RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Astonishing: Chicago Tribune Editorial Explains “Why Obama should withdraw”

Hillary Clinton is by far the most popular national political figure, according to a new poll. Click the image to view the entire article at the Daily Mail.

You and I have witnessed the soaring number of voices, from both traditional to lefty Democrats, finally getting the nerve to express their grave concerns about not just Obama’s ability to win a second term but, even moreso, about Obama’s clear inability to do the job of the presidency. But it is nearly unheard-of that a major newspaper, particularly the newspaper of the president’s hometown, would call on a president to step aside and not seek a second term. But in Sunday’s Chicago Tribune, Steve Chapman has dared to explain “Why Obama should withdraw” — and furthermore — suggested that Hillary Clinton replace Obama as the Democratic candidate in 2012:

When Ronald Reagan ran for re-election in 1984, his slogan was “Morning in America.” For Barack Obama, it’s more like midnight in a coal mine.

The sputtering economy is about to stall out, unemployment is high, his jobs program may not pass, foreclosures are rampant and the poor guy can’t even sneak a cigarette.

His approval rating is at its lowest level ever. …[...]

The vultures are starting to circle. Former White House spokesman Bill Burton said that unless Obama can rally the Democratic base, which is disillusioned with him, “it’s going to be impossible for the president to win.” …

But there is good news for the president. I checked the Constitution, and he is under no compulsion to run for re-election. He can scrap the campaign, bag the fundraising calls and never watch another Republican debate as long as he’s willing to vacate the premises by Jan. 20, 2013.

[...]

That might be the sensible thing to do. It’s hard for a president to win a second term when unemployment is painfully high. If the economy were in full rebound mode, Obama might win anyway. But it isn’t, and it may fall into a second recession — in which case voters will decide his middle name is Hoover, not Hussein. Why not leave of his own volition instead of waiting to get the ax?

[...]

Someone said that when a man is smitten with a beautiful woman, he should remember that somebody somewhere is tired of her. Likewise, the most inspiring presidents get stale after years of constant overexposure.

In the event he wins, Obama could find himself with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress. Then he will long for the good old days of 2011. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner will bound out of bed each day eager to make his life miserable.

Besides avoiding this indignity, Obama might do his party a big favor. In hard times, voters have a powerful urge to punish incumbents. He could slake this thirst by stepping aside and taking the blame. Then someone less reviled could replace him at the top of the ticket.

The ideal candidate would be a figure of stature and ability who can’t be blamed for the economy. That person should not be a member of Congress, since it has an even lower approval rating than the president’s.

It would also help to be conspicuously associated with prosperity. Given Obama’s reputation for being too quick to compromise, a reputation for toughness would be an asset.

As it happens, there is someone at hand who fits this description: Hillary Clinton. Her husband presided over a boom, she’s been busy deposing dictators instead of destroying jobs, and she’s never been accused of being a pushover. ….

Read the rest of “Why Obama should withdraw,” which includes the section on why Chapman recommends Clinton, a section I omitted from the above quoted material.

This is earth-shattering

I wonder if other newspapers will follow suit and back Chapman’s recommendations.

I fear for Hillary, and who wouldn’t. Obama has made such a mess of the economy that it will require all of Clinton’s brains, experience, finesse, and fortitude to just begin to fix the United States and rescue the country from the “midnight in a coal mine” to which Chapman compares the current state of affairs due to Obama’s ineptitude.

But I have NO fear that Hillary will summon all of her vast knowledge and experience to turn this Titanic of a nation away from the massive icebergs heading straight at it.

Now I know that all of you are QUITE cynical about the hopes for fixing our nation’s problems, and that most of us here are divided in the solutions we believe will help fix the country. However, I hold fast to my belief in Hillary’s amazing abilities and faith that she will focus first on the nation’s most immediate crises, particularly jobs. She’s got that solid Midwestern common sense.

For more feedback on Chapman’s op-ed, check out Memeorandum’s list of blog posts.

  • Alice Wolf

    In 2nd Chronicles Chapter 7 thus sayeth the LORD God of Hosts:: 
    if those of you, called by my name, will humble yourselves and pray, repent of your wicked ways and earnestly seek my face, I will heal your land.    God always makes it easy on us, God says, give me your yoke and take my yoke, my yoke is easy.   He has given us the way out of no way, the Word of God will not return to him void, it will accomplish that for which it was sent.  So by following the two simple instructions in 2nd Chrionicles, the word will go into  motion, God will not be mocked.
    He says:  Try me.   Put the matter into his hands, humble yourselves and pray, repent of your wicked ways and earnestly seek his face.
    And He will heal our land.  We have His Word for it.

  • arturo_ui

    “But it is nearly unheard-of that a major newspaper, particularly the
    newspaper of the president’s hometown, would call on a president to step
    aside and not seek a second term. But in Sunday’s Chicago Tribune, Steve Chapman has dared to explain “Why Obama should withdraw” — and furthermore — suggested that Hillary Clinton replace Obama as the Democratic candidate in 2012:”

    Um, Steve Chapman is not the same thing as The Chicago Tribune.  He’s a right-of-center pundit who writes his own Op-Eds for the Tribune, regularly critical of the president.  This is not at all the same thing as “a major newspaper, particularly the
    newspaper of the president’s hometown” calling “on a president to step
    aside and not seek a second term.”  He’s just another conservative pundit, doing what conservative pundits always do.  This is certainly not “astonishing”, nor is it news.

    • Scottymac54

      Shhhhhhh…….voices carry, LOL!

  • Anonymous

    “When Ronald Reagan ran for re-election in 1984, his slogan was “Morning in America.” For Barack Obama, it’s more like midnight in a coal mine.”

    For Obama it would have been more appropriate to say: “more like midnight in (socialist) Moscow.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0xeETLadI4) – great song.

  • Anonymous

    The Democratic Party had me for 32 years, they no longer do, regardless of candidate, the party machine is always there, with a mentality of agreement for the crap they have pulled, specifically when talking about Hillary. I understood in the last election that my middle age woman vote didn’t matter to the Democratic party, and that I was just some sort of collateral damge as far as they were concerned, not an actual loss. It is not personal, that I would not give Hillary a second chance, I would if she were an Independent, or a republican; but as a Democat atached to this current administration, I can’t and I won’t give anyone that second chance. I would not offer my support to the Democratic Party again, or at least not until they understand they represent the people of their, not just themselves. IF by chance this is the only face of the party, this ugly, selfish, divisive face then I have nothing to offer, and they are no longer allowed to just to “take” from me, by silent agreement, or by actual support, not even for Hillary.

    • Ferd_Berfle

      Hear! Hear!

    • Ferd_Berfle

      Hear! Hear!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4L4GL7QOPBASIVI53K2VEQZOY4 Hank

    Let him keep Golf Cart One….Just resign…

  • http://www.gopalin2012.com Matthew J. Weaver

    Yes, Secretary Clinton vs. Governor Palin.  That would be an ideal match-up in 2012.  Both can explain their respective paths to fixing the mess Obama has made of the country.

    • Scottymac54

      Well, uh, okay.

      If you say so, I’ll take it, LOL!

  • Anonymous

    (Bronwyn–I am bringing up my response to Lupe from downstairs because I don’t want this point to be missed—Thank you for your indulgence)

    Lupe,
    I am always amazed at the people who lecture us about not being “pro-Hillary” anymore–Honey, have you been paying attention? We’re the same people as we were back then–We loathe Obama. We cannot abide Obama as president. We thought Hillary wanted what WE wanted…that’s why we supported her! We actually believed what she told us about Obama’s ineptness and sexist ways! Either SHE CHANGED or SHE LIED—-take your pick….but she fell off the Anti-Obama wagon…We did not!! Get it? Try to keep up, OK? Thank you!

    • AbigailA

      Thank you, Cindy! 

    • Anonymous

      Well said

    • jlp

      Yes!!!

    • Wbboe

      Yes. Our mantra is not that we left the democratic party.  Rather the democratic party left us. Party unity my ass.

      • Scottymac54

        Of course, the obvious question is, why would you have placed yourself in a position to be “left behind”, no religious connotation intended.

        What reason would you have had, with your particular background, education, and worldview, to have been associated with the Democratic Party, or any mainstream Democratic candidate, to begin with?

        • Ferd_Berfle

          Not left behind, troll. The party went off the god damn cliff on the far left, leaving us because they took leave of what little sense they ever possessed. The former democratic party left its base and went for the race-baiting, class-warfare lowest-common denominator (that you in particular especially good at) type of politics that the real base rejected. The party is now probably only slightly to the right of Chairman Mao in the political spectrum. Way to go, fools. You lose.

          • Scottymac54

            Not really, though.

            I obviously cannot corroborate your situation, apart from your incessant bragging, foot-stamping, self-righteousness and resistance toward the most basic of obligations, present and future (are we REALLY supposed to take up a collection for you, because you apparently never planned for any sort of contingency?)

            But, based on your level of vehemence and other sparse details of your life that you’ve revealed, how do you expect to be spared from the aftermath of this nation’s economic condition, and still remain exempt?

            It’s not logical that ANY political candidate would be able to ease your burden, and I’m not quite sure how exactly you hold yourself above the realities everyone else has to face.

            Use all the inflammatory, stir-up-the-rabble language you want, but you degrade no one but your own self, and contribute little to intelligent dialogue. 

  • AbigailA

    There’s an elephant in the room, here, that apparently needs pointing out. 

    Anytime there is a discussion of Hillary as a replacement for The One, invariably there are questions and comments stating that there is no electable candidate for the GOP.  This is always stated as a given, a generally-accepted fact when, in fact, all it means is that we are witness to the effectiveness of MSNBC, CNN and all the other media outlets who gave us obama. 

    When the time comes, and it’s none too soon for this country of ours, Independents will pull the lever for whoever the GOP runs unless they really believe in Keynesian economics, a New World, global gov’t run by the U.N., increasing our debt to the Chinese and giving the unions the right to tell companies where they can build a factory.  Anyone who hasn’t read Agenda 21′s agenda, ought.  

    • Dorinda

      They won’t necessarily vote for the GOP candidate.  They just won’t vote which will tend to favor Obama.  I’ve never felt that there is no Republican who could win but do feel strongly that Bachman couldn’t pull it off.  It’s not a put down, just my observation and analysis.  Palin probably couldn’t either.  Perhaps there was a point if she’d declared, but her delay has cost some support that has predictably moved to other candidates. 

      • AbigailA

        My point was that you can either vote for obama and what he stands for the leader (whoever that is) of the party that stands foursquare against him.  All the rest is academic. 

  • Anonymous

    Just an If for you Harbor Master..
    Hillary takes the center and the left of left stay home, Rebuplicans win.
    I see it as a “thrird party schema with out the third candidate. Hillary must be getting a karma chuckle but I do not think she will run.

  • HELENK

    if I were ever ever stupid  enough to vote democratic again, all I would have to do is remember this.

    http://biggovernment.com/rebelpundit/2011/09/19/congressman-mike-quigley-to-islam-conference-i-apologize-on-behalf-of-america/#more-334560

    excuse my language but FUCK HIM AND THE HORSE HE RODE IN ON

    unemployment needs to start in DC asap

  • AbigailA

    This “narrative” could have been written by a fourth grader.  How else did anyone think this would end, for gosh sakes?  The Democrat party was screwed back in 2004 when the geniuses at the top started thinking.  To run HRC would be truly psychotic by the DNC because it would mean they honestly think at least HALF of their own former party would break from reality and run around telling people that the New Democrat Coalition didn’t really mean 2 years worth of hateful hating on HRC.  Olberman, Mathews, NPR, Comcast, Randi Rhodes (ohhhh yeahhhh) for Air America.  Kinda makes one understand how we have Holocaust deniers and 911 truthers.

  • HELENK

    BTW that jobs act that had to be voted on NOW, will not be ready until next month after backtrack comes back from another vacation.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/obama-jobs-speech-right-now-dick-durbin.html

    unemployment needs to start in DC asap

    • HELENK

      here are a few of the jobs to be created for his bffs
       a couple of new CZARs
      Aren’t we paying a transportation department to do this job?

      http://townhall.com/columnists/luritadoan/2011/09/19/obama_proposes_new_czar

      unemployment needs to start in DC asap

    • Anonymous

      Another vacation?  Well, it’s always best to rest up real good before you roll up your sleeves and jump into hard work….

      • Jwrjr

        “Hard work” and “Obama” do not belong in the same sentence.

  • Ferd_Berfle

    I fear for Hillary, and who wouldn’t. Obama has made such a mess of the
    economy that it will require all of Clinton’s brains, experience,
    finesse, and fortitude to just begin to fix the United States and rescue
    the country from the “midnight in a coal mine” to which Chapman
    compares the current state of affairs due to Obama’s ineptitude.
    =========================
    Until the democratic obamacratic has been purged of ALL traces of the extremists who put this idiot in the WH in the first place, no one from that party can be trusted to right the wrongs created by this group in the first place. Simply because you put a new driver in a jalopy doesn’t make the vehicle anything more than a jalopy with a new driver.

    I will never vote for any “democrat in name only” until the party is purged of all traces of Chicago thugs and elitist plutocrats who created this damnable mess. That includes apologists for the obamacrats who take cheap potshots at Republicans while ignoring the repugnant sleaze that is their party.

    Screw them.

    • Daisy Mae

      Ditto. Amen. 
      Saying the Dem. party has been “hijacked” is an excuse because the majority, centrists Dems. let it worsen.  Or, they left the party and now are Rs or Indies, like moi. 

  • Ferd_Berfle

    I have a couple of questions for those who have had a *sudden* change in heart concerning HRC:

    1. Why on earth should I support someone who championed the causes of the very person you are now ready to throw under the bus?

    2. If she wasn’t good enough for you in ’08, then your judgment was demonstrably poor in the first place. Why should I now listen to you?

    That you now get it is no reason to vote for her but to stay away–and I mean far away–from anyone you support now.

  • Wbboe

    Great article Browyn.  Barack’s accomplishments as CEO of the country can be summed up in two words which also happen to be the title of a Hollywood Movie>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    APOCALYPSE NOW  II

    Cast:

    Leading Role:  Barack Hussein Obama. aka Barry Sotero, aka Barry Soretto, aka King Obama

    Director:  Axelgrease (Nietsche’s Bad Man archtype), Plouffe (I am an the world’s leading expert on how to steal election)

    Producer: Soros and his forty financial thieves

    Isadora Duncan: Michelle (glides down the Seine in a sleek yacht sipping champagne from a silver slipper while deploring all forms of gluttony, self indulgence and decadence in others.

    Babbling Idiots: big media (who have yet to consider the question of where they will be financially, and in terms of access and influence when their boy loses—not much succession planning there)

    Idiot Savant: Warren Buffett

    Cast of Thousands:  Hoffa, Raftke, Ayers, Gadaffi, Move on, Daily Koss, and the looney left

    Critical reviews:  big media: this is the greatest movie about the greatest mann who ever lived.  racist review: this man is no leader.  In fact, he is so bad that he could not pour piss out of a boot if it had the instructions on the bottom side.

    Ticket Price: $15,000 a plate.

     

    • Anonymous

      You should be writing for “Red Eye” or “The Onion.”

  • Patience

    Bronwyn, it’s rather misleading of you to claim this story is “astonishing”.  Steve Chapman and the Chicago Tribune have a conservative bent.

    To me, this story and others like it are attempts to stir the pot — a sound strategy for Republicans.

    • Ferd_Berfle

      No need for Republicans to stir a pot that is already roiling. As a matter of fact, I do believe they’re watching all this with great amusement while passing the popcorn.

      • AbigailA

        It always comes down to the small pleasures doesn’t it, Ferd?  Oh, and would you please pass the popcorn?  Thanks.

  • Anonymous

    Any potential Republican president, especially a two-termer, permanently retires Hillary’s jersey.
    That seems to explain the full court press on her behalf.
    Is No Quarter now becoming Yes Ma’am?

    • Scottymac54

      If moderate commenters retake the ground lost to misinformation voters, flat-tax one-issuers, and promoters of the manufactured “Islamofascist” menace, that’s “change I can believe in”.

      Maybe its time for reason and sanity, as opposed to Glenn Beck’s daily talking points, to once again rule the day.

      For what’s the alternative?  “Four more years….”

      This nation doesn’t need any of it.

  • yttik

    “Now I know that all of you are QUITE cynical about the hopes for fixing
    our nation’s problems, and that most of us here are divided in the
    solutions we believe will help fix the country”

    I’m not cynical at all. I have a great deal of hope that this nation can fix our problems. Step one is to get the current Dem party out of power.

    This article talks about both houses of congress becoming Republican controlled. Now why is that a very real possibility? Because people are fed up with Democrats. That’s a fact, that’s a reality, but rather than confront that and start asking where they went wrong, people just keep pretending somebody like Hillary will come along and make it all go away.

    You can’t just make it all go away. Dems need to face the fact that they did something wrong, many things, take responsibility for that, and restructure their party. There are no do-overs in real life.

    • Anonymous

      yttik—excellent.

    • Scottymac54

      “You can’t just make it all go away. Dems need to face the fact that they did something wrong, many things, take responsibility for that, and restructure their party. There are no do-overs in real life.”

      Rank conservatism is not one iota more popular among independents than it was in 2008, and whatever remaining antics the ”TPers” have up their sleeves will just result in driving away whatever openness some indies may have toward their movement straight away, and even more determined to resist partisan propagandizing.

      And the Democrats would argue that, by rejecting Barky, they HAVE taken the first step you demand.  And, they fully understand you have no intention for voting for any Democratic candidate anywhere, so forgive me for daring to suggest I’m a higher priority on their list than you are!     

      • yttik

        “I’m a higher priority on their list than you are”

        Catering to that 22% who still approve of the direction our country is going is not a winning strategy.

        The Dems have not rejected Barky. The rest of the country has.

        • Ferd_Berfle

          Scotty is actually part of that 22%, yttik–he just wants is faster and barky ain’t delivering.

          • Scottymac54

            It’s not Barky who will ultimately have to deliver, though.

            You’ll get the class warfare you ask for, Ferd.  Believe it.

            • Ferd_Berfle

              Class warfare is for losers. It certainly isn’t the winners who keep playing that card. You progressives are absolutely clueless but we’ll fill you in come November ’12..

            • Scottymac54

              Not really, Ferd.  I’m not pushing for class warfare to be delivered at your doorstep.

              If you’re going to persist in demanding tax cuts as redistribution of wealth in your favor, it’s you who are clamoring at the barricades, not I.

              I understand your concerns but respectfully suggest you be mindful that one does not get in the way of the other.

            • Scottymac54

              Not really, Ferd.  I’m not pushing for class warfare to be delivered at your doorstep.

              If you’re going to persist in demanding tax cuts as redistribution of wealth in your favor, it’s you who are clamoring at the barricades, not I.

              I understand your concerns but respectfully suggest you be mindful that one does not get in the way of the other.

            • Ferd_Berfle

              Not really, Ferd.  I’m not pushing for class warfare to be delivered at your doorstep.
              ============
              Any time you feel froggy, grasshoppper, you may jump.

              I laugh in your general direction, goob.

        • Scottymac54

          You’re missing it…..or you are deliberately promoting the failed meme that all Democrats think monolithically, which may be an effective tool you can use to keep things simple in your own mindscape.

          In reality, neither Democrats, Republicans, independents, etc. think monolithically, and I am here to tell you that there is a sizable majority of Democrats, outside of predominately black districts and certain college campuses, that have NO faith in Barky.

          Some of them will not vote for Barky and some of them will only vote for him if they are forced to, given the extremism of the Republican candidate.

          There are even *gasp* college students who skew to the left but are rejecting the tactics and the rhetoric of Barky’s school.

          The right and the TPers have had ample time and money to develop some sort of message to articulate who they are, what they stand for, what they can do for America, and do it in a manner that demographic can relate to.

          Is it MY fault that your crew has fallen down on the job and failed to convince them?

          • Anonymous

            “NO faith in Barky”
            -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  - 
            This was the fault of Democrats and even GOPers I know who voted for Obama for historic reasons and looked away as his creds (or complete lack of them).

            It’s not a matter of party or politics – it’s a matter of a lack of basic competence.

            I watched Bill Clinton get interviewed Sunday and he is still the real deal. He deftly blamed Cheney for promoting the Hillary for prez drive in as amiable way as you could.

            A President has not know how to deal in a political arena to get what they want with honey more than with vile.

            • Scottymac54

              Yep.

              And I guess the only defense I could offer up for those ubiquitous “Obamabots” that seemed to sprout up like spores from every surface, and their willingness to ignore any possible criticism of their god, was that we WERE desperate to rid ourselves of Bush, the Bush legacy, and the endless wars and bloodletting, not to mention the cost of it all.

              Much of my frustration with the “Tea Party” synchophants is their stunningly similar eagerness to fail to find fault with the latest “patriot du jour”.

              It’s equivalent to the delusional thought processes the Obamabots displayed, and many of them use the same hateful tactics in discussion and argument, so it’s as if history is repeating itself.

    • AbigailA

      Getting the Democrats to admit they screwed up would be like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.  It would be a futile excercise.

      Perfect response, by the way.

    • Wbboe

      Agreed.  But the only way that will happen is if Democrats get massacred in 2012.

      “Nothing so fixates the mind as the imminent prospect of being hanged”

      Nothing so compels a party which has run the ship of state aground to pull itself off the rocks, get patched up and get back on the right course than the loss of  the presidency and both houses of congress.

      Churchill became the leader we saw in world war II because of the wilderness years.  They were a time for retirement from public like, writing and reflecting and waiting for the right opportunity.

    • Daisy Mae

      Excellent, yttik.
      Unring a bell.

  • jlp

    I was a Hillary supporter in 2008 – gave her money and my vote in the primary.  I felt she was the answer to save this country, and she would lead it into prosperity.  I no longer feel the same about her.  When you roll in a pig pen with the pigs – you smell like a pig.  She definitely is knee deep in Obama’s sh*t.

    • Anonymous

      Why should she get in the way of a Tsunami?

      • Anonymous

        Oh, I love that graphic, Harp!

    • Scottymac54

      But do you have a wiser alternative?

      • Wbboe

        A wiser alternative than Obama????  How about Daffy Duck?

        • Wbboe

          At least he does not need a telepromter to know what to say next.

        • Ferd_Berfle

          I prefer Elmer Fudd to the clodhopper in the WH.

        • Scottymac54

          Sigh.

          A wiser alternative to HILLARY, wbboe!

          • Wbboe

            Scotty, that is the question most people will focus on, and I submit that it is the wrong question.  Why?  Because it is neither the same Hillary or the same party that we saw in 2008.  On the one hand, she has broader experience and that is a huge plus.  On the other hand, she would have to serve the interests of a party which has driven out white people, saddled us with debt and pursued polices opposed by the American People.  To reverse those policies would be no easy task for someone from the same party.  Impossible might be a better word. Therefore the question is not who would be the better candidate, but which party has the right set of policies to rescue the country which grows weaker with every passing day. This is an important point, easily glossed over in our political discourse which dwells on the question of who is the best leader and ignores the internal constraints they would be bound by as leader of their party.

            • Wbboe

              The truth of what I am saying can be seen in what has occurred.  She belittled the utopian foreign policy bromides of Obama as a candidate, then became secretary of state and helped implement them. I offer this example merely to show that if Hillary became the nominee in 2012 she would be forced to pursue many of the same policies, which she inherited. not for the good of the country but for the good of the party.  It is a ticklish problem. On the other hand, if you think the policies Obama pursued are good, then a Hillary nomination makes eminent good sense because in that case she is the perfect candidate.

            • Scottymac54

              Properly framed, her service to America will be shown to be exactly that, and Barky’s role will be portrayed as exactly that, as opposed to the opposition’s fanciful “she worked for HIM!” silliness.

              Americans understand it is not unusual for lawyers to conspire with their retainers and, even though they may not entirely approve, the events of the day are so dire, that history will reveal a public grateful for having spared them the type of nightmare Barky’s direct micromanagement of world affairs would have spawned.

              Hillary was a moderate influence who operated behind the scenes and got broken things fixed, with a minimum of chatter.

              This is a culture that worships the likes of Glenn Beck, Donald Trump, Warren Buffett, etc., but they will see the value of quiet diplomacy and sane, rational thought, especially when they get a load of what the TPers have in store for us next, and the Republicans give them just enough rope to….oh, you know the rest, read history, LOL!

              After the dust settles, concessions will be made, purges will commence, and we will hopefully return to some semblance of normal.

              It’s human nature to have an end to fraud and silliness, after an extended period.

            • Scottymac54

              “On the other hand, if you think the policies Obama pursued are good, then a Hillary nomination makes eminent good sense because in that case she is the perfect candidate.”

              There are only two policies of Barky’s I approve of, tax increases for the wealthy, and a return to 1967 borders on behalf of justice for Palestine.

              I believe the tax increases should have been put through on day one, I believe that the Bush tax cuts should never have been implemented in any time of war, on the grounds of financial irresponsibility, of which we witness the glorious results today.

              I believe for Barky to have stood up to Netanyahu, on our own turf, was possibly the most courageous and righteous stance I’d ever seen any president take, particularly since he had to have known the danger he was placing himself and his family in.

              He may have backed down from certain points later, probably because he’d have wound up “Kennedied” if he didn’t, but I appreciated the intent.  He was only reaffirming established US policy on the matter, and I recognize that this is one of the few times Barky could cry ”racism” and it was legitimate.     

              Is agreement on these two issues enough to persuade me to offer my support?  NO WAY, not when you balance it all against the hundreds of issues he is clueless on!

              Besides, I can cultivate far better candidates in the interim that are capable of far better, IMHO, than Barky ever could be.

    • Wbboe

      Point taken.  The concern that I have is that the party has changed and become a radical entity which does a grave disservice to the country.  That does not change if Obama steps down.  The bad people control the party at every level now–it is saturated with bad people. 

      We saw what this party did to not only to Hillary but to her 17 million supporters–swept them aside and threatened them to get in line.  It is hard for me to believe at this point that the substitution of Hillary for Obama on the eve of the election would  change the downward trajectory.   The party cannot be purged of bad people on the eve of an election, and the process of repair will take years.  We do not have years, so putting Obama people if not Obama himself in power for another four years could be suicidal.

      This is a very different question than whether she was right in 2008 which I still believe, but that was before Obama drove this country further into a ditch and drove the white people out of the party.  Hillary’s unequivocal support for Obama and service in his administration leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths and suggests that she is only interested in power.

      Each of these statements is subject to challenge, but I dare say they are a reflection of what many people are feeling at this point. I stand by my position that Hillary is one of our great leaders and she has the ability to get the job done.  But the question now is whether she is the right leader at this point based on all that has occurred and the interests that any leader of that party would have to serve.

      Lastly, there is this: if you believe as I do that big media is the real enemy of the American People and if Obama did not exist they would have to invent him, then the defeat fo the Democatic Party is the best way to cut off their oxygen supply and that clearly needs to be done.  At this point they would tend to rally around Hillary if he steps down to save their own sorry asses, and I do not want to give them that opportunity.  They need to go down.

      If we are to reclaim our democracy then big media MUST be defeated, so of all the factors pro and con, that single factor is probably determinative of the question for me.  I do want to think about this further, because my past support for Hillary ran deep and was no sense a sham.  But now, in some ways, the question is larger than that.

      • Wbboe

        Let me put a finer point on it.  The first job of the new president will be to overturn much of what Obama has done, particularly in the area of excessive regulation, racial spoils, featherbedding and rewarding democrat contributors.

        No democratic party candidate can do that.  It takes the other party to do that work, while the party that committed those offenses engages in the soul searching and internal changes required to regain the confidence of the American People.

        • Guest

          Yeah, but which candidate in the other party ? If it were as easy as a cut and dried blanket solution we could wait it out until the election.  The GOP field looks pretty dismal in terms of support for a nominee that actually stands a chance of winning.

          • Wbboe

            On the contrary, it is that easy if  you believe as I do  that either Perry or Romney would be better than Obama. 

            As far as the field looking small and dismal and has no chance of winning I suggest you keep your powder dry.

            First of all, this is the party line of Obama and his big media butt boys so we should not give it too much crediblity.

            Second, if you are inclined to treat it as truth, then before you do please familiarize yourself with the writings of Jay Cost, who is widely regarded as the most astute political observer on the scene–more so than the pundits and professors.

            Here is the link in case you are interested:

            http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/jay-cost .

            Beyond that, lets face it we get the candidate we really want rarely if ever.  Therefore, the question almost always comes down to who is the lesser evil. 

            If you believe as I do that both parties are self serving, and there is no viable third party alternative then the best strategy is to churn them every four years, so no single thugocracy becomes too firmly entrenched.

            And we would do well to remember the one time in recent memory that a certain segment of the public got the candidate who would be their messiah and  in the end he turned out to be their Judas Iscariot.

            • Guest

              The last poll I saw this weekend showed Obama beating Perry by 7 points, so I’m frankly not particularly interested in what anyone believes at this point. 

            • Scottymac54

              “The last poll I saw this weekend showed Obama beating Perry by 7 points…”

              This is what happens when you put the neocons and the “TP” whatevers in charge of choosing the Republican candidate.

              It’s exactly what will most likely happen on Election Day, as well.

              An intelligent alternative is to reject ALL extremism and support candidates like Hillary and Romney, simply because the times call for calm, rational leadership, IMHO.

            • Ferd_Berfle

              The last poll I saw this weekend showed Obama beating Perry by 7 points,
              so I’m frankly not particularly interested in what anyone believes at
              this point.
              ==========
              Wow, dude. Polls are manipulated data and not facts. Reliance on them also smacks of the ad populum argument. Two strikes against your argument. The third strike is that his bots aren’t going to be able to manipulate the public with an unknown candidate as they could in ’08. Oblahblah is now a known bamboozler with a terrible script–we’ve seen this picture before and it was a dog the first time around.

              Finally, the real party base is GONE.

              (Judging from the content of the posts by both Scotty and Guest, I think Scotty is posting under multiple names.

            • Guest

              Anyone can discount polling as a false argument from the future and demand an answer to explain something that (a) hasn’t happened and (b) won’t happen….but it is IMO a more prudent course would be to take serious account of anything indicating a legitimate, verifiable trend that may be underway. It was a Rasmussen poll which two weeks ago was Perry 44, Obama 41. Now, this. What happened? This is about Perry’s dwindling chances not about Obama’s chances at being reelected.

            • Scottymac54

              Sorry, Ferd.

              No sockpuppets here.

              I’ve only commented under my own screenname.

              I’ve never other names here, despite the baseless accusations of yourself, and at least one other NQ suppressive, and “former Hillary supporter”, LOL!.

          • Scottymac54

            “The GOP field looks pretty dismal in terms of support for a nominee that actually stands a chance of winning.”

            You can say that again.

            There’s not even anyone you can HOPE will jump in the race, with that crew.

            And there probably won’t be for a while, because failed conservative policies and beliefs ARE the problem that are key to their thought processes.

            The “Tea Party” is just a manufactured diversion that they are using to buy time, and provide an eventual scapegoat for reevaluation of policies, purges, etc.

            If they can’t get it together and offer a strategy of leadership a majority of everyday Americans can put up with, they’re as dead as Kelsey’s nuts.      

            • Wbboe

              To guest: you have far more faith in polls than I do my friend. If you want to get serious, consider the electoral map because that is where the rubber meets the road. 

            • Wbboe

              Scotty, sorry this is for guest. Guest–even if you accept the legitimacy of these polls, they mean very little at this point because the Republican Party has not consolidated behind a single candidate.  Thus, if you ask a Perry supporter if he would accept Romney you will get a negative result.  I think these polls give us a false reading.

              Getting back to that Seattle lawyer I was talking about a couple days ago, he practiced law at a time when great speeches and emotional logic were common in the court room.  He decided early on to do that because he preferred to put his case together with Euclidean logic brick by brick.  He consistently won cases against lawyers who practiced the other type of approached.  When asked about it he said if I wanted to rely on great speeches to persuade, I would have become an evangelist.  I am more interested in the facts and the meaning and application of the law.  When I win a man over with the facts he stay won over. If I do it with emotions, my persuasion has no staying power.  My appeal, then, is to the mind rather than the heart.  He would make each point as he paced back and forth before the jury, nod and make eye contact.  He won.

              Which brings us back to the contest between Obama vs the Republican opponent.  Obama will try to do it all with emotional appeals of all manner and kind.  Appeals of the lowest order.  If the Republicans make their case based on Obama’s actual record, and do so with Euclidian logic they will win, and the bad economy will be Exibit A.

      • Scottymac54

        You are correct regarding the racial issues, which are THE subject that broke Barky down, and colors, no pun intended, the breakdowns we witnessed, that have led to his failure as president.

        The rest of it….your economic theories, your beef against “mainstream” media, a term which can no longer be defined, your opinions regarding corruption, campaign finance, etc. have to be divorced from your original correct assertion of the growing influence/control of blacks and other Afrocentric types.  

        The racial aspect, in regards to the takeover is an in-house debate to be resolved among Democratic voters, and we (meaning the left, as opposed to the rest of you) do not need to divide over it, in the pursuit of a greater good (dumping Barky).

        But the rest of it is you conveniently “attaching” your true political philosophies and tenets, which are conservative.  Which is what you do.  It’s an efficient and effective way of influencing people.  I get that.

        I categorically reject all of your “evolved” ideas, however, so, for the purpose of promoting the hastening of Barky’s, I’ve divorced them from the racial perspective, which is spot on, and the true problem.

        Conservatism cannot rise to the rest of the problems we face, when it is a root cause of them.

        I  

        • Wbboe

          Scotty–the constitution, the bill of rights, the idea that the people are the soverign and not government–if those ideas make me a conservative, an evolved conservative, an antediluvian conservative then I have but one response: guilty as charged.  As far as the racial aspect is concerned, I hope you understand by now that false accusations of racism are the last bastion of scoundrels, and it is a valid rhetorical point to hold the left to their own talking point about the first black president.  In my pantheon of heroes Tom Sowell is someone I have met know and admire, and I have high regard for Colonel West so I make a huge distinction between those who see themselves as Americans who happen to be black and black Americans.

          I had coffee a few minutes ago with my friend the arbitrator.  In a prior life he was an executive with Georgia Pacific.  Their CEO was a man named Panplin (sp) who was a highly respected–but not always agreeable figure. He mentioned a board of directors meeting they had thirty years ago where a proposal was put forward which enjoyed widespread support.  They went around the table and every board member said yea until it came around to Pamplin and he said naaaw.  Moments later the moderator declared the vote is 12 to 1 and the ones have it.  That kind of power cannot exist for the United States under King Obama. And without it the world is a less stable place, and  one can only wonder whether we would be having the problems that we have globally, to the degree we have them today if we had a strong leader at the helm.  When a predator smells weakness, he gets a surge of adrenelin and he attacks. We are seeing it now, as we speak.

          When you enter Annapolis as a midshipman you go through a boot camp of sorts called plebe summer.  At the end of plebe summer before the brigade gets back you have parent’s weekend when parents friends and girl friends of the plebes come to the Academy, see Bancroft Hall, Scribbling Walk, Warden Field, King Hall and the rest of the historical sights.  They also see what their children have become.  At the end of weekend, as the sun sets and after the parents have bid them goodbye, they assemble in formation in front of Bancroft Hall and then on command they march single file back into the Academy building.  When they get back to their rooms, they find that everything in them which was so neatly arranged to impress the visitors has been torn apart and their mattresses have been thrown in the showers. The message is loud and clear.  Time to get back to the real world.

          Now then, to your point about big media.  First of all you claim the term is ambiguous, but in fact it is not.  NYT, WashPo, NBC, ABC, CNN, CBS operate in tandum or in locked step.  By the admission of one of their CEOs we are not outsiders–we are insiders in the Obama administration, part of the establishment.  Now if you see that as a proper role for the press in a free society, to be extensios of the White House, then I am sorry Scotty, I just can’t help you.  And  he problem this portends is when the Republicans regain control of government and they step out of line there will be no one credibfle left to tell them parents weekend is over and you need to put your nose to the grindstone.  Nobody credible that is.  That is the role of the press in a free society and they have sold it for a mess of pottage.

          • Wbboe

            Scotty–please do not make the mistake of equating conservative with Republican.  Conservatives were as opposed to neocons as those on the left were. Want proof? Look at this:

            http://buchanan.org/blog/what-911-wrought-the-bush-legacy-4868

            • Ferd_Berfle

              Exactly. Neocons are neither new nor conservative. The are the right’s version of “progressive”.

            • Scottymac54

              I LOVE Pat Buchanan.  In many ways, he represents true conservatism to me, although he is obviously not always right.

              He may also be the smartest commentator on MSNBC…

              God Forbid our subsequent president should appoint “czars”, but if there were ever a worthy candidate for “Borders, Language, and Culture”….

              I find common cause with true conservatives on this issue alone.

          • Scottymac54

            “Now if you see that as a proper role for the press in a free society, to be extensios of the White House, then I am sorry Scotty, I just can’t help you.”

            This will also be news, and also serve as vast amusement to those who have enjoyed my scribblings over the past two decades…may I use this, on the next bleak, rainy day, as a tension breaker?  Seriously….

            No comment at this juncture on the emerging spectre of “black conservatives”, except to reaffirm that they will not be a factor in this election cycle. 

        • Wbboe

          Scotty–if you were following the primary in South Carolina then you will remember that is where the racial appeals really started except for Rat Boy Chuck Todds suggestion that Hillary’s victory in New Hamphire, which contradicted the polls, was attributable to the Bradley effect.  Later, it was discovered that the wrong questions were asked.  And that is the great defect of polls.  I have seen it many times over the years.  They are not accurate predictors this far out from the election, and they are used primarily by big media to drive a headline.  If you have forgotten about what happened in South Carolina, then I commend to your attention the article Race Man by former Princeton Professor Sean Wiltentz.

          • Scottymac54

            Yeah, I remember those days.

            There may still be bloodstains on the carpet in the study, next to the computer, when my eyeballs exploded.

            And, just to re-emphasize, whatever else we may disagree over, I do greatly appreciate your effort to document and recount the events of those days, specifically the racial coup, in forthright terms.

            Thank you.

  • Ferd_Berfle

    The vultures are starting to circle. Former White House spokesman Bill
    Burton said that unless Obama can rally the Democratic base, which is
    disillusioned with him, “it’s going to be impossible for the president
    to win.” …
    =======================
    Rally the democratic base…

    This says all I need to know about this clown, too. It is still about this retrogressive dream of workers controlling the means of production, one and only one car in every garage, and no more than 2 chickens in each pot. Those cars and chickens not needed will be destroyed in the name of fairness. The only reason they’re abandoning That One is that he didn’t deliver the fatal blow to American capitalism and exceptionalism in the time allotted him.

    The retrogressives want a featureless and dull world in which the lowest common denominator is the highest ideal.

    What does this say about the policies of a potential president who goes by the initials HRC? Hmm?

    • AbigailA

      You know, Ferd, I think it says there is a complete failure of imagination and vision from those who are nostalgic for HRC and the “good old days” of their party.  With the exception of Reagan, who’s speeches are truly seminal, you don’t hear conservatives comparing the GOP candidates to every politician that came before; trying to sell the current one on the basis of their resemblence to some montage of formers.

      That they now want HRC in the worst possible way — and I mean that literally — says a lot about how low the bar is for the left.  To get caught up in some kind of weird projection and nostalgia for something that never even existed just creeps me out.  HRC is on the payroll of THIS administration.  She didn’t go rogue or even try to despite all her high-flown rhetoric about keeping your head down and keep running or 18 milllion cracks in the ceiling and blah, blah, blah.  She really did have a lot of us going there for a while.  But we need a clean sweep-out of the detritus of the Democrat party from our government because the whole thing is contaminated with socialist/Marxists.  You don’t get money from the DNC or the DCCC or any of the money-collecting orgs of the party unless you go along with their ideology.  And I don’t imagine HRC is going to fund her own campaign.

    • AbigailA

      You know, Ferd, I think it says there is a complete failure of imagination and vision from those who are nostalgic for HRC and the “good old days” of their party.  With the exception of Reagan, who’s speeches are truly seminal, you don’t hear conservatives comparing the GOP candidates to every politician that came before; trying to sell the current one on the basis of their resemblence to some montage of formers.

      That they now want HRC in the worst possible way — and I mean that literally — says a lot about how low the bar is for the left.  To get caught up in some kind of weird projection and nostalgia for something that never even existed just creeps me out.  HRC is on the payroll of THIS administration.  She didn’t go rogue or even try to despite all her high-flown rhetoric about keeping your head down and keep running or 18 milllion cracks in the ceiling and blah, blah, blah.  She really did have a lot of us going there for a while.  But we need a clean sweep-out of the detritus of the Democrat party from our government because the whole thing is contaminated with socialist/Marxists.  You don’t get money from the DNC or the DCCC or any of the money-collecting orgs of the party unless you go along with their ideology.  And I don’t imagine HRC is going to fund her own campaign.

      • Ferd_Berfle

        Spot on, AA!

      • Daisy Mae

        Double ditto. I find it hard to imagine I could vote for her again.

      • murray

        Not so sure that HRC was fully on the Progressive bandwagon…after all, she was in debt after the primaries, whereas Obama had $800 million, much from shadowy overseas sources.
        Just sayin’.

      • Anonymous

        Great post…reminded me of this song…

         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-k4-L6GAjE

        But what a fool believes, he sees
        No wise man has the power to reason away
        What seems to be is always better than nothing at all.

  • Anonymous

    Hillary WON’T run for president:
    Bill Clinton says Cheney is only
    trying to cause political mischief

    Daily Mail (UK),
    by Mark Duell   
    9/18/2011

    It’s now been confirmed by the man who knows her best – and the rumours can be put to bed. Hillary Clinton will not be running for president in 2012. Former president Bill Clinton, 65, was responding to Dick Cheney’s suggestion that his wife should take on Barack Obama in the primaries.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2038920/Hillary-wont-run-president-Bill-Clinton-says-Cheney-trying-cause-political-mischief.html

    • AbigailA

      Perhaps Bill should admonish the rest of the Democrats who keep floating the same possibility.  Cheney is only echoing what has been the subject of speculation for the past 3 years. 

      • Anonymous

        Come on. Didn’t you see that sheepish smile on Bill’s face when he was saying that? That was the most amicable admonishment I have ever seen.

        • AbigailA

          I didn’t, but I believe you.  He and Gingrich are, according to Clinton, good friends.

          • AbigailA

            I meant Cheney.

  • Anonymous

    I love Chapman’s take on this, but why wait until the end of obama’s term? It would really make more sense if Biden would step down now, Hillary replaced Biden, and then “serious health issues” were discovered that would allow obama to resign. It could be done by Thanksgiving — AND we’d have something to be really thankful for.

    Why waste another 14 months of everyone’s lives with a president who is incapable of doing anything, except making things worse?

    • Anonymous

      He probably doesn’t want to deny us the opportunity of another ‘teleprompteresque’ speech.  To be honest, he cannot be kicked to the curb soon enough.  He and his obamarrhoids have wreaked enough havoc on America.

      “Say What You Will…It Feels So Good”
      http://www.saywhatyouwill.proboards.com

  • Boonies

    just WAIT till AttackWatch gets hold of this one…Chapman will be sleeping with the fishes when Hoffa finds him…
    seriously  even IF the big boys in the “smokefilled room” have pitchforks full of you-know-what to leak to the media and sink The Magic Negro, dont they lose t6he black vote en masse?Dont they make their party look worse for having let this guy in the door in the first place?
    this ia a real Gordian Knot to unravel .
    Might be a good time to buy stock at FoxNews, though.

    • AC

      The Magic Negro
      ******************
      There is no need to inject this invective into the argument.  I don’t usually say this but these word do sound racist.  There are innumerable descriptions of “That One” that are apt but this is out of line.

      • Anonymous

        By playing the race card, obamadinejad brought being called The Magic Negro on himself, now he can live with it.  Believe me, there are much worse things he could be called, but by and large this is a very civil group. 

        “Say What You Will…It Feels So Good”

      • AbigailA

        AC,  I think we all know what Boonies meant and it wasn’t racist.  obama’s the one who made the big whoop about not being the same as everyone else and he wasn’t referring to his Marxist education.  He’s used race whenever it was to his benefit, manipulating it — gaming it.

        I don’t think we can break through to the other side of the left’s charge of racism on white America until we can stop paying homage to the idea that it is verboten to speak/write honestly about the whole enchalada of the convenient manipulation used by some blacks and a lot of whites when it suits them.

        • AC

          AbigailA,
          No, I do not know what Boonies meant.  In fact I very rarely read something to divine what they meant to write. What’s relevant is what he/she wrote. It reads racial to me.  It’s comment such as this (in the law it’s considered an “excited utterance” and stands as evidence/truth of the words spoken and not what is meant).  I think it’s inappropriate and felt a moral duty to respond. 
          You cant be better than Obama if you play by the same [non]rules. On second though, you actually make my point for me in your last sentence, honesty and crudeness are two different things.
          It was racially insensitive at best!

          • AbigailA

            And I think it’s just possible that when all one see are nails, then the only tool one needs is a hammer. 

          • Ferd_Berfle

            I’m really conflicted over this, AC. I do agree that it is crude language but it gets more difficult with each passing day to treat obamabots and retrogressives with any respect since they insist on using crude language and disrespecting those of us who aren’t on the Obama wagon (or the democratic wagon,for that matter).

            • AbigailA

              AC,

              I gave up PC a while back.  I know for a fact that I’m not racist and I’m not going to go all apologetic over something I haven’t committed an offense over.  I’ve heard and read enough honorable, really good people step up and defend themselves against the rankly uncivil charge of racism because they bought-into the whole humbug of Joe Feagin’s sociology of racism.

              The term Magic Negro has a specific meaning that is derided as “archaic” and stereotypical.  But obama has juiced it down to the pulp as well as any Hollywood producer could have. 

              It’s hardly fair, let alone honest to ask a white person to respond to questions of race but then hobble them with the dishonesty of political correctness and the spectre of institutional racism.  It only points out that the question was purely rhetorical and the answers were already prepared.

            • Anonymous

              I believe the phrase is from a parody of “Puff the Magic Dragon.” It should have been in quotes, but I appreciate the concern from AC, and the desire for us not to stoop to others’ levels (not to put words in AC’s mouth – that seemed like the gist of it).

            • Scottymac54

              “Hell, even Paul Ryan was accused of wanting to throw grandmothers in the street over his budget plan.”

              It was no ”accusation”, Ferd….he, in fact, put his plan and intentions onto paper, signed it himself, and then had the temerity to suggest he was “saving” the programs, which the party promptly backed up by claiming that was the exact talking point to be used going forward.

              These actions yielded negative consequences for the Republican agenda, and the left had only to sit back and watch it unfold, without a bit of pushback.

              The wheelchair ad was effective because it was a spot-on portrayal of what actually transpired at the time, and seniors identified with it, if not those who sponsored it.
                   

          • Scottymac54

            It was a song Limbaugh would play as bumper music on his show at one time, and was inspired by a cartoon in a newspaper.

            Rush’s handlers enabled “Operation Chaos”, whose name harkens from a 60s-era CIA operation targeting antiwar protestors.

            Day after day, he’d exhort his listeners to vote for Hillary in the primaries in order to manipulate the outcome.

            Remember, that the voters that most despised Hillary (Rush’s listenership at the time) were easily coaxed into voting for her, allegedly in favor of their own interests (I wonder how THAT worked out for Americans, LOL!)

            Think about how conservatives who despise might not WANT the country to recover financially in the midst of the Obama regime, and understand how promoting themselves as former, disaffected Democrats gives them credibility in certain circles, not to mention value.

            With this, and countless other schemes in mind, it’s not unreasonable to imagine that those who still support Hillary and are blessed with long memories would keep close tabs on such “patriots”, whereas others may seek to crush them, in order to preserve what is left of the republic.

            It’s not as simple as just getting Barky out, although that is the ostensible reason.

            Each side of the fake left/right paradigm has their own goals and their own endgame. 

  • Anonymous

    Of God, not the “Hillary” thing. Again.

     I wish SoS Clinton well. I voted for her in the primary of 2008 because I thought she was the best choice. I would not, could not support her or vote for her again.

    I was dubious back then because of her support of the “mandate” with healthcare. Now that Obama has implemented it I cannot, will not support anyone that favors forcing American Citizens to buy anything.

    We are told that we all ready have a “mandate” as regards Social Security. And those of us who paid into it for our entire working life are now being told we are greedy and live too long.

    NO more damn mandates and no more damn Clintons!

    Well maybe Chelsea 20 years from now.

    • William L. Donlon

      KenoshaMarge:

      You bring up an interesting point.
      Every Republican running is committed to repealing Obama Care.

      The Tea Party is committed to repealing Obama Care.

      A majority of the American People are against Obama Care.

      The Courts are about to rule on Obama care  –
       My bet is they rule against mandatory purchase.

      Hillary left the Senate
      Never Voted For It!
      A Plus???

      If the Court Weighs in before Nov. 2012 —
      Any Dem. who did not vote for Obama Care is Free to :
      Citique it, Alter it, or repeal it.

      Hillary has strong recognition as a fighter
      Another Plus??
      Hillary is tied to the Clinton Economic Recovery of the 1990′s
      Another Plus??

      Hillary is not the only Democratic Hope — There are others

      Andrew Cuomo is getting high marks here in New York.

      The Black Community is suffering more than most under Obama

      The C.B.C. of the D.N.C. might prevail on Obama to stand down in 2012.

      It must be done before February..

      The D.N.C. needs to be looking at contingency plans now.

      Possible Debates. A primary schedule — Etc.

      That puts Debby between Barack and a hard place
      She bid the job!!  So do it!!  “Country before Party!!”

      • Anonymous

        I will not vote for her again.

         Just because she wasn’t in the Senate to vote for it doesn’t mean that she doesn’t “favor” it. I cannot support anyone who insists on forcing us to buy insurance.

        I really don’t like the idea that we have only 2 choices when we vote. (Yeah we can vote green or whatever but that will all too often end with the person we don’t want elected, getting elected.

        Personally I think one of the reasons Hillary Clinton looks old and tired is that terrible hair do. Way to long for a woman her age. It draws the face down. Cut it short like she used to wear it and she’ll look 10 years younger. JMO

        • Ferd_Berfle

          I will say again–HRC put Obama before party and party before country when she stopped her bid for the nomination and then agreed to serve under him. It only gets worse for her the longer she stays in this corrupt administration. What, exactly, is she thinking?

        • Ferd_Berfle

          I will say again–HRC put Obama before party and party before country when she stopped her bid for the nomination and then agreed to serve under him. It only gets worse for her the longer she stays in this corrupt administration. What, exactly, is she thinking?

        • William L. Donlon

          KenoshaMarge:

          If they convince her to run — and that’s a big IF — They need to tap you to be the Fashion Consultant. Hillary has never really known what looks good on her. I have always felt that she was self conscience about her looks.

          That being said — and with you on board — I think she would be the right Woman in the right place at exactly the right time.

          She is tough, the jaws of a Pit-bull,

          Considering where America IS at this point in time, there Is the ONLY ONE QUESTION we should be asking ourselves of ANY and ALL persons we are or are not going to vote for.

          CAN THEY DO THE JOB THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO GET THIS COUNTRY MOVING AGAIN??

          In 1960, Robert McNamara was just made CEO of G.M.– a job he really wanted.

          He was called by a young President Elect, JFK and asked to take Sec.Of Defense.

          Mac later said his answer was NO.
          But when your country calls you don’t have the right to say “NO”

          I respect Hillary’s decision to leave the Senate and to take the position in Obama’s Administration.

          I think she and Richard C. Holbrooke held down the State Department really well.

          I think she is better prepared to take the mantle of leadership today,  because of that decision.

          If she runs, and I hope she does,  — I’ll support her and I’m going to  write a letter telling her she needs a little help on the fashion issue — and I’m going to tell her she needs to look you up.

          Really, — she needs some one like you who will tell her what others are afraid to say.

          There are others who blog on No Quarter who also need to get involved in this election cycle.

          They are rested ,tested and they have great insight, which is missing every where else.

      • Scottymac54

        “The D.N.C. needs to be looking at contingency plans now…”

        They are.

        Bear in mind, in-house opposition is still considerable.

  • Dave L.

    I would have to agree that her time has passed, she is too close to this moron.  I think that many who supported her in the past, just don’t trust her anymore !

    • elizabethrc

      And why would she want to take over given that she is likely to face Republican majorities in both houses?
      I personally think she has become tired of the game and the stress, and who can blame her.  A grueling, unfair election against Obama, non-stop travels around the world, putting out fires have taken a toll.  She looks exhausted and has aged greatly, probably inside more than outside.
      In truth, I can’t support her because she has carried Obama’s water and that’s not something I personally can forgive.
      It’s time for a conservative to take charge and right this ship of state.

      • Scottymac54

        “She looks exhausted and has aged greatly, probably inside more than outside.”

        GOOD!  That’s called wisdom and experience,  which Americans will recognize as a byproduct of a lifetime of hard work.

        What could be a better antidote to the relatively youthful but clueless Barky, who never put in a full day of work in his life, much less overtime?

    • AC

      I trust Hillary but I do not trust the [un]Democratic Party that placed this poseur in the Oval Office.

      • FormerLiberal

        Amen AC

      • Ferd_Berfle

        Agreed, AC. The former democratic party can’t be fixed merely with a new coat of paint. It has to be gutted and refurbished first.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4L4GL7QOPBASIVI53K2VEQZOY4 Hank

          Yep, Start with this pair….

          • Anonymous

            Oh, my! LOL

          • Anonymous

            Oh, my! LOL

    • Scottymac54

      “I think that many who supported her in the past, just don’t trust her anymore !”

      What electable candidate have they unified behind?     

  • Anonymous

    IMO, there is no way the Democrats will ask Obama to step down and not run
    for reelection in 2012 because the “optics” in the black community would
    be nothing short of devastating. The talk would be a bunch of white
    Democrats “lynched,” in the political sense, a black president when the
    times got tough.

    • elizabethrc

      Are we to therefore, bow to the lie that Obama was ‘lynched’?  Isn’t it time we stopped catering to this nonsensical black victimization, white guilt garbage?
      So what if blacks get angry.  The whole country is angry with the piss-poor job this incompetent has done.  If electing an unqualified black is the price of losing their 12% votes (and the numbers who will be voting for Obama are down from 2008), too bad.  The numbers who will be crossing over to vote against Obama will far outnumber their votes.

      • Anonymous

        He is an incompetent ass and it has nothing to do with his color.  I seem to remember many incompetent white men that came before him and it was just fine to rail against them…

        “Say What You Will…It Feels So Good”

      • Anonymous

        I agree with you. But this is the reality the DEMS face, and they created it.

      • Scottymac54

        “The numbers who will be crossing over to vote against Obama will far outnumber their votes.”

        If there is anyone for them to vote for, that is.     

    • Anonymous

      Yes, 0getfitnow1, the problem is that whatever causes Obama to leave, for the Democrats, it will be considered a conspiracy and black people will stay away in droves. And I mean ANYTHING. And the Clintons will be blamed.
      If the Clintons can be accused of being responsible for a troubled friend’s suicide, there is no bottom to the depth that people will sink in their accusations.
      Unless someone is brilliant, as soon as you elected the black guy you were stuck with him  as a candidate for reelection.

      • Anonymous

        EllenD– You’re exactly right.

    • Anonymous

      Well, we can always say we lynched the white half, not the black half. Heh.

  • Anonymous

    BTW did someone report this to the proper authorities? Tee Hee!

    • Ferd_Berfle

      Attack Waaaaaatch!

    • Ferd_Berfle

      Attack Waaaaaatch!

  • Anonymous

    Hillary had her chance on May 31 2008 to announce she was running as an Independent.

    • Scottymac54

      If Newt Gingrich can try to resurrect himself from the dead, Hillary hasn’t even started to show us what she has to offer.

    • http://twitter.com/jbjdjbjd jbjd

      She could not have won the Presidential election as an Independent because she could not have gotten her (Electors’) name(s) on enough ballots to win the election.  http://rangevoting.org/BallAccess.html

    • http://twitter.com/jbjdjbjd jbjd

      She could not have won the Presidential election as an Independent because she could not have gotten her (Electors’) name(s) on enough ballots to win the election.  http://rangevoting.org/BallAccess.html

  • Anonymous

    Bronwyn—I really don’t understand the Hillary thing.
    Why would she, all of a sudden, break from Obama? She has invested three years of her life in carrying-out his foreign policies, as she was sworn to do.
    She has been a faithful Sec’y of State. So, if she thinks he is not worthy to be president, why did she do that? Because we all know he is the same guy now as he was when she swore to carry out his policies.

    • Dorinda

      I firmly believe that Hillary has served this country, not this president.  Those who are her detractors will always be negative about her accomplishments.  I think that her feeling that he’s incompetent is the very reason she accepted this job. 

      That being said, his self-adoration will not permit him to pull the plug on his presidency.  Someone or some group of very powerful people will have to tell him that he must or he will lose.  It will have to be forced upon him but done in a way that the idea is his and the decision is his.  I don’t wish this clean-up on aisle 6 on Hillary and I’m certain she doesn’t seek it.

      • Anonymous

        Dorinda—She has carried-out Obama’s policies. That’s her job, BY LAW. It’s not an opinion.

        • Ferd_Berfle

          And she did so willingly to the detriment of this country. That is the bottom line, irrespective of the cries of foul from the now-chastised and suddenly awake retrogressives. They had their chance and so did HRC.

          They blew it and do-overs are not available.

          • Anonymous

            It is infuriating to me that suddenly the possibility of a Hillary candidacy is being injected into the conversation in a last-ditch attempt to rescue the Dem Party.  No.  It doesn’t wash with me.  Obama will be the candidate, and in my heart the Dems are dead, and I won’t let them back in–even if they try to stick Hillary’s foot in the door….

            • Anonymous

              Great imagery, oowawa.
              Agreed.

            • Ferd_Berfle

              Great comment, oowawa, and I agree.

            • Ferd_Berfle

              Great comment, oowawa, and I agree.

      • Guest

        Hillary doesn’t seek the responsibility and what self-respecting leader would want to go through that process again ? But I still don’t see why she can’t consider the situation in light of what is best for the country. 

    • Scottymac54

      The same reason Hillary was the only one who could get the Israeli diplomatic personnel safely out of Egypt,

      The powers that be had no intention of installing Barky as any sort of foreign policy president….she was put in by the new world order to represent THEIR interests abroad, which do not necessarily coincide with either Barky’s or Biden’s, or even Rice’s.

      Obama was to preside over the home front, a corrective to neocon excesses over the past decade.

      But if you think she dutifully reported to Barky’s call every morning and took specific, detailed instructions to do his bidding, you’ve got a very idealized view of how she went about keeping America’s interests abroad on a relative even keel.

      If your scenario was true, all we’d have seen would have been the likes of Barky’s schooling by Putin over breakfast, his failed performance for the Chinese at Copenhagen, etc.

      Barky never had her sophistication and quality in dealing with international powers, and America’s beginning to see that none of the Republican candidates have any more of a clue in this regard than Obama does.

      • Anonymous

        I get your point, although I don’t think Hillary had a clear path entirely. I think she exerted her will when she could and sought as you said to keep an even keel inspite of actions by Obama at the behest of his inner circle of advisors.

        I do think some of the GOP candidates have good foreign policy expertise but of course not all. But none are as oblivious and inexperienced as Obama was coming into office.

        • Scottymac54

          “I think she exerted her will when she could and sought as you said to keep an even keel inspite of actions by Obama at the behest of his inner circle of advisors…”

          I agree, and this is just one reason why I advocate Hillary as the only candidate who can beat down Barky by a safe margin.

          He hired some good talent initially….a bit ideologically rigorous, perhaps, but nonetheless knowledgable….it was Obama who failed utterly at reigning in their worst excesses and just ran with their flights of fancy without any pretense at questioning the larger picture.

          “I do think some of the GOP candidates have good foreign policy expertise but of course not all. But none are as oblivious and inexperienced as Obama was coming into office.”

          Oh, absolutely.  I believe Gingrich’s one redeeming quality would be his ability to marshal what is left of the brighter, more level-headed Republican foreign policy wonks to a point that might at least inspire confidence.

          It would be risky for me, given my inherent opposition to right-wing foreign policy, but it would be light-years above the dread I feel when I hear the current bumblers in performance.

          Do you remember Barky’s breakfast sitdown with Putin, and his barging into the Chinese delegation’s meeting in Copenhagen?

          That was the culmination of all my fears of Barky unleashed on the world, for it illustrated that he was ill-prepared in foreign policy by circumstance, and ill-suited as “leader of the free world” by nature, and I believe it’s possible to say that without an ounce of malice toward the man at all.

          Hillary, I believe, has the crossover appeal necessary to put all of this behind us, as quickly as we possibly can.

          • Anonymous

            Right. Very smart and pragmatic like Bill Clinton – not an ideologue. I believe she could impose her will to bring the Democratic Party back to where it was for many years.

            I knew from before his inauguration that Obama would be a failed President but honestly never thought it would have turned out to be this bad.

            I think it’s because he is a grossly inexperienced ideologue who decided not to learn and adapt. More importantly he never had or could develop a shred of leadership ability.

            What is remarkable that coming into a year where no one would think a Democrat could win a White House bid, Hillary is extremely well positioned to do just that.

            • Scottymac54

              Yep.

              Of course, there are those who maintain not to hold
              close to a tight ideological line is to, in the parlance of my time, “sell out”.

              I once held that position, but not in this place in time!  I believe Obama’s presidency has hastened us into such a deep rut, and brought our nation into a deep depression, both financially and mentally, that I have to support that candidate most likely to bring the nation back the quickest.

              If Hillary is kept out, I’d probably vote for Romney but not support him.

              If he were not to win nomination, I might quietly vote for Palin but not support her, over the other choices, on the grounds that sensationalism is preferable to radicalism.

              But I no longer approve of her, and I think it would all end in tears for all concerned.

      • Scottymac54

        I cannot overemphasize the importance of the rescue of the Israeli embassy employees, how that scenario could have deterioriated so, so badly, what that could have sparked, and how Hillary played a pivotal role in securing their freedom.

  • Anonymous

    If Hillary had that “sold Midwestern common sense” she wouldn’t have headed the most inartful diplomatic efforts ever seen by the US.  (Arab Spring?  Excuse me.)

    Sorry Bronwyn, to me, Hillary is no better than Obummer, other than she’s probably a natural born citizen. 
    .

    • Lupe

      Thirteen likes for a comment that implies that Hillary has no “solid
      Midwestern common sense”.  I think this site has been taken over by
      whom…millionaires who don’t want to pay taxes?  Four years ago you
      couldn’t find a more pro-Hillary site than this one.

      I think Hillary is all solid Midwestern common sense which is why I like
      her.  Is there another politician in either party who has comparable
      respect of people and politicians around the world…not to mention such
      a broad base in this country?

      It would be interesting to know who owns the Chicago Tribune.  I guess I’ll have to check wikipedia.

      • Anonymous

        Lupe?

        • Daisy Mae

          Changed. Lied. Changed. Lied. Changed. Lied. Changed. Lied. Keep flipping that coin. Regardless, she’s a Dem. and brings the Dems. with her.  Wait, we’re trying to get rid of that lefty prog. crowd. 

      • Ferd_Berfle

        I think this site has been taken over by
        whom…millionaires who don’t want to pay taxes?
        ================
        Stop it. One of the reasons I left the former democratic, now obamacratic party was because of their class envy and desire to stick it to those who are rich–just not their “own” rich such as the Kennedys. You ought to check the facts before you post such crap. The rich pay their “fair” share, unless you define fair as redistribution of wealth from those who actually work to those who mooch.

        I’m no multimillionaire but what I earn is not for the likes of you to confiscate so you can buy a few more votes and keep a few more moochers happy and on the plantation.

        Your sort of reasoning is what got us in this mess in the first place.

        Your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness cannot morally or ethically come via a diminution of mine.

        • Anonymous

          Really, Ferd.  This so-called “Buffet Bill” is enough to gag a maggot.  Who do they think they are going to fool with this?  Unfortunately, there are always fools ready to jump into class warfare.  The campaign slogans may be “Buffet the Billionaires!  Make them pay their fair share!  Eat the rich!”  But you can bet the Buffets will be perfectly safe–protected by their con man in the White House.  The only thing that will save Obama now is fomenting class-race warfare, and that is exactly what the purpose of all of this really is. And what about his buddy and jobs czar, the tax-evading job-exporting Jeff Immelt, CEO of GE, who holds hands with the First Lady during Obama’s Great Jobs Speech? Seems to me like he exemplifies exactly the kind of corporate arrogance that Obama is supposedly trying to bring down….

          • Jwrjr

            “This so-called “Buffet Bill” is enough to gag a maggot.”  This bill is just another example of how Obamadinejad feels unfulfilled if he can’t spend billions of dollars that the country doesn’t have and force somebody else to pick up the tab.

        • Anonymous

          “…just not their own rich, like the Kennedys”

          So true!  The wind turbines placed on the mesas of West Texas (as I’ve stated before) have absolutely RUINED them.
          Now, what happened when they were about to be installed off Hyannisport? HA! No way were the Kennedys going to have wind turbines ruin their view of the ocean.
          Such class-less hypocrites!

          • Anonymous

            Up at our camp on the St. Lawrence, wind turbines all over a Canadian Island across from us have ruined our vista. “They” want to put them on our side of the river too, but no one, except the farmers with open land and the entrepreneurs want them.

      • Scottymac54

        You’re quite perceptive, Lupe.

        Think about how Hillary lost to Barky…against all reason…and consider that her campaign simply had to have been sabotaged from within.  And I don’t mean from just ONE side…throw in all those who had much to lose from Hillary at least salvaging what Bush had not trashed…

        Consider how unusual it would be, especially for open-minded “lifelong Democrats” to be totally transformed, not into moderates, left-of-centers, or independents, but flaming, mouth-breathing, “Islamofascist”-obsessed “conservatives”, most of whom will deny it till the end of time.

        Throw in a few propagandists, party hacks, rapture bunnies, retired “operatives”, “Israel Firsters”, frustrated military wives, betrayed vets, pro-GOP Arabs, etc. to provide ”diversity” (don’t forget those Sowell devotees, LOL!)

        And those fierce PUMAs!  Notice that most of the sincere ones have decamped to parts unknown, their names never to be mentioned?  And the leftovers all magically morphed into patriotic “Tea Partiers”!

        Sure.  Nothing could be more likely or expected, LOL!
        Doesn’t EVERYONE completely discard all of their values, principles, perspectives and mores because of one failed election?  After all, we all know that with political parties, trust must be 100% or nothing!

        And a few of us bought into it, and allowed ourselves to be influenced by it, not realizing the worst president ever was hardly to be the crowning glory of this great deception.

        Remember “Operation Chaos”?  Well, who said any of it had to end, after Rush had played his part?

        No, I’d say if things continue the way they’ve been going, this comments section will no longer be any sort of a refuge for Americans who understand what Hillary is about, lumps and all, and how she is perfectly poised to help us all out of this very tight jam.  It has been “fundamentally transformed”, to coin a phrase.

        These remaining commenters never supported Hillary.  And they never would, and they never will.

        Although, Larry and the writers still put out worthy, thought-provoking articles, that are definitely worth a read.

        Question EVERYTHING you read and see here in the comments.  The anamolies you observe and your sanity will demand it.

        It’s all very instructive and serves as good training for the future.

        • Lupe

          I have never understood Hillary-hate, never.  Why are these people so afraid of this woman?  I suspect it must have something to do with backbone, character, and the common sense and dedication that drove her straight into the administration of the cabal who wormed their way into her campaign and caused her trusted campaign manager, Ms Solis, to betray Hillary’s trust. 

          Remember Hillary’s speech at the Democratic convention.  She wore orange…the protest color…and spoke of how she was forging ahead despite the setbacks.  That’s what I want in a President….not some sleazy, spineless, figurehead from the sewers of Chicago….or some wooden-headed, slick-haired servant of the New World Order.

          Ron Paul has integrity, but I really don’t think he has very much common sense.  I could vote for him though.  It would be an improvement over what we have now and the alternatives in his own party.

          • Scottymac54

            “I have never understood Hillary-hate, never. Why are these people so afraid of this woman?”

            A lot of it, IMHO, stems from the early nineties, when she presented herself at the White House as an entirely different sort of First Lady.

            The initial healthcare debate fueled the nascent rage.

            She was the first one to specifically identify and name the “right-wing conspiracy” and they (conservatives, neocons, etc.) HATED being referred to that, while young journalism school students LOVED the copy it generated, and they progressed in their careers faster than they ever had a right to. 

            “Remember Hillary’s speech at the Democratic convention. She wore orange…the protest color…and spoke of how she was forging ahead despite the setbacks. That’s what I want in a President….not some sleazy, spineless, figurehead from the sewers of Chicago….or some wooden-headed, slick-haired servant of the New World Order.”

            I agree with everything you’ve written, except for the last three words, LOL!

            Let’s be realistic….Hillary is very much part of the New World Order, and has been for some time.

            Why do I prefer her to Perry?  Simple.

            Perry was well-educated in his youth, about the New World Order, and its emergent role.  He would recommend books for others to read, and was well known for his awareness of it.

            And then, he consciously made a choice, and went over to the “Dark Side”, as it were.

            He CHOSE to become an active participant in evil, knowing what it was about, knowing what it would bring.

            I see Hillary differently.   She and Bill were such a couple of Midwestern hayseeds, so relentlessly full of optimism, really believing they could make a positive difference in the lives of America.

            IMHO, Bill and Hillary were slowly vortexed into the maelstrom, imperceptibly at first, then gradually saw the “light” and believed they had to work within the system in order to bring America into a uniquely liberal ’70s style of prosperity and progress.

            Even though she’s probably had to make more “sinister” decisions then Perry has over time, her intentions, her experience, her work ethic, and her intelligence and moral fiber far surpass Perry’s, and his outlook is muddled, his integrity suspect.

            “Ron Paul has integrity, but I really don’t think he has very much common sense. I could vote for him though. It would be an improvement over what we have now and the alternatives in his own party.”

            I love Ron Paul.

            But his age does worry me, the Israel lobby HATES him with a passion because he wants to cut their financial aid off, and I’m not sure Americans are ready for an experiment with full-on libertarianism, with a real constitutionalist at the helm.

            Great comment, Lupe!     
             

            • Lupe

              I believe that a presidential candidate in this country needs the blessing of the New World Order to become a major party nominee.  However, I came to believe that those people and their proxies went after Bill Clinton because his administration wasn’t doing as it was directed and Hillary was probably one of the main obstacles.  And, they know that if she is elected President now, she still will not do as she is told.  She will do what makes sense and is in the best interests of the citizens of this country and not the self-anointed, arrogant saviors of the world.

              It will be very interesting to see what these power brokers do to stop Ron Paul who just won the California Republican Party straw vote.

            • Ferd_Berfle

              I believe that a presidential candidate in this country needs the
              blessing of the New World Order to become a major party nominee.
              ==============
              Here we go again, another conspriracy nut. The New World order is rubbish.

            • Scottymac54

              “The New World order is rubbish…”

              Especially, of course, if you are a part of it.

              Or, if you support it.

              Or, if you owe your career to it.

              Or, if you happen to have profitted handsomely from it.

              Yep, nothing but a “conspiracy theory” here…     

        • Anonymous

          “These remaining commenters never supported Hillary.  And they never would, and they never will.”

          That is absolutely wrong, Scotty. You have no idea how much many of these folks did to support Hillary, and to make such a broad generalization is not only unfair, but wholly inaccurate.

          Personally, I never worked as hard for a candidate, gave so much time, and money, as I did for Hillary. That is how I ended up writing here – my wholehearted support of her candidacy. I was never more shaken by a candidate as I was with Hillary after she promised she would fight for us, then capitulated almost immediately after that. So much for standing up for the “18 million cracks in the ceiling.”

          Many here were glad when she became SOS, thinking that maybe her being the only adult in the room would help. But to watch her carry his water, and support his policies, has just been to much considering his misogynist, sexist, race-bating attacks on her, has just been too much to bear.

          These fallacious assertions by you and Lupe are just a tad irritating when WE HAVE BEEN HERE  FOR OVER THREE YEARS. So, yeah, spare me/us.

          • Ferd_Berfle

            Thank you, RRRA. I was among the staunchest of supporters initially. However, the longer she stays in this administration, the less enthused I am about her. She has also done a number of things as SoS that I am at complete odds with. Better I know now than not at all, I suppose.

            • Anonymous

              Indeed, Ferd – that I know. You and the lovely Katmoon have been here for some time, originally brought together by our support for Hillary.

              But as you said, she has done things as Obama’s SoS that many of us have difficulty with, including providing credentials to the Muslim Brotherhood, and supporting the Taliban in opening political offices in Qatar, even as they were attacking us. WOW.

            • Scottymac54

              “She has also done a number of things as SoS that I am at complete odds with.”

              Would it be too much of an imposition for you to furnish examples of specific policies you took issue with?

              How could she have handled these issues better?

              Which examples do you see as ideologically based, or just errors in judgement?

              How would any of these things have caused such a “staunch supporter”, as you describe yourself, to “flip”, to use the DOJ vernacular?

          • Scottymac54

            I’m sorry to hear that, Reverend Amy, and I can appreciate your position.

            Nonetheless, that is my opinion.  I find radical changes in personal political positions to be somewhat suspect, particularly in individuals who hold them so passionately, that they feel compelled to write publicly about them.

            If you work for three decades next to a strict vegetarian and one day walk into the office only to find them gulping down a Big Mac, chances are your other coworkers are going to find your explanation that the Birds Eye factory had a salmonella outbreak a bit dubious, or at least some of us might.

            I do believe it might be better to air some of these grievances out in advance of the election, though.

            Many of us who still at least do not hate Hillary remain somewhat suspicious of the intentions of purported former Hillary supporters, and might even, as I do, question their true motives during the Hillary campaign, as money flows like water through our electoral process, and times are dire.

            Thank you for the most respectful and candid reply it was probably possible for you to give in this forum.