So who is the individual who has the most to gain from Obama being removed from the 2016 Democrat primary?
And who has the biggest axe to grind against Obama and his machine for the 2008 Democrat primary?
And who was thrown under the bus publicly in order to save Obama from the Benghazi disaster that is blowing up even as you read this? Publicly, so very publicly - publicly enough that she has iron clad plausible deniability for any leaks that turn a Dead Ambassador into an anchor that pulls Obama down even more and guarantees a massive loss. Guarantees an Obama loss so spectacular that Obama has no chance to run in 2016?
I actually think that this is a scientifically testable hypothesis. If the Sunday political talk shows are full of discussion and revelation about the Benghazi affair, then you know that the Clinton camp is leaking to the Press, and that the Press is beginning to consider her as the standard bearer for 2016. All entirely deniable, 'natch.
Me, I'm getting popcorn because this is fixin' to be one enjoyable show.
15 comments:
She's even scarier than Obama, because - unlike him - she knows EXACTLY what she's doing.
I agree, and have been predicting this for a while: Absent any unforeseen events, Hillary is a shoe-in for the 2016 nomination.
And, as the earlier commentator says: unlike Obama, she is no puppet, but an active player. Could be very scary...
I've been wondering since 2008 when the Clinton Kidney Knives (tm)were coming out. "That's a real nice kidney you got there. Be a shame if it had an 'accident'."
Nobody (certainly not in the Dems) treats the Clintons like the Chicago Machine did during the 2008 nomination run. Not and gets away with it.
Obama plays by Daley's "Chicago Rules".
The Clintons play by Capone's. . .
Just like to point out, though, that in 2016, Hillary will be as old as Reagan was, and sexist as it is, it's hard to see a majority of people voting for an "old lady."
bluesun, you very well may be true. However, I wouldn't put it past the Clintons to dish out payback just for the pleasure of it.
re. bluesun's comment: Hillary Clinton ain't no Maggie Thatcher.
When is someone going to mention that Hillary has even less time in office as an *elected* politico than Obama? Obama served in the Illinois house before running for Senator and then POTUS. Her qualifications for Senator began with "I may not have ever BEEN a politician, but I am MARRIED to a past President of the United States".
I think Charles Wood's allegations about Hillary, to wit: "We're going to arrest and prosecute the person responsible for this video," put paid to her chances for 2016. Her deniability is no longer plausible.
I'm not saying that she'd make a good President, just that she (and Bill) are entirely ruthless.
Oh, no arguing that Field Marshal Rodham (hat tip: Billy Beck) is ruthless. I'm saying that she has no deniability for Benghazi, and is therefore unelectable.
Rev nailed it... And Bubba is PISSED at Obummer...
Scuttlebutt is that Bill and Hillary are arguing over this very issue. He wants to go nuclear while she's afraid that the democrat machine will find the radioactive if they do. I think there's a tipping point. If the heat gets too hot and Obama backs the bus up to try and finish her off for good we'll see message traffic and testimony that will ensure Obama becomes as untouchable as Nixon.
Obama won't be electable in 2016 because of the 22nd amendment.
He ain't losing next month. The media has assured us of that.
Just look at what's coming out today - Friday - so that it can be buried over the weekend and "old news" by Monday. They hung Stevens out to die, with attack gunships on call and with Marines targeting terrorists for attacks that never came.
They hounded Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush for seven years over Iran/Contra. They haven't spent as much as seven *minutes* talking about this.
Fast & Furious? That's dismissed with a handwave as "GOP Conspiracy Theories".
Sorry, son, it ain't gonna happen.
This is going to be the ugliest election we've seen in our lifetime. It's going to make 2000 look like a picnic.
And in the end, the dirtier side will win - and it ain't Mitt Romney.
And Hillary will hang her hat on the "verifiable fact" that she asked for, no, she ordered more, security. She has emails, ya know!
No one will ever question the undeniable fact that she also failed to follow up on her orders.
Therefore, if more security was promised (ordered) but not delivered, the fault lies on the shoulders of Hillary. She failed to assure that her "orders" were carried out.
"lets play the blame game and depend on the ignorant masses to blindly believe what we tell them"
One needs to remember how incredibly devious are these two sociopaths.
Possible scenario:
The Hildabeast knows that the economy/US$ will tank during the term of the next POTUS.
That being the case, the political party (actually they're both just different sides of the same coin) in "power" will take the blame and will be unelectable for decades to come- just as was true for the Republicans after Great Depression #1.
A Romney win and a Republican sweep of the Congress may be just what she needs, as the Dems will need a viable candidate for POTUS in 2016.
To paraphrase Fred Reed, the sound of giant flapping lizard wings offstage is the sound of Hilly warming up for her grand entrance at DEMCON 2016.
Post a Comment