I'm curious how those on the left view this article. https://www.axios.com/team-hillary-still-blames-obama-2227724004.html
Irrelevant. There's no one reason why she lost. The party needs to make changes quickly and leave the Clinton's behind in the dust.
LOL, axios.com. Amazing how many of these right wing "news sites" that are popping up. Yet all Trump fans do is complain about the news...
There is still a team Clinton? I think she is enjoying her books and dogs. Some may love to see her attempting a comeback and have some type of voice. Not happening. Move on.
Au contraire. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...city-mayor-she-should/?utm_term=.4bbd132abf17 Hillary Clinton won’t rule out running for New York mayor. She should.
I've never heard of Axios, so my reaction is I don't really believe them. You gotta watch out on the internet these days. They've got a quote from a Clinton campaign official that says if Obama had done more, Clinton would still have lost but wouldn't feel as aggrieved. So, the writer's conclusion then is that Clinton blames Obama more than anyone else for her loss. That doesn't make sense. What from the evidence presented in the article would lead you to that conclusion? The source material quoted just said Obama couldn't change the outcome. They assert some stuff about how Clintonites and Democrats feel, but there's no survey and no quotes or even identified Clintonites to back it up. Even within the logic of the self-contained article it makes no sense. Beyond that, who would care anyway? Obama isn't in office. Clinton isn't in office. Democrats don't have a majority in House or Senate or Supreme Court or Presidency or of state governorships or of state congresses. Nowhere. If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?
Axios is a news site by former Politico employees, so it's probably valid even if we have never heard of it. Clinton would not have gained voters if Obama pushed Trump was being backed by Russian efforts. Trump would not have gained voters. Clinton lost because the midwest was charmed by the end of NAFTA, the promise of a return to the "glory days", and ending refugees from the Middle East. She overwhelmingly won the popular vote while still managing to lose the electoral college by 80,000 votes.
Hillary still has voodoo over conservatives. At this point, beating the Hillary horse seems to be the thing most satisfying for you trump flunkies to talk about. Sad.
The biggest problem was that Hilary was the candidate. Neither she or Bernie should have been the nominee. No one else was given a chance.
Ed Klein reports the same thing, if you'll believe him. The Clintons and Obama sort of signed a contract in 2011 when Obama was campaigning for re-election. Obama asked Clinton, particularly Bill, to campaign for him, though he really didn't want to as Bill hated him at that point for pulling the race card on him and Hillary in 08. The two men had a very antagonistic relationship. Of course, Bill, being a genius politician, managed to ring some promises back, including Obama campaigning for Hillary during her run. He gave that address to the DNC that was applauded by liberals - an address that was as carefully crafted to make Obama appealing as it was to upstage the president(, remember Bill hates the guy and wanted to show him that he was the better man). Bill made the speech to make Obama out as a centrist like him, rather than the radical leftist he and the Democrats are today. His mistake was thinking Obama was man enough to stick to his word. After election, Bill was effectively shut off from communications with the White House. Obama wouldn't take his calls and when he did get through, Obama gave him the process. Bill described it as Obama reading off notes to tell him, thanks for your work but I ain't giving you ****. Bill hang up on him. He never forgave him. But that speaks out more to the quality of man Obama is. Bill considers him an amateur. It's been made a point about how Obama is probablly one of the least qualified people to take the office, being a community organizer and, after that, a college professor who was barely in any faculty meetings but it's not just that - it's the way he handles people. Klein has another book about Obama where he tells how many people Obama used and left to dry afterwards, a lot of black people especially. Jeremiah Wright, for all the controversy around him, was his mentor who gave him the network to get into politics and taught him black liberation theology which is incredibly rife in his speeches and Obama shut him out completely after he became baggage. Obama also never went went back to all the people who funded his campaigns to just ask how they were doing. The guy was terrible. Back in 08, I didn't really like McCain but I actually wanted Hillary to win. Hillary was at least centrist at that point. We wouldn't have had this terrible atmosphere of political correctness today if she had won. Bill is actually a competent president and, on the assumption that Hillary would have let him, would have, I believe, fixed the economy, to some degree, not as much as Trump will, though. Oh well, water under the bridge. Those people have nothing to blame but themselves. No way should the country be made to pay the consequences for a few people's egos.
While I'm not familiar with the website, and certainly wouldn't hand all the blame to Obama, I agree with the gist of the column. I was bewildered that Obama didn't come out early on this story. It would have helped if he had, and in an election as close as this one, it could have made a difference. He could also have hammered Comey immediately when he pulled his incredibly biased stunts in his attempt to influence the election. So yes, President Obama could have handled those issues differently and should have, in my humble opinion. I'm not attempting to take blame from Clinton's poorly run campaign, and I'm not getting into what I wish she had done differently, but it is amazingly simplistic, and wrong, to simply say that "she did it to herself."
Bubba's 30 minute rendezvous with Loretta Lynch, presumably over being a soccer mom, soured any overt action that solidified the optics against impartiality and for rigging to the point where they walked on eggshells. Of course with the new Trump normal, this would've been business as usual.
Clintons never want to take responsibility. I guess it was Monica's fault that he came on the blue dress, instead of swallowing. It was Obama's fault Hillary setup that email server and that she didn't visit Wisconsin or Michigan for MONTHS.
Obama perfected the art of keeping his hands clean from any controversy, sans racial issues. Obama is still young and Hillary is toxic. He was staying as far away from Hillary as possible w/out making it seem like he wasn't being a team player. There was no value added to get more involved when Hillary was thought to have the election in the bag. Wise move considering she lost.
But would it really make a difference? We ALL KNEW that Russia was involved in the hacking and was interfering. That was already made known publicly and played itself out. Obama repeating this is a two edged sword - a bit more re-focused attention on the hacking and interference, and an opening for GOP to attack -> look, they playing politic at the WH - party over country. I don't think it would make much of a difference either way. Hindsight is great, but the DEM did go after Comey immediately and hard, which extended the coverage of it. The other strategy might have been, instead of going after Comney, re-assure the public there is nothing new here and that the GOP congressmen was playing politic. That probably was the better strategy in hindsight. What is more likely to have an impact is not that Russia was involved in the hacking and was interfering, but that Russia was actively swaying the election to Trump (and all the Trump team tie to Russia). That would get lot of coverage and probably would make a difference. And if winning at all costs is the path, Obama should go that path. Why didn't he - maybe because there wasn't enough data to justify something publicly yet about Russia trying to sway the election to Trump. And so, not enough to justify taking any actions toward Russia. If you believe the CIA/FBI/NSA acts independently of the executive branch, their timeline is what you go with and it showed that there wasn't enough info until after the election. So you know, for that WH, it was country first, party second. p.s. I'm very doubtful of the story. The right would love to see Clinton involved again, but it's not happening.
