John McCain, but not as much as Hillary). Anything Hillary Clinton said in 2008 was attacked. Any literature Hillary Clinton 2008 produced was analyzed and mocked. Any Hillary Clinton 2008 supporter was denounced as possibly racist or an outright racist.
That is what happened in 2008. Big Media did everything to protect Barack Obama and destroy Hillary Clinton. That is what happened. There wasno brilliant Barack Obama campaign.
In 2008 at every debate Hillary Clinton had to fight not only Barack Obama but the Big Media “moderators” as well. In every state Hillary Clinton had as opponents the Barack Obama campaign and their Big Media surrogates. That is what happened.
One afternoon in late September, David Plouffe, President Barack Obama’s former campaign manager and most trusted political aide, slipped into Hillary Clinton’s stately red-brick home on Whitehaven Street in Washington, D.C., to lay out his vision for her 2016 presidential campaign. The Clintons have always made a habit of courting their most talented tormenters, so it wasn’t surprising that she would call on the man who masterminded her 2008 defeat as she finds herself besieged by Republicans replaying Plouffe’s greatest hits.
Over the next couple of hours, Plouffe told Clinton and two of her closest advisers—longtime aide Cheryl Mills and John Podesta, Bill Clinton’s chief of staff and now Obama’s White House counselor—what she needed to do to avoid another surprise upset. His advice, according to two people with knowledge of the session, looked a lot like Obama’s winning strategy in 2012: First, prioritize the use of real-time analytics, integrating data into every facet of her operation in a way Clinton’s clumsy, old-school campaign had failed to do in 2008. Second, clearly define a rationale for her candidacy that goes beyond the mere facts of her celebrity and presumed electability, rooting her campaign in a larger Democratic mission of economic equality. Third, settle on one, and only one, core messaging strategy and stick with it, to avoid the tactical, news cycle-driven approach that Plouffe had exploited so skillfully against her in the 2008 primaries.
In Plouffe’s view, articulated in the intervening years, Clinton had been too defensive, too reactive, too aware of her own weaknesses, too undisciplined in 2008. His team would goad her into making mistakes, knowing that run-of-the-mill campaign attacks (like Obama’s claim she merely had “tea,” not serious conversation, with world leaders as first lady) would get under her skin and spur a self-destructive overreaction (Clinton responded to the tea quip by falsely portraying a 1990s goodwill trip to Bosnia with the comedian Sinbad as a dangerous wartime mission). She was too easily flustered.
Plouffe’s last and most pressing point was about timing. A couple of weeks earlier, Clinton had told an audience in Mexico City, “I am going to be making a decision … probably after the first of the year, about whether I’m going to run again or not.” The comment alarmed top Democrats: The Republican attack machine was already revving up, running anti-Hillary focus groups to figure out her vulnerabilities, dispatching opposition researchers to Arkansas, churning out anti-Hillary books and creating Fox News-fodder talking points to cast her State Department tenure as a failure and her campaign-to-be as a third-term extension of Obama’s increasingly unpopular presidency.
Now Plouffe, with the politesse of a man accustomed to padding around a president, implored her to start assembling a campaign as soon as possible and to dispense with the coy fiction that she’s not running in 2016. “Why not?” he asked. “They are already going after you.”
Can she do it? After months of anodyne sit-downs promoting her book, Clinton finally seems to be heeding some of Plouffe’s advice, using her appearances for candidates late in the 2014 midterms as a dry run for her own 2016 message, a mix of the new Democratic populism, feminism—and old-fashioned Republican-bashing.
They, Obama’s top henchmen, are in Hillary’s head. In 2008 Obama’s thugs and Big Media allied to stop Hillary and they’re at it again. Hillary Clinton is now taking advice from her enemies. Hillary Clinton should reject those whose only interest is that Hillary Clinton be a Palestine style human shield for Barack Obama.
The rest of the Hillary Hater Maggie Haberman article is a reiteration of all the stupid attacks against Hillary Clinton. This is all an attempt to hide the only attack that will destroy Hillary Clinton 2016: tie Hillary to Barack Obama.
The only attack that will destroy Hillary Clinton 2016 is one that ties Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. 2008 was not a failure of “analytics” it was a story of Big Media protection of Barack Obama and hatred of Hillary Clinton. Now, make Hillary Clinton even smell like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton 2016 is doomed.
But the attempt to tie Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama is not only an attack by Republicans/conservatives. It is Barack Obama and Barack Obama cultists who most want to tie Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama and use Hillary as a human shield to protect Barack Obama.
Even before networks officially declared a Republican majority in the Senate, Democrats were openly saying they hope Clinton will declare for 2016 soon after Election Day.
That sentiment is about to become overwhelming, as the party tries to recover from an election night hangover that’s worse than most operatives on either side had anticipated. The evening, almost entirely devoid of bright spots for Democrats, was a shellacking for President Barack Obama. It will only accelerate the party’s look ahead to its next leader, especially among donors, who want someone to rally around.
Clinton has spent two years as the prohibitive Democratic front-runner in the polls despite keeping politics largely at arm’s length until the end of the midterms. Some of her advisers have suggested opening an exploratory committee this year to allow her to raise money sooner, while others are adamant that she should wait until next year.
The advisers Hillary Hater Maggie Haberman cites who want Hillary Clinton to declare right after November 21st’s meeting are all Obama henchmen. These Obama cultists wanted and to a large extent got Hillary to immolate herself in 2014. Now these Obama cultists want Hillary to take on some of the Obama stink on the elections. These Obama cultists want Hillary to fight the Republican congress for two years and be a human shield for Barack Obama.
More from Hillary Hater Haberman:
Some Democrats said Tuesday night that Clinton will want to wait a bit to let the 2014 midterms pass, and to get some distance between herself and a bloodbath for her party. She also genuinely doesn’t seem ready to flip a switch on a campaign: A number of decisions still remain about staffing and, more importantly, messaging.
But others believe Clinton can’t afford to be coy about her intentions beyond the next few weeks, and forming an exploratory committee without an official announcement will not satisfy some donors and activists.
She can run against Washington more easily now
Clinton’s major problem was always going to be running as the candidate of the two-term party in power. Separating from Obama poses major risks for a Democrat who had trouble with portions of the base in 2008 and who served in the administration for four years.
The fact that Tuesday’s election that was seen largely as a statement against Obama may give Clinton some wiggle room with her own base to create distance from him. But a newly minted Republican Senate helps her to solve the problem of how to run against Washington. [snip]
A GOP-held Senate gives her a clear point of contrast to run against.
That’s what the Obama cultists want: Hillary Clinton to fight the Republican congress and be a human shield for Barack Obama. Hillary should stink herself up and help Obama and Obama supporter Reid??? Let’s bring up that bit from up top in our article “Hillary Clinton— who could divert attention from the White House and allow him to attack multiple crises without the klieg-light scrutiny“. Be a human shield for Barack Obama Hillary and you become irredeemably stupid.
Al Gore was irredeemably stupid when he ran away from Bill Clinton in 2000. In 2000 Bill Clinton was a popular president with a strong economy and many achievements. Al Gore was stupid. But Barack Obama ain’t Bill. Barack Obama is hated and is better known as Ebola Obama with an Ebola Obama Economy. Josh kraushaar made a good case as to why the Obama thugs were wrong when they wanted to tie Obama Dimocrats to Obama:
White House in Denial: President Obama Is Costing Democrats Control of the Senate
The administration insists that vulnerable Democrats should have supported him more. That couldn’t be further from the truth.
No one should tie themselves to Ebola Obama. Hillary and Hillary Clinton 2016 must run away from Ebola Obama.
So what is going on and what does Hillary need to wake up to? (1) Obama henchmen want Hillary to be Barack Obama’s human shield. While Obama golfs Hillary will be under attack by Republicans who will be aided by Obama thugs who will feed Republicans and Big Media information with which to attack Hillary. (2) Some Hillary supporters in the political consulting class want the money flow to start to drip into their pockets. (3) Big Media wants the money to flow into their advertisement coffers too as well as protect Barack Obama with Hillary as the human shield and target.
There are some Hillary supporters, like us, who try to shake Hillary awake from her stupor. We’re not alone:
Clinton Allies Resist Calls to Jump Early Into 2016 Race
Veteran Hillary Clinton advisers say she shouldn’t accelerate her early 2015 timetable for announcing whether she’ll run for president, despite calls from prominent backers of President Barack Obama for her to enter the race soon after Tuesday’s congressional elections.
In interviews and e-mail exchanges, six political operatives closely aligned with Clinton offered up overlapping lists of reasons why they don’t expect her to jump in this year. [snip]
“Can’t we get through the holidays first?” asked Paul Begala, the strategist who helped Bill Clinton win the presidency in 1992 and is a consultant for the Clinton-backing super-PAC Priorities USA. “Do we really need to deny her her first Christmas with her first granddaughter? Really?”
The mostly behind-the-scenes fight revolves around the question of what’s best for the party now and for trying to keep the White House in 2016. But it breaks down mostly along an old fault line: Clinton versus Obama.
In September, David Plouffe, the architect of Barack Obama’s 2008 primary victory over Clinton, advised her in a private session that she should make her run official sooner rather than later, and mega-donor Steve Mostyn said “if Hillary is going to run, it would be best to do it quickly post-election,” according to recent reports in Politico. The New York Times also reported last month that Clinton is getting pressure to rally the party right after the midterms by jumping into the presidential race.
Mostyn and his wife Amber gave $3 million to the super-PAC Priorities USA to help re-elect Obama in 2012, and they were backers of John Edwards in 2008 before Steve Mostyn began donating to Obama that year. They are now max-out donors — the super-PAC limits contributions to $25,000 — for the super-PAC Ready for Hillary, which has solicited support from contributors previously associated with Obama, as well as longtime Clinton contributors.
The campaign he ran against her in 2008 operated on the premise that voters didn’t trust her, a view that could persist if Clinton is perceived to be pretending not to run while she appears to be doing just that.
Brian Wolff, a former executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee who is a longtime supporter of both Clintons, said the former Secretary of State would do well to keep her own counsel, rather than listen to what Obama’s strategists want.
“Those people advised him well in winning the presidency, but clearly haven’t been consistent on advising him well since,” Wolff said of Plouffe and other Obama strategists. “Hillary doesn’t need their advice. She’s got a great team around her.”
Plouffe didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Hooray for Brian Woolff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And, by the way, Plouffe was up to his tricks today in the New York Times:
“We shouldn’t just assume that the Obama voters will automatically come out for Democratic presidential candidates,” cautioned David Plouffe, Mr. Obama’s former campaign manager.
The juxtaposition of Clinton’s plans with those who want her to announce sooner rather than later will be in sharp relief in Manhattan on November 21.
Ready for Hillary is convening a donor conference that day at the Sheraton Times Square, where the Clinton Global Initiative holds its annual summits. [snip]
One Democratic strategist with ties to the Clintons said she should let the situation settle down after the midterms rather than associating herself with losses that will otherwise be blamed on Obama. [snip]
If she can stand back as Republicans begin jockeying for 2016, she’ll benefit, this adviser said, adding that the challenge for Clinton will be to energize her support base without getting overexposed in 2015.
That has been a danger of her recent barnstorming for Democratic candidates, which, along with a bumpy book tour this summer, has hampered her national approval ratings.
“She has been on the stump, which is going to knock down the apolitical luster she gained as Secretary of State and drag her poll numbers back to Earth,” Begala said. “I suspect she thinks that’s worth it to help all those good Democrats.”
Another adviser, who worked with Clinton at State, said he thinks she’ll wait as long as possible before making an announcement, provided that she plans to run. Those who are advising her otherwise, he said, are pursuing their own agendas.
Now, that is smart.
Wake up Hillary, you have nothing to lose but your oppressors.
Born into slavery as one of the youngest of thirteen children of James and Elizabeth in Ulster County, New York, in 1797, Sojourner Truth’s given name was Isabella Baumfree. As almost all of her brothers and sisters had been sold to other slave owners, some of her earliest memories were of her parents’ stories of the cruel loss of their other children. [snip]
In 1843, she changed her name to Sojourner Truth – her name for a traveling preacher, one who speaks the truth – and left New York. She traveled throughout New England, where she met and worked with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, and Frederick Douglass. Her life story, The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave, written with the help of friend Olive Gilbert, was published in 1850.
While traveling and speaking in states across the country, Sojourner Truth met many women abolitionists and noticed that although women could be part of the leadership in the abolitionist movement, they could neither vote nor hold public office. It was this realization that led Sojourner to become an outspoken supporter of women’s rights.
In 1851, she addressed the Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, delivering her famous speech “Ain’t I a Woman?” The applause she received that day has been described as “deafening.” From that time on, she became known as a leading advocate for the rights of women. She became one of the nineteenth century’s most eloquent voices for the cause of anti-slavery and women’s rights.
NoLimits.org will "keep you up to date with news about issues on which Hillary took a lead and we know you care so much about," group President Ann Lewis said in an e-mail to as many as 2 million people culled from the Clinton campaign database.
Because No Limits is a registered nonprofit, "it cannot do anything political. It has to be nonpartisan," said Lewis, a longtime senior adviser to Clinton.
In Clinton's job as secretary of state for President Obama, her political dealings are highly restricted.
For example, she shut down her political action committee.
Some, like Democratic consultant and former Bill Clinton aide Chris Lehane, dismiss talk that the group could be a springboard for Clinton to try again for the White House in, say, 2016.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," Lehane said. "I think this is just [a] group of folks who developed relationships in an intense [electoral] environment and want to stay together."
But the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato countered: "Whenever a group like this says it's not a political organization, you just know it is."
"Maybe [this] is Hillary's answer to Obama's new 'change' group that controls his golden mailing list. Maybe it's a way for Secretary of State Clinton to mobilize backing for her objectives at the State Department," he said. "And maybe [it's] a standby committee of supporters in case Hillary decides to get back into elective politics."
Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf said NoLimits.org is "one way to make sure that she - and/or the former President - still have political leverage."
Hillary World-Wide January 26, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton Meets Afghan Women Lawyers. Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton met today at the State Department with fourteen prominent Afghan women judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. These jurists were in Washington to participate in a training program arranged by the Department’s Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan. Secretary Clinton told them: "Your American friends greatly admire your bravery and courage. It is your work in the tough environment of Afghanistan for women lawyers that will bring real reform and the rule of law to the Afghan people. As President Obama made clear yesterday in his first foreign policy announcement, we are committed to supporting your efforts to bring security and stability to your country."