Bernie Sanders can hang it up, NYT endorses Hillary Clinton

I figured this was coming:

For the past painful year, the Republican presidential contenders have been bombarding Americans with empty propaganda slogans and competing, bizarrely, to present themselves as the least experienced person for the most important elected job in the world. Democratic primary voters, on the other hand, after a substantive debate over real issues, have the chance to nominate one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.

Hillary Clinton would be the first woman nominated by a major party. She served as a senator from a major state (New York) and as secretary of state — not to mention her experience on the national stage as first lady with her brilliant and flawed husband, President Bill Clinton. The Times editorial board has endorsed her three times for federal office — twice for Senate and once in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary — and is doing so again with confidence and enthusiasm.

Mrs. Clinton’s main opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist, has proved to be more formidable than most people, including Mrs. Clinton, anticipated. He has brought income inequality and the lingering pain of the middle class to center stage and pushed Mrs. Clinton a bit more to the left than she might have gone on economic issues. Mr. Sanders has also surfaced important foreign policy questions, including the need for greater restraint in the use of military force.

In the end, though, Mr. Sanders does not have the breadth of experience or policy ideas that Mrs. Clinton offers. His boldest proposals — to break up the banks and to start all over on health care reform with a Medicare-for-all system — have earned him support among alienated middle-class voters and young people. But his plans for achieving them aren’t realistic, while Mrs. Clinton has very good, and achievable, proposals in both areas.

The third Democratic contender, Martin O’Malley, is a personable and reasonable liberal who seems more suited for the jobs he has already had — governor of Maryland and mayor of Baltimore — than for president. Source: Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination – The New York Times

It is basically over now for Barnie; the NYT carries a good deal of weight with the establishment left. I just do not see Barnie Sanders beating Clinton now.

Others: JustOneMinute, Politico, The Daily Caller, Advocate, Business Insider, The Slot, Mediaite, New York’s PIX11, The Week and Washington Post

Audio: Obama talks about Iowa, Hillary, Sanders and 2016

The full audio:

The Story via Politico:

Barack Obama, that prematurely gray elder statesman, is laboring mightily to remain neutral during Hillary Clinton’s battle with Bernie Sanders in Iowa, the state that cemented his political legend and secured his path to the presidency.

But in a candid 40-minute interview for POLITICO’s Off Message podcast as the first flakes of the blizzard fell outside the Oval Office, he couldn’t hide his obvious affection for Clinton or his implicit feeling that she, not Sanders, best understands the unpalatable pragmatic demands of a presidency he likens to the world’s most challenging walk-and-chew-gum exercise.

“[The] one thing everybody understands is that this job right here, you don’t have the luxury of just focusing on one thing,” a relaxed and reflective Obama told me in his most expansive discussion of the 2016 race to date.

Iowa isn’t just a state on the map for Obama. It’s the birthplace of his hope-and-change phenomenon, “the most satisfying political period in my career,” he says — “what politics should be” — and a bittersweet reminder of how far from the garden he’s gotten after seven bruising years in the White House.

The caucuses have a fierce-urgency-of-now quality as Obama reckons with the end of his presidency — the kickoff of a process of choosing a Democratic successor he hopes can secure his as-yet unsecured legacy, to keep Donald Trump or Ted Cruz or somebody else from undoing much of what he has done. And he was convinced Clinton was that candidate, prior to the emergence of Sanders, friends and associates have told me over the past 18 months.

“Bernie came in with the luxury of being a complete long shot and just letting loose,” he said. “I think Hillary came in with the both privilege — and burden — of being perceived as the front-runner. … You’re always looking at the bright, shiny object that people haven’t seen before — that’s a disadvantage to her.”

He also spoke of Bernie Sanders:

Obama didn’t utter an unkind word about Sanders, who has been respectfully critical of his administration’s reluctance to prosecute Wall Street executives and his decision to abandon a single-payer health care system as politically impractical. But he was kinder to Clinton. When I asked Obama whether he thought Sanders needed to expand his horizons, if the Vermont senator was too much a one-issue candidate too narrowly focused on income inequality, the presidente didn’t dispute the assertion.

Gesturing toward the Resolute Desk, with its spread-winged eagle seal, first brought into the Oval Office by John F. Kennedy, Obama said of Sanders: “Well, I don’t want to play political consultant, because obviously what he’s doing is working. I will say that the longer you go in the process, the more you’re going to have to pass a series of hurdles that the voters are going to put in front of you.”

Then he added: “As you’ll recall, I was sitting at my desk there just a little over a week ago … writing my State of the Union speech, and somebody walks in and says, ‘A couple of our sailors wandered into Iranian waters’” — and here he stopped to chuckle in disbelief — “that’s maybe a dramatic example, but not an unusual example of the job.”

As much as I hate to say it; President Obama is correct about that one. The office of the President of the United States is a very difficult job and it requires someone who can handle the job. While Bernie Sanders might be a respectable person and all; if I were voting in a Democratic Primary, there is no way that I would vote for Bernie Sanders, I would most likely vote for Hillary Clinton. Because she has already been there and she seems, for a Democrat, a bit more reasonable, than Bernie Sanders.

Needless to say, being an ideologue is great; if you are an activist or even maybe a Senator. However, when you are the commander and chief, that is a whole other ballgame and there is a certain amount of pragmatism is required in that office, if you actually want to succeed at the job. You have to remember, when you are President; you are President of the people of the United States of America, not just the President of the people who voted for you. You have to take into account everyone, not just those who voted for you. This is why I am not too keen on Ted Cruz; he is an extreme ideologue on the right, where Bernie Sander is an extreme ideologue on the left.

This is where I think Donald Trump might just be the more pragmatic candidate, who might just be able to get things done in DC and put aside some of this partisan rancor that has become so terrible under Bush and Obama. Now, if we could just work on his humility and get him to stop retweeting stuff like this here.

Other Bloggers: Vox, The Daily Beast, USA Today, Yahoo Politics, John Hawkins’ Right Wing News, Mother Jones, Talking Points Memo, Hot Air, The Daily Caller, Washington Post, ABC News, Shakesville, Slantpoint and The Week – Via Memeorandum

Bernie Sanders and DNC reach “an accord”

Well, that was quick. I guess the lawsuit and big dust up were avoided.

Washington Post reports:

The presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont filed a lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee on Friday, arguing that the party had unfairly suspended the campaign’s access to key voter information. After several tense hours, both sides announced a deal had been reached.

The suit came shortly after campaign manager Jeff Weaver acknowledged at a Washington news conference that Sanders staffers had improperly reviewed information gathered by rival Hillary Clinton earlier in the week. But he accused the DNC of overreacting to the breach by suspending the Sanders campaign’s ability to access the computer system containing information about Democratic-leaning voters, including data the campaign has gathered about its own supporters.

After midnight, Sanders and the DNC put out statements that both indicated the impasse had been resolved but that put remarkably different spins on the outcome. Sanders’s campaign said the DNC had “capitulated” and that Sanders would soon regain access to the data. The DNC said what happened was “completely unacceptable” and that it would continue to investigate the circumstances even as Sanders regained access to the valuable information.

I have two theories about why the DNC decided to settle. One is that the DNC is about broke and going to war with Sanders, who is obviously no pauper; would have bankrupted the Party. Two, is that if Sanders had been shut out; He would have ran as an independent, which would have resulted in chaos and would have ruined the Democrats ability to even win the election – thereby ruining Hillary’s chances. You have to realize, Bernie Sanders is getting the support of the disillusioned Obama supporters who feel that Obama and Democrats sold them up the river.

Believe me when I tell you this; I know all about that feeling of being sold up the river. I have mentioned this before; but, my Father is a retired G.M. worker and a member of the local UAW chapter here in Detroit. Back in the 1990’s when NAFTA was signed into law, by Bill Clinton; there were many people around these parts, who felt that the Democrats and Clinton, had sold them up the river. I and my family were one of those people.

So, I totally understand how they feel. I also know that this feeling was one of the motivations for me giving up on the Democratic Party. I mean, I honestly felt sold up the river; as a white guy, of southern heritage being called a “slope-headed racist,” It just made me think that my family and myself were sold up the river at the cost of getting Obama elected. Which is pretty ironic, considering the fact that Obama has basically sold most of the people, that elected him, up the river – in the name of global trade.

Which is precisely why I am at the political stance that I am now. I am conservative on social issues: Abortion is murder, homosexuality is morally wrong. You have to realize, that back, as recent as 30 years ago; these positions were pretty much mainstream Democratic Party positions; needless to say, that has changed, quite a bit in the last 30 years. The question is: What changed? It was not me, that is for sure. What changed: They did. The Democrats changed, not me. They are the ones who moved further to the left; not me.

I also, since filing for bankruptcy in 2004; have become a bit of a fiscal conservative too. Losing one’s livelihood will do that to a guy.

Either way, I am glad they settled; I would like to see Hillary fight for her quest to become the DNC’s nominee. To see it just handed to her, is against what that party supposedly stands for.

Others: Associated Press, TalkLeft and Power Line (via Memeorandum)

The DNC figures out a way to kneecap Bernie Sanders

I figured this was coming, I just didn’t know how they were going to do it.

Washington Post reports:

Video:

Story:

Officials with the Democratic National Committee have accused the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders of improperly accessing confidential voter information gathered by the rival campaign of Hillary Clinton, according to several party officials.

Jeff Weaver, the Vermont senator’s campaign manager, acknowledged that a staffer had viewed the information but blamed a software vendor hired by the DNC for a glitch that allowed access. Weaver said one Sanders staffer was fired over the incident.

The discovery sparked alarm at the DNC, which promptly shut off the Sanders campaign’s access to the strategically crucial list of likely Democratic voters.

The DNC maintains the master list and rents it to national and state campaigns, which then add their own, proprietary information gathered by field workers and volunteers. Firewalls are supposed to prevent campaigns from viewing data gathered by their rivals.

NGP VAN, the vendor that handles the master file, said the incident occurred Wednesday while a patch was being applied to the software. The process briefly opened a window into proprietary information from other campaigns, said the company’s chief, Stu Trevelyan. He said a full audit will be conducted.

The DNC has told the Sanders campaign that it will not be allowed access to the data again until it provides an explanation as well as assurances that all Clinton data has been destroyed.

Having his campaign cut off from the national party’s voter data is a strategic setback for Sanders — and could be a devastating blow if it lasts. The episode also raises questions about the DNC’s ability to provide strategic resources to campaigns and state parties.

It looks like the DNC is bound and determined to have Hillary Clinton be the nominee for President of the United States for the Democrats and they will stop at nothing to get her elected; including have a vendor purposely allow the Sanders campaign access a database, then penalize him for it.

It is a passive way to getting the old man to just leave the race, without resorting to being rude or worse, being labelled an anti-Semite. However, don’t you think that the Jewish media isn’t watching this; because they are, very much so. Needless to say, this should be very, very, interesting to watch play out in the media.

Something tells me however, that Sanders won’t reach for the Semite card at all. This is not to say that some of his surrogates will not. As you see the video above, lawsuits are already being threatened. As they say in lawyer speak, discovery is a bitch.

Others: Talking Points Memo, ABC News, blog.ngpvan.com, Bloomberg Business,Guardian, Engadget, addictinginfo.org, Hot Air, Politico, New York Times, Common Dreams,Syracuse Post-Standard, CNN, The Daily Caller, Raw Story, Jewish Telegraphic Agency,NBC News, Shakesville, Althouse, abc13.com, Business Insider and U.S. Uncut (Via Memeorandum)

Is the DNC trying to stifle the Democratic debates?

It sure seems that way.

The neocon Weekly Standard writes:

Bill Hyers, a senior strategist in the Martin O’Malley presidential campaign, is calling the new Democratic debate schedule “less democratic.”

“By inserting themselves into the debate process, the DNC has ironically made it less democratic. The schedule they have proposed does not give voters—nationally, and especially in early states—ample opportunity to hear from the Democratic candidates for President. If anything, it seems geared toward limiting debate and facilitating a coronation, not promoting a robust debate and primary process,” Hyers writes.

“Rather than giving the appearance of rigging the process and cutting off debate, the DNC should take themselves out of the process. They should let individual and truly independent news, political, and community organizations create their own debates and allow the Democratic candidates for President to participate. There is a long, proud tradition of voters in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire getting to hear early and often from candidates for President—the DNC schedule kills that tradition, and we shouldn’t stand for it.”

The Democrats have only six debates scheduled.

There is a reason for this; and I have to explain this one a bit. There are two factions in the Democratic Party, as in the Republican Party. There is the grassroots left, which is made of the normal people, who actually vote and are involved with progressive politics on the ground and the other faction —- the establishment or corporate left.

Hillary Clinton is the establishment candidate, she is seen as the electable one for the Democratic Party. She has money, funding and name recognition. Needless to say, the Party will be totally behind her. For the record, Barack Obama was seen as a grassroots candidate, when he was running. However, as time went on, it was very clear to many on the left; that he was just another establishment type.

Bernie Sanders however, is a grassroots progressive, he is not a part of the corporate left or establishment left. Bernie Sanders has tapped into the grassroots left, who feel that the Democratic Party establishment has sold them out. Donald Trump is doing the same very thing in the Republican Party with the conservative grassroots.

Martin O’Malley has a point and a very good one. However, if you think that the Democratic Party is going to stand by and risk loosing an election to some no-name candidate or some grassroots candidate, you are very highly mistaken. The Democrats have much to lose in the election. They already know that they are going to take hits in some red states; so, they are going to do everything they can to put forward the best candidate for the general election. The Democrats learned their lessons from 1968 and they are not about to implode again like they did then.

Bernie Sanders will not make it to the general election, I can assure you of that. The gatekeepers in that party will see to that; you watch and see. Neither will Donald Trump, as the GOP has too much to lose; they screwed it up last time, they will not do it again.

Video: The Hillary Clinton Presser on EmailGate

(Via Memeorandum)

The video on Emailgate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho7D2mUu0hQ

Needless to say, not many people on the right; including AllahPundit over at HotAir.com:

This whole presser was her own personal expression of the “who gives a sh*t” non-spin that Democrats have been pushing for the past week. There’s no defense to what she did. She did it to evade accountability, at great risk to national security, and everyone understands it. The plan here isn’t to explain it away; there’s no explanation. The plan is to feign accountability by giving a presser, even if it’s a trainwreck, and then wait for the media to get bored in the knowledge that voters, supposedly, will simply say “who gives a sh*t.” She might as well have walked out there today, said that, and then walked off. If Democrats can’t field a primary challenger to her after this disaster, they deserve her.

I’m now moving the 2016 election from “likely Democratic” to “toss-up.” At least Bill is a good liar.

I am going to watch this video, and I’ll give you my thoughts in an update to this blog posting.

Update: Okay, I watched the video. Here is my opinion on this: This is a nothing-burger. If she is telling the truth, then Republicans, if they are smart, will let this drop. To me, this is beginning to look like a partisan witch hunt.

I mean, just look at Allahpundit’s remarks here:

Her team had a week to cook up some spin and this diarrhea is what they came up with?

It got worse. She admitted that she deleted e-mails — lots of them, although she insists that they were personal ones and therefore she wasn’t required to turn them over to State. For instance, she said, sometimes she e-mails with Bill. How do we know she’s telling the truth about that? We don’t. You’ll have to trust her. (Incidentally, Bill says he doesn’t use e-mail. Oops!) Will she turn over her server for independent analysis and verification that there’s nothing on there? Nope. “The server will remain private.” You’ll have to trust her. How do we know she was telling the truth today when she said most of her e-mails were to fellow State Department employees, which means they’re already in the archives? And why does that matter given that, even if it’s true, it still means we’re potentially missing every exchange she had with other private accounts, whether operated by other State employees, foreign leaders, etc?

You’ll have to trust her. Even though she’s one of the least trustworthy people in American political life and gave you zero reason today to adjust that opinion. In fact, the first question she took was from a Turkish reporter who asked her, surreally, whether a similar fuss would be made over her e-mails if she was a man. That may have been the only honest moment at the presser: It was so nakedly a planted question, designed to reinforce her opening pander about celebrating women’s rights to the UN — code to progressives watching that they should cut the First! Woman! President! some slack on this — that it didn’t even qualify as subterfuge. It was just Hillary and her sympathizers playing cynical games to distract from the fact of her own corruption.

Again, I ask the same question that I asked the last time I wrote about this subject; was AllahPundit this upset, when it discovered that Bush Administration officials were doing the same very thing? I think not. I am not defending Hillary Clinton at all; in fact, I loathe the woman and her idiot husband and believe me, I have many reasons why I do.

I just believe that the right should really play this carefully, because we really do not want to give the left anymore ammo, than they already have to paint conservatives as being sexist, anti-women types and ruin our chances in 2016.

On Hillary Clinton and EmailGate

I have a few questions on this little matter. But, first the story:

WASHINGTON — In 2012, congressional investigators asked the State Department for a wide range of documents related to the attack on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. The department eventually responded, furnishing House committees with thousands of documents.

But it turns out that that was not everything.

The State Department had not searched the email account of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton because she had maintained a private account, which shielded it from such searches, department officials acknowledged on Tuesday.

via Using Private Email, Hillary Clinton Thwarted Record Requests – NYTimes.com.

Here are my questions:

Where were all of these concerned Republicans and so-called “Conservatives”, when the officials from Bush Administration were discovered to be using private e-mail accounts for Government business? Busily defending them and trying to downplay the issue, that’s what!
Perhaps one of the most important questions of them all: If Hillary Clinton had black skin; would this even be an issue? I mean seriously; this looks more like a Neo-leftist attack on a New-leftist old White Woman, by supporters of a neo-leftist black man. Just sayin’… 🙄 …and yes, I am going there.
Is this a legit story for the left to be even covering or is this an actual media hit job on Hillary Clinton which is being coordinated by the White House, in retaliation for the Clinton Machine tactics against the Obama campaign in 2008? (Like the Birther thing, which started in Clinton camps…)

I mean, I can see the right attacking Hillary on this issue; the right made quite cottage industry for itself attacking Bill Clinton in the 1990’s. This continues to this day and to a degree; their attacks have merit. However, for the left to attack Hillary over this issue here; smacks of political retribution of the ugly sort and could be seen as a sexist attack on a woman; on the part of supporters of a neo-leftist black man.

This my friends, would spell trouble for the Democratic Party. There are some that think that this is simply the Democrats holding a door open for Elizabeth Warren; I dissent, I believe this could leave an opening for the Republicans to appeal to the soccer mom’s and they will be able to say, “See how the Democrats treat older white women?” This could backfire on the media and badly.

Just my opinion.

Others: (Via Memeorandum) Washington Post, Politico, USA Today, “The Lid”, Hinterland Gazette,Correct The Record, New York Magazine, John Hawkins’ Right Wing News, neo-neocon, Washington Free Beacon, Hot Air, Poynter, Bloomberg View, Associated Press, Gawker, JustOneMinute, Taylor Marsh, Common Dreams, Truth Revolt,Ghosts of Tom Joad, Slate, The Week, Balloon Juice, Guardian, Bloomberg Business,Capital New York, NO QUARTER USA NET, Agence France-Presse, Addicting Info,Power Line, Rush Limbaugh and The Hill, more at Mediagazer », Washington Free Beacon, Bloomberg Business, The Atlantic Online,Washington Post, Bloomberg View, mrctv.org/videos, Politico, Commentary Magazine, RealClearPolitics Videos, Engadget, The Gateway Pundit, Mediaite, The Verge, Jezebel, VodkaPundit, The Daily Beast, Shakesville, Power Line, Talking Points Memo, BuzzFeed, ABC News, Twitchy, Mashable and Arkansas Online,

This right here could totally derail Hillary Clinton’s presidential plans

This is part one of a three part series:

Top Pentagon officials and a senior Democrat in Congress so distrusted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2011 march to war in Libya that they opened their own diplomatic channels with the Gadhafi regime in an effort to halt the escalating crisis, according to secret audio recordings recovered from Tripoli.

The tapes, reviewed by The Washington Times and authenticated by the participants, chronicle U.S. officials’ unfiltered conversations with Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s son and a top Libyan leader, including criticisms that Mrs. Clinton had developed tunnel vision and led the U.S. into an unnecessary war without adequately weighing the intelligence community’s concerns.

via Hillary Clinton undercut on Libya war by Pentagon and Congress, secret tapes reveal – Washington Times.

Go read the rest of that, it makes for some interesting reading. This could be used against her by other Democrats and especially by the Republicans.

This right here is why the GOP should fight Hillary tooth and nail come 2016

I saw this over at Hotair.com and honestly, I was gobsmacked. 😯 If the GOP does not fight this crazy woman tooth and nail from now until 2016; and we lose this next election, there are going to be some seriously pissed off people in America. Namely, Gun owners.

This quote comes from Time Magazine, and comes via Mary Katharine Ham — this is Hillary Clinton describing her opponents:

We cannot let a minority of people, and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,” Clinton said during a live CNN town hall.

Wow…. just…wow. MKH over at HotAir.com breaks this down in a big way, and I might be excessively quoting here a bit…; but, my friends, this one is warranted in a big way:

“We,” said the aspiring head of the federal government,
“cannot let”—As in, “allow.” What remedy, pray tell, does she have in mind for this outrageous epidemic in free thought?
“a minority of people”—The minority, the protection of whose rights Thomas Jefferson called a “sacred principle” in his First Inaugural Address and whose endangerment at the hands of a tyrannical majority James Madison called the Republic’s “great danger?”
“and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people”— Regardless of the truth of this dubious assertion, she seems to repeat it to justify her advocacy for the prohibition of the minority’s dissent, which makes it sound like someone never glanced at a Founding document. “Screw ‘em, majority rules,” the working draft of the Constitution proclaimed.
“hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority.”— Let me see if I can rephrase the idea of a “viewpoint that terrorizes the majority” in such a way that a longtime Democratic politician might understand it. There’s an old adage originally used to describe journalism and oft repeated by the activist Left to give itself airs— “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

Hillary Clinton and liberal activists are the comfortable. They require a “safe place” where the presence of others who deign to disagree cannot “trigger” them. Your mere opposition to an asinine limit on mag capacity, which was a demonstrable disaster in incompetent governance in her home state of New York, rises to the level of “terrorizing” for a woman who famously couldn’t figure out if that term applied to anyone involved in Benghazi. But for you, law-abiding citizen, not a problem.

Much of the Left desires that criticisms of gun control policies be banished from the public square. Espousing them is abetting child murder, in their eyes, no matter how much evidence or what arguments Second Amendment activists marshal. Hearing this argument from fellow citizens who call themselves liberal is disappointing.

Hearing it from a potential presidential candidate is creepy. Especially one who’d be taking the reins from an administration that flagrantly uses the power of the federal government to get people it doesn’t like to stop saying things of which it does not approve.

Hopefully, the guys over at HotAir do not mind me quoting that one to death. My friends, let me blunt here; this is not your boilerplate blue-collar Democrat party stuff, not at least from where I sit. This is actually neoliberal Marxism. This is right in line with communist repression of freedom of thought. This is the kind of stuff that turned me against the left. My jaw almost hit the floor when I saw this one. 😯

This right here, should be used by the GOP against Hillary should she decide to run. They should not give her a pass on this one at all. This is anti-Americanism at its most lethal form. This is the same mentality that pushed Bill Clinton to tell Janet Reno to send the tanks in at Waco many years ago. That somehow those that disagree with you are somehow a threat. This stuff is quite scary; and can have some dangerous fallout to those who happen to support their first and second amendment rights.

I always knew that the Clinton’s were pretty brutal, when it came to politics; just did not think that they were this brutal. I think it goes without saying that, at this point, I am not ready for Hillary; and if the rest of the America has any sense, neither will they be either.

Progressive blogger not too enthralled with the idea of Hillary running for President

Please note: I am not writing this, as a conservative blogger going, “nah nah nah nah boo boo!” But, rather as someone who once voted for Bill Clinton; and voted Democrat in 2000 and 2004.

I guess we are actually seeing some Clinton fatigue.

This was written over at Balloon Juice, whose owner was, at one point, a Republican, but now is a full on progressive, I guess:

I understand it is not her fault, but I would do anything to not see Hillary run in 2016. If it turns out she is the best candidate and has the best chance to keep the White House out of Republican hands, I will crawl over glass to vote for her and do everything in my power to get her elected.

But I just don’t know if I can take it anymore. She was such an awful candidate in 2008 and continuously surrounds herself with questionable people, and fuck it. Let’s be honest. I quit listening to Blues Traveler around the same time I quit drinking jaegermeister, and I just want all three of them to go away

[…]

I know this is what the GOP wants, but I can not do another round of Vince Foster or Benghazi or whatever. I just can’t. And the whole dynastic thing drives me crazy. I just can’t take any more Bush or Clinton candidates. People in America (well, those who pay attention) were shocked with the notion of the PRI holding power in Mexico for 71 years, but how many decades have we had a Nixon, Bush, Clinton, or Dole in the running? It’s just weird.

And yes, I remember that Hillary embodied the hopes of feminists everywhere, but is she really the only female Democrat out there who can win? What about Gillibrand? Does it have to be Hillary?

I remember thinking the same thing back in 2007, when the primaries started. “Why her?” was my exact thought. This was about the time that Obama shot forward in the primaries and for a little while, I thought to myself “You know, I think it is about time that we did have a black man as President.” This is when the Rev. Wright stuff came out; and Obama lost me. Now, before anyone accuses me of swallowing the Fox News propaganda — let me say this: I have seen that complete and unedited sermon that Wright preached, like 2 days after 9/11. I watched the entire 9/11 unfold, on TV — on CNN no less. CNN, at the time, was about all I ever watched at the time, when it came to cable news. There was no way in heck, that I was going to vote for someone, who’s Pastor essentially said that America had 9/11 coming to it. Just. no. way.

Anyhow, when it comes to Hillary. I honestly do not believe that she will run. She has too much baggage from her days as Secretary of State. Plus too, all of her baggage from her days as First Lady. Hillary’s no dummy, she knows better. She’s committed to the cause. But, she’s no fool. She will endorse someone else and work to get them elected.

Just my opinion.