Obama’s Advisors are Right about Clinton for the Wrong Reasons
Obama’s Minions Have It Wrong
The talking heads that have once again anointed Hillary Clinton the Democratic Primary victory once again are now being told by the Obamanites to cool it because they believe her false sense of inevitable victory, entitlement and superiority cost her the election against Obama. Curiously they blame her rather than credit Obama for the debacle that was her campaign.
That it is an interesting perspective. Certainly Obama’s fans are not going to say that he conned the Democratic electorate into thinking he was an antiwar progressive Democrat and stole the primary election under false pretenses. That does not sound very flattering. However, that is what happened.
As I pointed out before Hillary Clinton will in all likelihood be defeated once again by E. Warren or Bernie Sanders or both if they should run together. Clinton appeals to the Wall Street types that are Democrats, (a smaller number every year), the Clintonistas, folks who celebrate celebrity for itself, and a set of women who want a women president and don’t care about the politics involved. That set of people is not enough to win her any primary victories outside of New York and a few other states.
The voters in Democratic primaries care about the issues. Not just about guns, gays, God, abortion and “a balanced budget”, issues that any right-winger can dredge up to win almost any election in the United Sates. Obama stole the election with his slick, cool persona and ability to let people see what they wanted to see in him. He appeared to be against the war to those against wars, in fact he has expanded the ridiculous “war on terror” to Yemen and Pakistan. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue. No war crimes, no charges, no trials, nothing. The average American is totally clueless to why we are fighting 4 wars in the Middle East. “They hate our freedom”. That was Bushes statement, no doubt tested by several think tanks and found to work with the Republican base, and the rest of the “low information” voters which includes about 80 percent of America now. No one who has read anything about the Osama believes that. But the line works. However, the insiders on Wall Street and the War Machine itself were never fooled by Obama’s nod to the left. They knew Obama was one of them. That is why donations to his campaign flowed from Wall Street and the Captains of Industry who would never donate to a progressive candidate (unless they actually cared about the people). There are always exceptions to the rule.
Donations from Goldman Sachs are to buy political influence and make money for the company and their top 1000 employees or so. That is all. To pretend they are donating because they want peace, and egalitarian society or a real progressive tax rate is just nonsense. Romney would not release his tax returns. The media did not care. This was never done before. Yet there were no reporters shouting at him: show us the money, or what rate did you pay, etc.? In fact McCain has his returns from when Romney was considered for VP. An enterprising reporter with connections to the old McCain train could have gotten the returns if he or she wanted to.
While it is reasonable that the elephant like machine she built to win the election was not nimble enough to fend off a real challenge from a well-funded supporter (as the Obamanites claim), the real issue is why there are so many well-funded supporters who oppose her in the Democratic Party?
She is a woman. So perforce she gets unearned support from the chance of her birth, she is the popular wife of a popular president, but still a large section of the Democratic electorate has no interest in seeing her run. Why is that? Isn’t that the real question rather than the process which in true Obama style is more interesting to his followers than reality? Obama was far more interested in the election mechanics than he ever was in actual progressive reforms.
It is not complicated. There are a majority, a strong majority, of Pete Seeger (in honor of) Democrats who don’t want war in the Middle East. The wars are supported by two groups, Big Oil and the Neo-conservatives. Neither have lots of Democrats as members. Obama cleverly side-stepped every question about the Middle East and allowed the primary voters to think what they wanted to think. And, by the way, he made a speech against the war before it started and was not in the Senate when the crucial votes were taken. He made sure everyone knew that. At least Edwards had the integrity to admit his vote was wrong. Clinton did not. As Edwards and Kucinich faded their voters who were strongly anti-war drifted to Obama as the lesser of two evils. That is how Hillary Clinton lost the election last time and how and why she will again be on the wrong side of history. Democrats don’t want a Neo-Conservative cold warrior who is pro-Israel to the extreme of undermining peace in the Middle East and a hypocrite who will not admit she was wrong on the Iraq war. Republican primary voters love it when their candidates maintain they are right regardless of the facts due to the “authoritarian personality complex” they all seem to have. But Democrats who thought they were getting a second FDR in Obama and found out they were getting the first Republican black president will be in no mood to elect another right-wing pro war Democrat.
Obama won the presidency but has lost the country for the democrats. His silly refusal to offer Medicare for all and instead give away the store to the insurance industry, pharmaceutical industry and hospital industry caused the Democrats to be slaughtered like lambs in the 2010 elections. Peace and prosperity would be closer if four more years of McCain had let to a true progressive being elected, a second FDR being elected. I doubt seriously if anyone besides Goldman Sachs CEOs and the rest of the 1 percent want another four years of Republican policies offered by a Democratic president. That is what Hillary will offer. Obama got away with it and he thinks she can to. Hence, the advice to her campaign from his advisors. But maybe in the back rooms they are telling her let them think you are a reformer who is against the wars. That is what we did. If so she may then win.