2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumTell me Billy Bob is not losing it. He just insulted the Obama administration.
"Put the awful legacy of the past 8 years behind us" WTF???!!
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)madamesilverspurs
(15,806 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)Clinton isn't as sharp as he used to be, apparently.
synergie
(1,901 posts)and pay attention to the little elephant on the right lower corner, and then see where the OP got her video from, and then look up "ratfucking" so you can see what's going on here.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
synergie
(1,901 posts)simple fact as the source and have been hurling abuse all night.
Also, check out HA HA's twitter feed, he's not only losing it, but he's being spanked by several intelligent progressives. Very amusing. There are a lot of rather hilarious tantrums happening here, apparently digging in on CT and attacking people pointing out their mistake is the way they're choosing to handle this, the Sanders camp apparently went to slimy, low level last night. They were tweeting the America Rising PAC's version. So much for Bernie not loving his Super PAC which keeps helping him out!
Making ads, editing Bill, they're so very helpful!
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I looked up rat-fucking a long time ago. They had two Sith names associated with it... Lee Atwater and David Brock.
jillan
(39,451 posts)saying the LAST Republican administration he said the LAST 8 years.
Big difference!!
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)The source: the GOP war room and the little elephant should have been a little tell that you might be being lied to.
Pay attention and then perhaps a guy who's far more sharp and intelligent than most people in the world, won't seem to be "losing it" to you.
There is indeed a big difference between what he said and what the RW video makes it seem like he said.
Mike__M
(1,052 posts)on the awful obstructionism because . . .
Loki
(3,825 posts)n/t
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Seriously? So Freeperish. Get a grip.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)Not very creative either, because Billy Jeff, while equally silly, would have made more sense.
dubyadiprecession
(5,720 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)That was a really stupid thing to say. And absolutely shocking that he did not catch himself after he said it.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Didn't you pay attention to what happened and what Bill said?????
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)And Republican obstructionism will double down with Hillary.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)So it was 8.
Obstructionism in the Senate dies with this Congress. The filibuster is a guaranteed goner.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Dems could easily outvote GOP except for Dems bribed to obstruct ACA like Lieberman, etc.
And the GOP will continue obstructing Clinton with a vengeance if she's elected. Impeachment hearings will begin before she's even sworn in.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Sixty legislative days when there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and Obama accomplished more in those sixty days than FDR accomplished in his entire first term.
The entire rest of the administration saw constant Republican obstructionism on everything.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)to welcome a Bernie administration by all of a sudden agreeing to everything he wants? Just how delusional are the Bernie supporters if you believe that bullshit?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)I don't know of anyone who has said there will be no obstruction. Do you?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)What the fuck is that? And a Bernie supporter just got a fit of the vapors from me using bad language. And perhaps you could supply a link or two at any Hillary supporter saying there will be no obstruction. Go ahead, I'll wait.
SDJay
(1,089 posts)I can't believe he'd openly say that about PBO. If this is accurate and he actually meant that slam towards President Obama, I find that stunning and shameful.
*edit* I see from earlier responses that he was talking about the repukes in Congress. That makes a lot more sense and I agree with him.
jillan
(39,451 posts)BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)Referring to the last 8 years as "awful" kind of breaks from the party line on this so called economic recovery doesn't it?
SDJay
(1,089 posts)but it's still a whole lot different than openly crapping on PBO. That's not what happened here.
I also don't agree that HRC is some sort of change agent. The only way she'd get things done with the repukes is to agree with them. That's what's going to happen. I guess you could call that "change" in a way, even though it isn't.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)...it is dog whistles for the general, attempting to appeal to republicans
SamKnause
(13,108 posts)Just say no to the Bush family.
Just say no to the Clinton family.
The death and destruction these 2 families have caused this
country and the world is incalculable !!!
Just go away !!!!!!!!!!!!
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)was to give them just about everything they wanted
Media Deregulation
Free trade deals
Welfare Reform
Wall St deregulation
SamKnause
(13,108 posts)That is what we are being told day after day.
They are both con artists in my book.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)Kind of shocking to see him say this in public, particularly if he knew he was being recorded. Maybe he is losing it. He sounds and looks feeble.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)Not a high dollar fundraiser. I wonder if there are any pictures of the crowd. From the sound of his voice on the clip I heard it seems to have been a very small audience.
insta8er
(960 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Try again.
H2O Man
(73,581 posts)Recommended.
Not surprisingly, some friend just "alerted" on this. I'll post the jury results when I get them.
jillan
(39,451 posts)H2O Man
(73,581 posts)who seek to silence the pro-Bernie community.
H2O Man
(73,581 posts)Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This post is not only "okay," it is important. Hence, the attempt to silence it.
-- H2O Man
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I am a Hillary supporter, and what Bill Clinton said was about republican obstructionism, NOT President Obama. While I disagree with the OPs interpretation, in no way does it merit a hide. This should be discussed and debated in a civil fashion, and referring to Bill Clinton as Billy Bob borders on flame bait, but again I don't think it merits a hide.
desmiller
(747 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)but ... please show the desperation of taking words out of context and spinning them.
Such an "authentic" campaign it is!
jillan
(39,451 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)in desperation .......
jillan
(39,451 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)agreements with the Republicans, that is why I worry...........
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Or will he have a 61 member senate democratic contingent and 220 house democrats so he won't have to make any agreements?
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)saying if elected..... I'm a right center POTUS who will bend to what the Republicans want......it's true it's true!!!!!
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)with Hillary and her true nature....being a Centrist or Republican lite as some may say. She even said it herself, this was before Bernie was a threat of course.
kcjohn1
(751 posts)Direct comparison between Bush years and Obama years. What obstructionlism is he talking about during the Bush years? Makes no sense.
Clinton is now running her general strategy where she is going to pivot "center" and try to get "moderate" voters by appealing to 90s, and how we had bipartisanship, and she wants to put the divisive years of Obama behind us.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)You mean like Glass-Steagal which you trash-canned and your wife says she won't restore? Those type of lack of regulations?
I think Bill is losing it.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)He's talking about economic policy. Obama's. Have you noticed that lately Hillary and Bill have been pushing the economic gains during Bill's administration. Just prior to this clip he talks about everyone rising for the first time since the 90's
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)Like how the Bushites ran on the Happy Daze of the 80's
But it was a completely different economy back in the 90's...
How do they think they're going to capitalize on that kind of nostalgia, after many lost so badly?
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)that electing Hillary will bring the 90's back. It won't.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--I'd like to have some sort of rebuttal to it. Problem is I can hardly understand thinking that way.
Is it based on nostalgia and wishful thinking, or some obscure fact I am missing?
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)When in reality, it was the internet.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)people don't really want to go back to those times and really evaluate it.
global1
(25,263 posts)embrace Obama when necessary and then criticize him when necessary. I guess you can have it both ways.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Is to have one or more Hillary supporters stand next to Bill -- pretty much like sign-language interpreters -- and tell us what he's really saying when he talks. Otherwise, we might have to take his words at face value.
GreenPartyVoter
(72,381 posts)GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)His implied trashing of Obama aside, he should have said "last 7 years and the 8 before that."
He kind of seems to catch it with the '7 years thing' added on but he still has the year spans backwards and does not correct himself.
jillan
(39,451 posts)correct himself, laugh at his gaffe - he had no clue. He should have realized it when he continued with the 7 years before that.
That was two gaffes in one. And he didn't catch either of them.
We all say stupid stuff, but usually we catch ourselves or see the expression of the person(s) to we are speaking to stop and say - what did I just say?
Nothing, nada, he just kept on talking.
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)and some blame went to Bill:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jun/04/hillaryclinton.uselections20084
He said "eight years" which seems of course like a slip but I can't read his mind. Maybe the "disaster" for him was waiting 8 additional years to get back to the WH.
Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)Big fail, Bill! And you should know better than to slam Obama after everything Hillary has said praising him (for the black vote).
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)The amount of time don't add up "8 years...7 years before that..." what is he talking about?
Don't tell me it's "republican obstructionism" because that doesn't even fit with those dates, and moreover, how are Republicans obstructing Obama and "awful legacy" when their obstruction of him (and Hillary's presidency if it happens) something different? She's a changemaker but Obama isn't? And who the fuck were the Republicans obstructing in the "7 years before that?"
I think he got confused and just babbled out some words he didn't think about. I hope so.
reddread
(6,896 posts)they never miss a chance to pander to the diversity challenged crowd, in some deniable manner.
which is why they came out of the gate charging/inferring/hyping racism elsewhere.
such simple measures, is anyone fooled?
dumb as Ive seen some people to be, how stupid do you have to be?
seriously.
there has to be a number.
kenn3d
(486 posts)But Bill is losing it.
When you speak of the "legacy of the last 8 years" ... you're speaking about Presidential legacy, not Congressional legacy. And then conflating (or blending) that into the Bush legacy makes that meaning all the more clear.
I also don't like his deflection of the "no regulation in Washington... which is what caused the crash". HE was responsible for that. She helped him with all that deregulation, and WallSt is still ever so grateful to them both.
But I believe that despite his being prone to gaffes, there will be a gradual tendency to divorce Hillary from Obama anyway, as she lurches evermore right-ward toward the GE. They believe the nomination is secure and they really don't have to wrap her in Barack's lovin' arms so much now.
We'll see.
procon
(15,805 posts)Why is anyone using rightwing sources to trash Democrats? And it sounds like something taken out of context from the 2008 election.
Rightwing blogger Jim Hoft runs the GOP War Room, a guy that Media Matters named the Dumbest Man on the Internet for his record of dishonesty and incompetence... the bad photoslopping is a hint, yeah? Yet someone on DU is searching through the Internet for anti-Hillary stuff on Republican websites to C&P on DU.
muntrv
(14,505 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)do they? Beyond playing nice in public.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)I think there's no love lost.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)This from 2013 is a pretty good example of well=orchestrated political kabuki. They had to get along at that point. Still, not surprised at Bill's slight, I doubt it went unnoticed.
senz
(11,945 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)And there was no slight. More orchestrated vid clip pot stirring. Bill was talking about congressional obstruction.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)I watched the video. He was clearly making a comparison with the current presidency and his presidency. I think it was a slip. He did not make reference to congressional obstruction in the clip--if he had it would STILL cast Obama in a bad light. Repeat--he lumped Obama in with Dubya.
You have got to see the truth of that.
So I think the Clintons should do some damage control--clarify this themselves. It's very embarassing. I think they think THEY can do MUCH better than Obama. And that was the intended meaning.
Is there a link to the whole speech anywhere? Never mind, that would be edited by now anyway.
IMO only the Clintons can attempt to walk this back. Supporters can't do much. Pundits can't do much. Bill Clinton will need to clarify (ie. spin) it.
senz
(11,945 posts)but Hill supporters don't want Democrats to know that.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)This is where she will attack all things liberal to appeal to the republicans (who would never vote for a Clinton).
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Do we have another former Prez who is losing it? Or did he never forgive Obama for defeating Hillary?
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)pretty much unrestrained, not much to do, wife always gone...what could go wrong. A leopard can not change its spots.
kenn3d
(486 posts)Seems to me he's verging on incoherent in many of his public appearances lately.
It's a potentially serious liability to her campaign, and perhaps could become an even more fearful liability in the WH should he become the First Dude. Face it, if she's elected we're gonna have a dual-presidency... (again).
senz
(11,945 posts)He and Hill probably talk that way all the time in private.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--the real story is behind the scenes. Babblin' Billy can't quite contain himself.
The Clintons are so arrogant. So competitive and grasping.
Of course Obama has to put up with a lot of people like that. Doesn't mean he likes them.
I'm sure there's fallout from her time as SOS, not to mention their previous rivalry as candidates.
I doubt the Obamas would be applauding her current run for president, even though they might concur on some political positions.
Not hard to tell a relationship of convenience.
----------------
This is relevant--Posted by Peace Patriot in GDP:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1251&pid=1548751
"People are getting better informed about her, and the more they find out, the less they like her: her corruption of the Sec of State's office with pay-to-play at the Clinton Foundation, her use of her own email server for those transactions as well as getting classified info from a man with no security clearance whom Obama had banned from the administration--Sydney Blumenthal; her use of Henry Kissinger as an adviser, for godssakes, AND Robert (chief neocon) Kagan! (want wars much? Jeez!); her waffling on all major issues (now she's for the TPP and says it's the "gold standard" of trade agreements, now she's against it, sort of, etc.). Not trustworthy. Not honest. Sent her own daughter out in the media to lie about Sanders' health care plan. $200,000+ speeches to Goldman Sachs, of all the scumbags in the world! There are just SO MANY reasons to conclude that she is simply NOT the candidate of the 99% that Democrats are supposed to be (and have been historically)."
senz
(11,945 posts)All of what you write and what PP wrote match my observations of the Clinton-Obama relationship. It's good to know that others see the situation exactly as I do.
Obama is not free to say what he thinks of Hill. Clearly, political deals have been made. Certainly the Clintons have put pressure on Obama ever since he won the presidency.
Here's something I want to share:
After the killing of bin Laden, there was film footage of the celebration within the Capitol (or wherever it was that they watched the raid) with President Obama walking through the assembled group of people thanking and congratulating them. His body language was good with everyone except Hill. When he approached Hillary, the camera showed her face and she looked extremely hurt and angry with her mouth in a pout and a very dark expression in her eyes. He didn't shake her hand or touch her at all; he just said, in a very rote way, something like, "Thank you, State Department," and went past her. I was stunned; this was proof of the strained relationship between the two -- and also raised questions about what happened with the raid. I thought about it a lot afterwards
A few months ago I searched for the footage and found it -- except the part where Obama approaches Hill had been altered: it showed the back of a blonde woman wearing the same clothes that Hill had been wearing but the hair looked different from Hill's hair, and it showed Obama hugging her, all from the back of her head. I swear, it looked like the footage had been altered.
So I just wanted to tell someone about it. Maybe some time I'll research more extensively, or maybe some genius reading this could do it better.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)that pix have been altered, text has been "refreshed," things have been fixed. It's so easy to wipe the e-slates. And the Clinton machine would have every motivation to make sure it's done. People don't want to see the implications.
Those "coattails" hmmmmmm--I think the only coattails they want to ride are their own. Carefully distancing from the "awful" Obama legacy. Nice. They don't need him any more except to hand over the keys they think. And send roses for Hillary's final victory.
I swear Bill sounds like a loon in this clip--maybe it's good that lots of people are viewing it.
"Thank you State Department" -- you weren't supposed to see that, or remember it Good catch senz. You seem like a good researcher to me. New media has a lot of very interesting ways to thwart Truth.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)He was making the case for Hillary being someone who is a genuine change-maker. Meaning that he was promoting her ability to work with both sides of the aisle to effect real change. Both Clinton's strongly supported President Obama by campaigning for him and praising his= accomplishments and working toward those accomplishments and assisting him when he requested. I wish we had more leftists and progressives and democrats who can be team players like they are because that is how we really improve our country.
Yes, he probably should have said 'the last eight years of republican obstructionism.' He didn't. I don't know if he's 'losing it.' Or if he just made a mistake as all people do from time to time. It's very clear from everything else he has ever said in his entire adult life that he would not call Obama's legacy 'awful.' He would call the republican obstructionism during
I wish self-described Sanders supporters wouldn't fall so easily for right wing memes like the video that you posted. It makes them look right wing or dishonest or ignorant. It reflects poorly on the candidate they claim to support. It also looks like they hate Clinton more than they care about helping keep our country from drifting further right wing by preventing republicans from gaining the presidency.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)2 Minutes of Bernie > 2 hours of Bill Clinton when it comes to substance.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)When what he said needs to be explained, interpreted, excused, spun, re-framed,... then clearly the HRC supporters don't like what he actually said one bit, so they have to twist it into something other than exactly what he said.
desmiller
(747 posts)This is absolutely inexcusable. You all cannot defend the indefensible. This man is really talking about the man whom your candidate constantly mentions every time she speaks. If you support Obama, then you should offended by this. It's like back to square one when Obama was running for the position he's in now.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)He's not even interesting anymore.
It's just more garbage about how him and his wife are so terrific, and why don't we all know that already bullshit.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)And I don't care. All I want to say on that issue is he has been at this long enough that he should know how what he said would be taken. Yet, he said it anyway. I can only conclude he actually did mean to be insulting he just wanted to build in plausible deniability.
synergie
(1,901 posts)been your first clue that you were indeed being ratfucked. Many BS supporters seem to be too busy hearing whatever they wish to hear, and crowing about it, to bother checking their sources, some have taken up editing on their own, and still ended up failing badly.
If your only arguments are RW smears, you should realize the precariousness of your position in trying to make a coherent argument against the candidate the keeps beating yours.
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/03/no-bill-clinton-did-not-describe-obama
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)tells everyone here everything they need to know about this pathetically desperate post. The GOP war room. You should hang your head in shame.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)That's not what was meant.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)I have avoided calling your candidate "BS" out of respect. I always call him Sanders, or SBS. But maybe I'll call him BS from now on
tabasco
(22,974 posts)he'd be a figment of somebody's imagination.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)You just have at it.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Plus, he left out some bad shit from his own eight years that I wished had never been passed, in addition to the over-blown fall out after lying about who he was fooling around with.