If there’s one certainty that emerged in the 2016 elections, it was that Hillary Clinton’s unexpected defeat stemmed from her loss of four so-called “Rust Belt” states: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, which had previously been Democratic strongholds, and Ohio, a swing state that had twice supported Barack Obama.
These guys are sure trying their hardest to give the impression that Clinton's defeat had nothing to do with her.
I suggest rather then dictate why these peoples did not vote Clinton, this author and a whole lot others like him go out and ask the people why they did note vote Clinton.
This is the problem with those deemed the "liberal elite" of the Democratic Party. They pretend to speak for the voter and know the voters reason for their vote better than the voter themself.
I read a whole pile of comments right from the voters mouths as to why they stayed home , or voted Green or went Trump and there were large numbers of the same that did not like Clinton. They did not find her trustworthy , they did not like her legacy and they did not like how she worked in conjunction with the DNC to wrest the nomination for President from Sanders in the primary.
This article smacks of an attempt to groom a Clinton for another run.
Quote from Article
Despite appeals from all quarters that the government had to step in to help homeowners in crisis by having the banks write down their mortgages, Obama and his crew chose to focus only on bailing out the banks and refrain from doing anything that would have prevented them from returning quickly to profitability.
So little was done to help 4 million homeowners avoid foreclosure that even the normally restrained National Journal called Obama’s response to the housing crisis “tepid, half-hearted, and conflicted… a disastrous approach that did little for a market in free fall or for the millions of Americans still underwater and facing foreclosure.”
At best Obama was a lying bag of shit from day one. He promised a lot and did virtually nothing. At worse, he was a plant by the conservatives. Paranoid sounding I know but certainly possible. Not only didn't Obama prosecute the banksters but for his first Attorney General he put in Eric Holder a Wall Street lawyer. Obama was widely despised by those of us who voted for him the first time but Hillary, being the tone deaf person she is was clueless about just how unpopular Obama is. The first black president was just another crooked Chicago politician/lawyer who gamed the system, spent his eight years in office protecting his corporate masters and has now left us this disaster of a human being in the White House.
I don't know about you people but I despise the Democrats just about as bad as I do the Republicans. If we are going to support a political party then we, the people, should decide who is going to run that party. Not the clueless hacks who have destroyed both of our political parties.
There is no saving the Democratic party. The elites who forced Hillary down our throats still don't understand why crooked corporate Hillary lost. You can't polish a turd. Our only hope is to build up the green party or start a true progressive party. The Democrats are just a Republican lite party.
I seriously doubt that Mr. Bello is working to groom Hillary for more political office or to soft pedal her failure. He is a renowned international economic thinker of the World Social Forum founders club. He is not excusing her, he is laying bare the failures of Obama who played too nice with Republicans and failed to be bold. This is not excusing her shortcomings as a candidate, which were numerous. She played along with all this and tried to tell people that were working three minimum wage jobs who lived in constant economic insecurity that dems had done a lot for them. Her other failings I leave to list for another time.
I agree about the conservative plant part. My favorite test for politicians is an old bible saying: "By their fruits you shall know them." That is a test I apply to all people when I evaluate them.
" It was to compromise, not confront.”: That should be on his tomb stone.
Somebody here knows more about the bailout than me, hopefully! But, as I recall, the banks' bailout was all Obama's. I'd like to know for sure however how that timing went.
As I recall Bush did start the bailout but Obama continued what Bush started and even added to the bail out of the thieving Wall Street banks when he could have easily directed help to the countless people who lost their homes and their retirement. What the banks got away with in 2008 has to be the biggest rip off of the common man of all time. It was a blatant and dramatic shift of a huge amount of wealth from the people to the wealthiest people at the top.
Also don't forget that instead of ending the wars as he promised Obama expanded them to three more countries: Somalia, Yemen and Syria. The only chance the rest of the world has is to utterly destroy this country, the military-industrial complex, the banks and the wealth hording power elite at the top. We, the United States of America, are to the world what Nazi Germany was to the world only 75 years ago only on steroids. Unfortunately the rest of us are going to suffer along with the assholes who are trying to own everything. We have to stop these people, redistribute their wealth and stamp out capitalism as if it were the Bubonic Plague. It is a plague but far worse in many ways.
Thank you for stating this. It's as if the writers of these pieces are from another planet or something.
Mr. Obama's "crowning accomplishment", even before he got elected back on October/November of 2008 was that he "reached to both sides of the aisle" to have the TARP bill passed. In what was supposed to be difficult mission to convince the two corporate parties in bailing out their corporate paymasters, Mr. Obama was supposed to have "unified the nation" even before he got elected. Voila, he became the president.
This whole talk about "reaching both sides", "we can not have a divisive country", "leaders should unify" is feel good baloney, without much substance, in a world where both parties have jointly conspired to game the system against the commons. In this case and point in time, the more divisive, the better for exposing the truth of what is happening. It is not like America is fighting its old colonial English masters.
Despite his dismal record, Mr. Obama enjoys the trust and linking of many right thinking middle class people who do not care to inform themselves well.
Well, Obama's leaving office a very popular president who I am going to miss a lot. I know here, deep in the regions of perfection, he is an atrocious warmonger bank zealot. In the real world, he's a president with faults, but not a bad one at all, especially compared with what's coming.
Oh, and Eichenwald has an interesting piece in Newsweek that covers the RNC's opposition research file on Bernie. In short, had he won the RNC planned a full out blitz to destroy him using video footage (several different videos) of him at pro-Sandinista rallies (there goes Florida); his early writings, including a fictional depiction of rape; his long term unemployment status until the age of 30; the fact he voted for 1994 crime bill; campaign finance violations; stealing electricity after not paying his bills; sponsoring a bill to ship nuclear waste to a Hispanic community in Texas; and a bunch of other stuff. These would all have been rolled out overtime, and been the talk on cable news, forcing Sanders to play defense, creating a cloud around him to make him look like an unpatriotic hypocrite. Just noting this because Sanders wasn't going to be exempt from the GOP media smear machine either.
Thank you for your response. I too am amazed so many Americans have no
idea who Obama really is. However, on the other hand, I am not amazed,
considering how many Americans are fat and sassy to this day and
unaffected apparently by Obama's lies and deceit. Most of them do not
inform themselves at all, so Obama gets away with 100% lies about almost
everything and folks think he's a saint.
iirc, it was started under Bush with Paulson, et al, and meetings. Obomber carried it on, pleasing the banksters to no end. For 8 more years.
"If there’s one certainty that emerged in the 2016 elections, it was that Hillary Clinton’s unexpected defeat stemmed from her loss of four so-called “Rust Belt” states: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, which had previously been Democratic strongholds, and Ohio, a swing state that had twice supported Barack Obama."
This and the other observations in the article would be true....if in fact we had actually had an ELECTION. We didn't. The so-called election was decided well in advance. The "votes" that were cast were mere camouflage to disguise the fact that the "election" was stolen well in advance.
Greg Palast. Greg Palast. Greg Palast. "The Election was Stolen – Here’s How…"
Thanks for that info. Ancient history now eludes me in these details.
Excerpts from Palast'
"Exit polls are the standard by which the US State Department measures the honesty of foreign elections. Exit polling is, historically, deadly accurate. The bane of pre-election polling is that pollsters must adjust for the likelihood of a person voting. Exit polls solve the problem.
But three times in US history, pollsters have had to publicly flagellate themselves for their “errors.” In 2000, exit polls gave Al Gore the win in Florida; in 2004, exit polls gave Kerry the win in Ohio, and now, in swing states, exit polls gave the presidency to Hillary Clinton.
So how could these multi-million-dollar Ph.d-directed statisticians with decades of experience get exit polls so wrong?
Answer: they didn’t. The polls in Florida in 2000 were accurate. That’s because exit pollsters can only ask, 'How did you vote?' What they don’t ask, and can’t, is, 'Was your vote counted.' "
I'll venture a guess and say that the opposition file on Hillary was several inches thicker and far more substantial than this nonsense; part of it was over at the FBI thanks to her arrogance regarding the private server and the Clinton Foundation. Ironic that she blames the public release of Comey's letter and pre-election Sunday announcement for her loss, without acknowledging that these statements came out only because of the underlying FBI investigation for which she has only herself to blame.
While it is probably true that had Bernie won the nomination Trump would have attempted to smear and would have attacked him from the right, with Clinton as candidate Trump literally stole Bernie's playbook on trade and jobs, attacked Clinton from the left on those issues, and won the election based on just over 100,000 votes in 3 Midwestern states. No one can say for sure what would have happened had Bernie been the nominee, but I'd bet on Bernie beating Trump in that scenario.
I'm not saying he wouldn't have beat Trump, I just think we've made him a saint far too quickly. I liked him, wanted him to win, but the idea he ran this great unassailable campaign only to be screwed over by the all-powerful DNC is a joke. Democrats in Congress, after the defeats of 2014, wanted DWS to go. The president kept her aboard, not Clinton. She was highly disorganized and by all sides, not a good chair at all. Yet, mysteriously, progressives have conspiracized about her controlling elections across multiple states, governed under state laws, that would include election boards, Secretary of States, county voting registrars, precinct volunteers, you name it. Exempt from the conspiracy or at least, never mentioned, are caucuses, which are party controlled and which Bernie did well in.
It's the niche conspiracy nonsense that makes progressive's look nutty. Fact is, Bernie lost by 4 million votes. Had he won, Republicans had a large oppo dump planned that would have hit him just as any other candidate.
Maybe, but she did control the debate schedule. You should also read the DNC emails published by Wikileaks. She and Podesta are not as innocent as you make out.