Monday, May 9, 2016

Hillary Clinton's "Sorry" Campaign.

Back in 1970 there was a hit movie that was to tear jerkers what Star Wars is to popular sci-fi. It was called "Love Story" and it was based on a best selling novel by Erich Segal. The big line from the movie which was repeated endlessly, satirized, plagiarized,joked about by comedians and put on everything from T-shirts to tea cups as it became part of the culture was "Love means never having to say your sorry".

If being president means never having to say your sorry Hillary Clinton might as well  go home now because Clinton has been the "sorriest" presidential candidate in history.

Hillary Clinton has had to she was "sorry" for things she said or did more times in 3 months than any presidential candidate in history and more than any politician has in a lifetime. And as a result has had to run the "sorriest" presidential campaign in political history.

She said she was sorry for setting up her own private email server (and no doubt she means it).

She said she was sorry to the Black Lives Matter group for saying " all lives matter" (inspirational isn't it?)

She said she was sorry for supporting her husband's 1996 Crime Bill which Bill himself says he isn't sorry for. 

She said she was sorry about Madeline Albright, one of her supporters,  saying young women who support Sanders instead of her deserve "a special place in hell".

She said she was sorry when another one of her supporters,Gloria Steinhem said the only reason young women went to Sanders rallies instead of Clinton's was to meet men.

She said she was "sorry" for NAFTA

She was sorry she referred to black criminals as "super predators" and that they "need to be made to heel". (a term used in training dogs)

She said she was "sorry" for praising Nancy Reagan and crediting her with starting the "national conversation" about HIV when she did nothing of the kind and Clinton received a torrent of criticism from AIDS activists for saying so which made her immediately backtrack and say she was "sorry".

Clinton has had to repeatedly said she was "sorry" about Iraq as if saying she is sorry somehow excuses what amounts to approving the worst commander-in-chief decision in history, a decision the country and the whole world is still paying for.

Her campaign surrogates had to back down and say "sorry" after questioning whether Sanders was  really arrested in Chicago  protesting segregation in 1961 after the Chicago Tribune posted a photo of Sanders arrest.

Other surrogates,especially the Mayor of Atlanta we're sorry for looking equally stupid in saying Sanders was late to the civil rights movement and they and the Clinton campaign had to back down and recant on  that too.

Clinton attacked Sanders on universal health care saying "no we can't" then recanted and supported it as an ultimate goal after a huge loss in a primary and  articles appeared showing Obama advocated universal healthcare during the 2008 primaries (before selling out the public option as president to the insurance lobby).

Clinton attacked Sanders as "not being a Democrat" then had to back down when shown the DSCC asked Sanders to help fund raise for Democratic senators and sent out an email titled "This is what leadership looks like" quoting Sanders on Republican obstruction of  the Supreme Court embarrassing Clinton and undermining her attack.

In New York Clinton was sorry for a skit she did with Mayor DeBlasio in which a joke was made of  DiBlasio being late to endorse Clinton because of running on CP time -- Colored People Time. 

And most recently Clinton was  sorry for comments she made about coal miners and the coal industry about putting miners out of work which had much of the state up in arms forcing Clinton to apologize again with one of the most insincere, disingenuous, convoluted nonsensical apologies ever uttered by a politician: "I do feel a little bit  sad and sorry that I gave people an excuse to be so sad or sorry". Like the coal miners of West Virginia were looking for an excuse to be sad and sorry.  (Clinton lost the primary to Sanders by landslide numbers) 

But just as illuminating are all the things Clinton hasn't been sorry for but should be. Like her political dirty tricks in collusion with the DNC with super delegates, rounding them up and getting them to declare in February, the first time in the history of the Democratic party that superdelegates declared anything before the last primary was over. The purpose was to artificially pad her lead during the primaries and sucker the same gullible inept mindless journalists Obama suckered on the Iran deal into including them hoping to dampen the enthusiasm of Sanders voters and his fundraising and to  grease the skids for rigging her nomination at the convention if it  becomes necessary by creating a false expectation of inevitability which the media has both swallowed and promoted. Happily going along with the charade is everyone on CNN and Chris Hayes,Maddow and their graphics departments. 

Clinton also isnt sorry for her blatant lying about Sanders not supporting the auto bailout when she knows he did and shameless lying about Vermont being the biggest source of guns committing murders in New York City when that was nowhere near true.

No one expects Clinton to be sorry for all the evidence of voter fraud on her behalf  in five states including New York where the Attorney General is investigating a purge of eligible voters wrongly removed from the voter rolls. And a statistical analysis of the NY primary results which gave Clinton a margin of victory 400% higher than the 52-48 exit polls concluded that the odds of it not being fraud were 123,000-1.

Given Clinton's almost unprecedented dishonesty, dirty tricks in trying to make her lead look bigger than it is, the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz doing all they can to rig the process in Clinton's favor, if Clinton were to get the nomination as a result of corrupt super delegate following party bosses and a corrupt process  there would very likely be a revolt of Sanders voters and protests that might look something like Chicago in 1968  without the police riot but with the same results for Democrats in November. Resounding defeat. And deserved. Which would give the DNC and Clinton even more to be sorry for. 

A good case can be made that not rewarding fraud and purging the Democrats of their political corruption like super delegates following the wishes of party bosses rather than their voters, cleaning house and starting over could make more sense in the long run for the future of the Democratic party. That future belongs to Sanders ideas and voters not Clinton's. Exit polls show Sanders destroys Hillary Clinton among voters 45 and under by 84-14 and among younger women 86-9. 

As for Trump, he is so disliked by congressional Republicans because they dont believe he is really conservative he would be obstructed his entire term anyway, maybe more by Republicans than Democrats. Nothing would get done. Which,given a Republican congress many Democrats would view as a good thing. Even stranger, there are Republicans in congress and GOP donors who are leaning towards Clinton because they feel she is more Republican than Trump, which her transcripts would no doubt reveal. Meaning defeating Clinton if she cheated her way to the nomination is a viable, even preferred option.  

That would pave the way for an honest Democrat and a new, honest, rejuvenated Democratic party to win in four years rather than have the DNC hand Hillary Clinton an undeserved nomination as the product of rigging, dishonesty, unethical fundraising and voter fraud which would only continue.

Which is not to say sanity and self preservation cannot prevail at the convention.Sanders can still win the nomination. Sanders is clearly the stronger candidate on every level. Take away Clinton's  369 delegates and 4 million votes which all came from the South as a result of Obama's influence on her behalf in a part of the country where his influence is greatest and Clinton is significantly behind Sanders in votes and delegates. Had Obama endorsed Sanders all those votes and delegates would be his. It had nothing to do with Clinton's strength as as candidate. As Elizabeth Warren said in another context Clinton didn't get those delegates and votes  on her own. 

Add to that the fact that those delegates are all in red states Democrats can't win in a general election and Sanders is clearly the stronger candidate because he beats Clinton almost everywhere else and in some cases by unheard of landslide margins of as much as 60 points. And is stronger against Trump.

As for superdelegates that preposterous undemocratic element of the Democratic Party, self preservation might save the day. Every super delegate in states Sanders won and by huge margins would be ending their political careers voting for Clinton. All incumbents,they would all lose primary challenges from a Sanders Democrat next time they were up for reelection.

Given all Clinton has to be sorry for, if  super delegates at the convention, especially in states Sanders won, corruptly hand Clinton the nomination which is the only way she can win, they can probably forget unity. Which means when it's all over, if Clinton does cheat her way to the nomination, the campaign song Clinton and the Democrats are liable to be hearing from Sanders voters  is  "Who's Sorry Now"? While Clinton and Debby Wasserman-Schultz might do a duet of "It's My Party and I'll Cry If I Want To". 


Alessandro Machi said...

In my opinion you are a complete jackarse. You yourself KNOW that significant numbers of Hillary Clinton voters vote BEFORE voting day by mail, so even a 4% voting advantage on the day of the contest should then have added in the SIGNIFICANT number of voters who already voted for Hillary Clinton before voting day.
And the SuperDelegates have NOTHING to do with the pledged delegate race and it is basically common knowledge that super delegates will tend to vote for whomever wins the most pledged delegates.
If you are being funded by anyone from the Sanders campaign (because your posts, out of all the posts I read on DailyPUMA, appear to be bought and paid for) you need to reveal that on this site or you are committing fraud.
Saying sorry is now a bad thing. Yet if sorry is never said, then the politician is considered above reproach. In my opinion your catch-22 attacks are the work of a paid shill.

Marc Rubin said...

"You yourself KNOW that significant numbers of Hillary Clinton voters vote BEFORE voting day by mail, so even a 4% voting advantage on the day of the contest should then have added in the SIGNIFICANT number of voters who already voted for Hillary Clinton before voting day.And the SuperDelegates have NOTHING to do with the pledged delegate race and it is basically common knowledge that super delegates will tend to vote for whomever wins the most pledged delegates."

When you say its "common knowledge" of how super delegates vote, its common knowledge you dont seem to have since no Super delegate has cast a vote at a Democratic convention for 32 years so how you know what they do is self delusion.

Super delegates have also never declared for anyone before the primaries were over except this time which proves collusion and dirty tricks on Clinton's behalf.It is true they have nothing to do with pledged delegates which is even more proof of attempted fraud. The fact that the Clinton campaign with the news media and DNC lumps them together for Clinton's benefit when they dont even count and coincidentally new super delegates make announcements of support every time she gets destroyed by Sanders in a primary is evidence of their collusion, dirty tricks and that she will stoop to any tactic to try and win. Exactly what David Axelrod said of her in 2008.

And all her votes in the South were all about Obama getting out the vote for her in a place where the African American vote is 6 times greater than anywhere else. No Obama, no 369 delegates and 4 million votes so her totals are a vast distortion of reality.

As for her voter fraud, the same company that do the exit polls in the U.S. do them for the State Dept to monitor elections overseas. They are accurate to 3/10ths of a point. The State Dept guidelines say that a 2% deviation of results from exit polls is evidence of fraud. In the NY primary, the deviation was 12% and Clinton's margin of victory was 400% higher than the exit polls. In other words the DNC and Clinton campaign cheated and rigged the NY primary results. Had the results matched the exit polls her candidacy would be all but over now.And may still be if Sanders wins California.

Clinton is always saying she is sorry for something because she is the most politically calculating insincere candidate to ever run for the presidency and will pander to anyone and so often puts her foot in her mouth and ends up sorry for it later. Her reversals from 2008 on Obama alone are a joke. And no amount of sorry will ever make up for her politically calculated decision to support the war in Iraq.

You sound like one of David Brock's paid online trolls from the Clinton campaign. If you are they are wasting their money since you are too uninformed to be effective.