May 18, 2016

The NYT headline reveals the sad reality for Hillary: Did she even win Kentucky?

"Bernie Sanders Wins Oregon; Hillary Clinton Declares Victory in Kentucky."
Mrs. Clinton raced around Kentucky in the two days before the primary, hoping to fend off Mr. Sanders in a state that she won easily in 2008. In unofficial results late Tuesday night, Mrs. Clinton edged Mr. Sanders by about 1,900 votes, or less than half a percentage point, with all counties reporting. The Associated Press had not declared a winner by midnight.

The close result meant that she and Mr. Sanders would effectively split the state’s delegates. Nonetheless, winning Kentucky would give her a symbolic triumph that could blunt the effect of her loss in Oregon as she turns her attention to Donald J. Trump, her likely general election opponent.
What is the "symbolic triumph" of winning by virtually nothing?

The top-rated comment, with 500+ votes, comes from Australia:
It has been about 1 year since Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy and only about 6 months since the first Democratic debate where people could see and hear what Bernie Sanders was all about. Prior to that, most of America had never heard of him.

Apart from that very few of his policies have been presented in a positive way by the mainstream media and he has had to do his best to get noticed against Hillary Clinton's massive awareness level among Americans, huge infrastructure (including the DNC itself) and previous experience as a Presidential Candidate.

Despite ALL THIS and so much more, Bernie has won over 20 States so far and less than 300 pledged Delegates behind Clinton with over 900 to go.

Mrs. Clinton is a very weak candidate. VERY WEAK.

Any way you look at it, Sanders has come from NOTHING to become the most successful outside candidate in History.

Whilst it says so much about and for those behind Sanders, it says very little about Clinton and the level of support she should have got but has not.

She will probably win the Candidacy but frankly, her result is by no means anything to be proud off and to even get where she has, involved her following Sanders lead on Policy and NOT here own.

That also is very telling and shows just how weak Clinton has been in this competition.

The facts speak for themselves. 
Also with 500+ votes, from Portland:
The queen of the Democratic Party should not be bragging about a 0.5% "victory" over a democratic socialist in conservative Kentucky. The NYT should not be claiming this somehow blunts Sanders momentum. The fact is that she should have been able to pull out the voters to support her in the way she did in 2008. Here is more evidence of the weakness of Hillary Clinton. I fear Trump will clean her clock in November.
And closing in on 500 votes, from Brooklyn:
Most of the Times' columnists could have retired if they got a nickel every time they reflexively mentioned Clinton's "insurmountable lead." They must be muttering it in their sleep by now.
Yes. It's only "insurmountable" with the inclusion of the superdelegates, who can switch sides, as they did — against Hillary — back in 2008.

Management at the NYT must see that its readers are not happy with its pro-Hillary efforts. It's not helping Hillary and it's hurting the newspaper.

ADDED: The original meaning of the word "triumph" — according to the OED — is "The entrance of a victorious commander with his army and spoils in solemn procession into Rome, permission for which was granted by the senate in honour of an important achievement in war. "

67 comments:

damikesc said...

Again, this is the time she should have won. The press has been in the bag for her. Almost nothing negative attached to her for weeks. Bernie all but ignored.

But the Dems just do not want her.

I've said, for a while, that she might be the worst political candidate I've ever seen. She's a less charismatic Martha Coakley. That so many are convinced she has the race in November won now is baffling as she seems unable to close the deal on a --- and let's be honest here --- joke candidate. One who was there solely to provide the appearance of competition and has worked hard to avoid tagging her negatives (why has he stopped making a stink about her corporate speaking gigs? Still no email concerns, Bern?)

Bob Ellison said...

Hillary (sp?) Clinton is a fantastically weak candidate. We haven't seen a candidate this weak since, I dunno, Carter in 1980. She's amazing. She's the only thing alive that could lose to Donald Trump.

Brando said...

Any honest reporting has to leave out the superdelegate count, because every one of those supers only matters at the first ballot at the convention. They are not set in stone for Hillary at this point, and counting them for her at this point only serves the fiction that she is way ahead, when she is not. In fact, neither candidate can win without the superdelegates and so can make the case at the convention for their candidacy and win enough to put them over. Honest reporting would simply show the earned delegate counts (where she still leads, but in proportion to all earned delegates awarded so far, not by a great margin) and note that both candidates will have to convince superdelegates in order to win at the convention.

To the DNC--stop trying to make Hillary happen! Despite all your efforts and the media's attempt to protect and boost her, she is a complete turnoff to voters and can only win by default. It is shameful that she is likely to be our next president.

MadisonMan said...

stop trying to make Hillary happen!

She's so Fetch!

There is a lot of vitriol directed at the Times in those comments! Makes me wonder why they allowed comments on this article.

Sebastian said...

"What is the "symbolic triumph" of winning by virtually nothing?" It is the triumph of nuthin. Remains to be seen if the MSM and the first-woman bit can drag her across the finish line. As everyone knows, she is vulnerable. She was in 08: Prog friends who had not tolerated a bad word about the Clintons for eons turned on a dime as soon as O looked like a possible winner and dropped her tout de suite.

David Begley said...

Bob Ellison is right. Hillary is the only candidate who can lose to Trump. That's why Obama indicts her and she steps aside for Biden. Biden is Obama's third term; not Hillary.

John said...

I was watching CNN last night and it was pathetic watching them try to drag Hilary! across the finish line. With 99% in and Hilary! leading by half a percentage point, they kept going on about how, even if the precincts still out went 100% Sanders, he still lost by 1000 votes or so.

Then they got Alison Grimes (KY Sect State?) on. She is in charge of certifying elections. They asked her about 10 different ways if Hilary had won. She kept saying that she could not take a position or offer an opinion. Finally they got her to admit that if the results held up, it looked like Hilary had probably won.

That was fairly obvious but it was also obvious that as a state official she didn't think she should say who won.

As soon as she went off, the chyron began scrolling that Grimes had said Hilary! won.

Despicable the way they treated her and the way they used her comments. At midnight, CNN still didn't have a check mark next to her name. They did have check marks next to Trump and Sanders indicating wins in Oregon.

At 8AM, the NY Times primary results, updated at about 7AM did not have a checkmark next to Hilary's name. They did have checks next to Sanders and Trump in Oregon.


She carried 2 counties in Oregon out of 15 or so. She carried only a few counties in KY.

This is the best Hilary can do?

What a loser.

John Henry

Phil 3:14 said...

So it shouldn't matter if significant numbers of Republicans sit this one out, right?

John said...

Yeah. Biden again.

Because we all know how strongly sitting VPs run. Let's see: We had Bush. Then before that we had Van Buren (1838)

Run Joey run!

People saying Biden are like Samuel Johnson (?) said about second marriages: "The triumph of hope over experience."

And what happens when, having run a tough race against Clinton, having amassed close to as many regular delegates, having stirred up a lot of real enthusiasm, Sanders is screwed out of the nomination? Do you really think all those people who have been feeling the Bern are going to say "Oh, well. The party says it should be Biden. I guess they know best."

John Henry

John said...

Does everyone realize that Bernie is still, in May 2016, not a member of the Democrat Party? As near as I can tell anyway.

Wikipedia says he is, as of last December. His Senate website "About" page doesn't say he is but does start off:

Bernie Sanders is serving his second term in the U.S. Senate after winning re-election in 2012 with 71 percent of the vote. His previous 16 years in the House of Representatives make him the longest serving independent member of Congress in American history.

His campaign site makes no mention of his party affiliation (as of a week or two ago), other than to say he is running as a Democrat. One does not need to be a Democrat to run as one. I am running as a Democrat this year. Needless to say, I am hardly a party member or supporter.

So why should the Democrat party do anything nice for Bernie?

John Henry

traditionalguy said...

Bernie needs to review the Bolsheviks methods and march on the Convention Hall with torches.

AprilApple said...

If the media dropped her, she would have collapsed a long time ago.

John said...

trad Guy,

A difference between the Bolsheviks and Bernie is that they had very little popular support in 1917. Perhaps as little as 5% or less. Sanders has a huge popular base of support. He may even have a majority of the party based on primary vote totals.

John Henry

gerry said...

Did Hillary! carry Clinton County in Kentucky? If not, Sanders has beaten Hillary in every county named Clinton in the United States.

tim in vermont said...

Well in Clinton County NY is the Clinton Correctional Facility. It's ready for her.

Johnathan Birks said...

Until Bernie Sanders wins a state in a general election, he is hardly the strongest independent candidate in history. Ross Perot garnered (yep I said it) 19 percent of the popular vote in 1992. George Wallace won 46 electoral votes in 1968. Sanders is the Gene McCarthy of 2016: a protest vote incarnate.

tim in vermont said...

If the media dropped her, she would have collapsed a long time ago

They ain't no ways tarred carrying that talentless sack of bones towards the finish line!

tim in vermont said...

So why should the Democrat party do anything nice for Bernie?

Exactly. they have the same playbook as the GOP establishment.

Birches said...

What are the odds Hillary! gets Bernie as a VP?

I know some people who voted for Bernie in Kentucky (friends of a fb friend in KY). One said she'd gladly lose 50% of their income for free health care and tuition as long as everyone else did too. That would put their family of four at 17K a year. I suppose envy is more powerful than I realized.

tim in vermont said...

If I identify with anybody this time around, it's Trump and Sanders supporters who are trying to dislodge their respective party elites.

sunsong said...

Hillary, like Trump, has serious character problems. She has done everything she could, which is a lot, to control the primaries. The millennials who support Bernie have watched all this. They have seen the dishonesty and the corruption. They have seen that, not only are the Clintons bought and paid for, the corporate media is as well.

This quote speaks for many of us:

“My worry is that Democrats like Hillary have been saying, ‘The republicans are worse!’ for so long that they’ve begun to believe it excuses everything.”
~ Matt Taibbi

SeanF said...

Johnathan Birks: Until Bernie Sanders wins a state in a general election, he is hardly the strongest independent candidate in history.

Of course, the original commenter didn't say "strongest" or "independent." They said "most successful" and, more importantly, "outside" - which, I'm pretty sure, ties back into their comments about Sanders' lack of name recognition and media presence.

AprilApple said...

Lem catches a good one:

"David Burge take is hilarious..."

"The media have propped up Hillary's political corpse so long, SHE should be the one named Bernie."

Quaestor said...

Management at the NYT must see that its readers are not happy with its pro-Hillary efforts. It's not helping Hillary and it's hurting the newspaper.

Yes. And they will do nothing but more of the same.

tim in vermont said...

The queen of the Democratic Party should not be bragging about a 0.5% "victory" over a democratic socialist in conservative Kentucky. The NYT should not be claiming this somehow blunts Sanders momentum.

Imagine she might have won Kentucky if she hadn't promised to throw all those coal miners out of work sort of like a Goldwater Girl version of Maggie Thatcher. But then she would be hurt more in Oregon and California. There are so many wedges to use against the Democrats it's not even funny, talk about a target rich environment!

Keystone: Privileged white liberals vs Unions
Fracking: Ditto
Immigration: Low skill workers of all colors being forced to work for lower wages by scabs (What is the difference between a border and a picket line, Bernie?) Actually Bernie, like he was with the second amendment, was better on this issue before he started this thing.

I could go on, but a high low coalition is going to have severe tensions.

tim in vermont said...

Yes. And they will do nothing but more of the same When I saw anti Trump and pro Hillary "movies" offered up to me by Amazon Prime when I was just looking for entertainment my first thought was to 1984. That has to hurt her more than it helps her.

Quaestor said...

For those who missed the "Bernie" homage, it's a reference to a comedy film called "Weekend at Bernie's".

When two working stiffs (Andrew McCarthy and Jonathan Silverman) uncover an embezzlement plot in their company, their thieving boss Bernie (Terry Kiser) invites them to his beach house for the weekend, planning to have them killed. But when it’s Bernie that gets whacked instead, our two bumbling heroes realize that in order for them to stay alive, they’ll have to make everyone believe that Bernie is still the life of the party. “The ultimate whacky 80s comedy." (Reel Film)

Clyde said...

SMOD 2016 is looking better and better every day.

Welcome the Apocalypse! Enter, Sandman.

David Begley said...

Maybe Hillary will now wake up to the fact that her war on coal, oil and gas is a complete loser. She lost OR and that state is the greenest of greens.

AprilApple said...

**Hillary has embezzled our tax dollars long enough.

Fabi said...

She won every county in Kentucky but one in 2008. She won about half yesterday.

"Hillary, we have a problem."

Mary Beth said...

gerry said...

Did Hillary! carry Clinton County in Kentucky? If not, Sanders has beaten Hillary in every county named Clinton in the United States.

5/18/16, 8:06 AM


She did, 57.85% to Bernie's 35.63%.

Bill Peschel said...

The best thing for the Democratic Party to do is let Hillary get indicted. She bows out, Biden comes in.

Yes, Biden is a terrible candidate, but not nearly as terrible as Hillary, and compared to Trump, he'll look presidential, just enough to win.

Remember, the less Obama and Hillary say, the more their popularity rises. Sort of like that "Taxi" episode in which the beautiful woman tells Latka that the farther away he is, the more she loves him.

Curious George said...

"AprilApple said...
Lem catches a good one:

"David Burge take is hilarious..."

"The media have propped up Hillary's political corpse so long, SHE should be the one named Bernie.""

Funny!

Quaestor said...

Bernie needs to review the Bolsheviks methods and march on the Convention Hall with torches.

Forget the flambeaux. Commandeer a cruiser and shell the fucking place!

AprilApple said...

CG - I thought so. It's perfect, really.

mikee said...

Am I the only one amazed and outraged and despondent that an avowed Socialist has so much support among the electorate? Has every one of those voters gone completely insane, supporting a political philosophy that has worked in exactly zero of the nations in which it has been tried, ever?

If you want Venezuela, this is how you get Venezuela!

pm317 said...

Strange! I see a lot of Aussies for Bernie on twitter shaming Americans for not supporting him. Still more shaming them for supporting Trump. This from a country that is the most red neck country of all on the planet.

pm317 said...

Oh, BTW.. his campaign finance trial is murky too. Where is Bernie getting all his cash from? Why aren't we hearing about his wife's incompetent (and maybe crooked) tenure as president at Burlington College running it to financial ruin and even giving money to her daughter's business?

pm317 said...

*trail

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Why does the Democrat party try so hard to get her nominated? Its clear she is a lousy politician and has negative charisma.

The Democrat party can't find someone more appealing to parrot leftist shibboleths?

My guess is she has plenty of dirt that she has threatened to spill.

Four years as Secretary of State to burnish up the resume and collect payoff money and then an uncontested primary in 2016 is probably the deal she made in exchange for not blowing up the party.

Then the Independent guy from Vermont who actually buys into all that "for the people" bullshit got in.

Bernie. Freaking. Sanders.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Am I the only one amazed and outraged and despondent that an avowed Socialist has so much support among the electorate? Has every one of those voters gone completely insane, supporting a political philosophy that has worked in exactly zero of the nations in which it has been tried, ever?

I think Sanders could beat Trump.

All Trump is offering is enforcement of the existing immigration laws and changing trade agreements so that the middle class in our country is treated more equitably. What's the result of that?

People get jobs and have to go to work.

Bernie Sanders is offering to take stuff from the wealthy and distribute it to everybody else.

So you get free stuff and don't have to work.

It was a nice country while it lasted.

Abdul Abulbul Amir said...

As the presumptive nominee it's embarrassing that she could not pull out a majority in either state.

Brando said...

"Am I the only one amazed and outraged and despondent that an avowed Socialist has so much support among the electorate? Has every one of those voters gone completely insane, supporting a political philosophy that has worked in exactly zero of the nations in which it has been tried, ever?"

They figure (and he's saying) he's using "socialist" in the Fabian Socialist sense, like Britain's Labour or Germany's Social Democrats. Not that their policies aren't wrongheaded, but they're not the same as Soviet Communism or at least their adherents don't think so.

But any way you cut it, we're getting closer and closer to the Western European socialist model, with each new entitlement and regulatory scheme and calls for redistribution. And if another financial crisis hits, those calls will be more extreme than ever.

tim in vermont said...

Sanders could beat Trump, without a doubt.

tim in vermont said...

How do you oppose NAFTA and support massive import of cheap labor?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

You know, if Hollywood wasn't such a bastion of leftist group-think a really great movie could be made out of this.

We have a corrupt politician in it for the money and power being challenged by an idealistic outsider and a flamboyant billionaire with an exotic, foreign, super model wife.

Twists! Turns! Thrills!

Instead we will probably get a movie with Richard Dreyfuss in a suit smoking a cigar sitting in a leather bound chair scheming against the people. You know, what he thinks of as his Republican imitation.

eric said...

So far the media strategy has been, be the inevitable candidate. She even started attacking Trump directly with instead of going after Sanders. This was a campaign strategy. It says, hey look, the primary is over, it's time to focus on the general.

Somehow it's not working. All these Sanders supporters, of which it appears there are a lot, are thinking they can win.

What happens if Hillary loses?

Will we see a Trump/Clinton ticket?

Everyone insists that Hillary and Trump are friends. Many on the right, especially in the nevertrump crowd, insist that Trump is just like Hillary. Both NE liberals.

Suppose it's true. And Clinton loses to Sanders and Trump takes Clinton as a unity ticket. No more parties.

How does Trump lose that election?

SteveM said...

There was a time that Hillary was sinking in the polls and then, during a debate, Bernie said "nobody gives a damn about your emails ". Immediately thereafter Hillary started to rise in the polls. I believe that if Bernie hadn't made that statement, he'd leading in pledged delegates now.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Suppose it's true. And Clinton loses to Sanders and Trump takes Clinton as a unity ticket. No more parties.

I think that they both would lose a lot of supporters.

Static Ping said...

My favorite Roman Triumph moment was Pompey's after defeating the Marians in North Africa. He technically did not qualify for a Triumph since he was technically a private citizen, but after much hesitation Sulla gave him one anyway. However, Sulla decided that Pompey would have the third Triumph of the day after Sulla's own and another Roman commander. Pompey tried to make up for this slight by having the spectacle of four elephants to pull his chariot, but the beasts would not fit through the gate to his general embarrassment. He had to settle for horses.

The Romans also had a lesser honor called an "Ovation." Crassus received one for defeating Spartacus. Apparently he was refused a Triumph since it was unseemly to give such an honor for fighting slaves, regardless of what threat those slaves presented.

JAORE said...

Why does the Democrat party try so hard to get her nominated?

First black candidate = WIN!

First female candidate = WIN! Right????? Uh 'oh....

That or Hillary is too scary to NOT support in public.

Personally I find the "vote with your vagina" concept a bit icky..... but at least THAT phrase seems to have died a merciful death. Even, "It's time we elected a woman" is oft greeted with, "but not THIS woman".

Brando said...

"There was a time that Hillary was sinking in the polls and then, during a debate, Bernie said "nobody gives a damn about your emails ". Immediately thereafter Hillary started to rise in the polls. I believe that if Bernie hadn't made that statement, he'd leading in pledged delegates now."

Definitely didn't help him. It made no sense to me for him to give her a pass; even if he thought he'd still lose and end up endorsing her, that's an issue that even Clinton fans should want aired out and handled, rather than letting it drip slowly through the campaign season. It's not like the GOP was going to give her a pass on it.

Sanders could have said "please tell us right now, at this debate, with your own words--no spinmeisters or advisers, just your own recollection--WHY you went through all this trouble to set up a private server to route all your work and personal e-mail, and never confirmed with legal staff at State or the White House whether this could be a problem. No, it wasn't "convenience" as we know you can carry two phones, or have it all set up on one phone. No, previous Secretaries never did this. This was unique, and it raises troubling questions about whether you're hiding something or whether you did this for questionable reasons. But if you can give Democrats and Americans one believable answer right now, I will not bring this up again."

His failure to do that made no sense at all.

Dr Weevil said...

Maybe not a "symbolic triumph", but there is one distinct advantage to edging Sanders in Kentucky. It stops the BernieBros from saying "Bernie's won the last X primaries in a row!" with X being a fairly large and gradually increasing number (6? 7? 8? 9? I forget). They can still say "Bernie's won at least as many delegates as Hillary, and sometimes a lot more, in the last X primaries", but that's not one-tenth as rhetorically effective.

Brando said...

"The best thing for the Democratic Party to do is let Hillary get indicted. She bows out, Biden comes in."

That would work best for them. The indictment would give the superdelegates the excuse to bail, and if her delegates went with Biden that could give him a first ballot nomination. He'd still have the problem of the pissed off Bernie supporters, but if Biden could mollify them he'd look strong this fall.

I don't think an indictment is coming, though. If it were, it would have happened by now.

damikesc said...

Am I the only one amazed and outraged and despondent that an avowed Socialist has so much support among the electorate? Has every one of those voters gone completely insane, supporting a political philosophy that has worked in exactly zero of the nations in which it has been tried, ever?

It's the youth. They are gung-ho for Socialism --- until they get their first job. Then that melts away.

Sanders could beat Trump, without a doubt.

Strongly disagree. This is in the same "Look, Kasich does better against Clinton or Sanders than any other Republican".

Sanders is, to be gentle, Not Hillary. That is it. Anybody left standing would've received similar vote totals.

Tommy Duncan said...

"The best thing for the Democratic Party to do is let Hillary get indicted. She bows out, Biden comes in."

Timing will be everything. The later Biden enters the race the better for the Democrats.

Biden will run as "not Clinton, not Trump". But that shtick has a short shelf life. Joe Biden is himself a very weak candidate. He needs to enter the race late and get elected before people remember he is the embodiment of the establishment and will deliver 4 more years of Obama.

I expect Trump to begin inoculating himself against a Biden run.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Tommy Duncan said...Timing will be everything. The later Biden enters the race the better for the Democrats.

That occurred to me, as well, but don't state ballot rules/restrictions dictate he'd need to be an official, declared candidate well before the actual election?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...Management at the NYT must see that its readers are not happy with its pro-Hillary efforts. It's not helping Hillary and it's hurting the newspaper.

Undelcared campaign contributions, 100%! If a company is intentionally run in a way that harms shareholder value then the people running it are committing fraud (by knowingly violating their fiduciary duty to the corporation and its owners). If they're slanting their coverage in a pro-Clinton way to the detriment of their value...well, hey, 1st Amendment, private property, do whatever you want...but if the AG of NY is going to go after companies like Exxon for corporate speech this kind of crap should be up for grabs, too.

The Right is so far behind in the lawfare race! It's good insomuch as that deficit is due to the Right's principled beliefs, but I have to think enough people are getting tired of being kicked in the teeth that they're going to be willing to use the Left's lawfare tools. It's how the Republic ends, of course...but if we're going that way already I don't object to using the FEC, IRS, state AGs, etc, against the Left (Media, academy, all of 'em) just as they've used those against the Right.

mikee said...

Brando, it does not matter what a Socialist calls it, when the other people's money runs out, you get Venezuela. Always. That is what Bernie is promising the nation, to turn us into a dystopian dictatorship, and people are lapping it up like it isn't the sewage it is made of. That should chill you to the bone.

Even Norway was smart enough to put their oil money into investments, and to only use the dividends off that capital to fund their socialism. That might work with a stable population of Norwegians, but not with increasing demands for the socialist funding of immigrants let in without limit. They are looking at changing their welfare system for immigrants, right now.

JPS said...

Ron Winkleheimer, 10:28:

"Instead we will probably get a movie with Richard Dreyfuss in a suit smoking a cigar sitting in a leather bound chair scheming against the people. You know, what he thinks of as his Republican imitation."

From The American President, or are you thinking of something else? Because yeah, that was some groan-inducing mustache-twirling villainy there. (Aaron Sorkin, you've sure got our number.)

But I'll say this for Richard Dreyfuss: After Charlton Heston announced he had Alzheimer's Disease, Dreyfuss wrote for National Review a heartfelt tribute to Heston as an actor and as a man, acknowledging their very different politics and commenting, "I can only say I wish all the liberals and all the conservatives I knew had the class and forbearance he has."

I was surprised to read that he was spotted at a Ted Cruz campaign event some time ago. I wondered if this staunch liberal had recently and suddenly turned conservative. I don't think so, but he is suddenly very interested in civics and the constitution (http://www.thedreyfussinitiative.org).

I try not to care too much what celebrities think, but I like that Dreyfuss goes a lot deeper than the bumper-sticker level. As for that performance, well- the military has no better friend in Hollywood than Gary Sinise, who played a murdering renegade naval officer determined to save a cancelled missile defense system in Brian DePalma's amazingly bad Snake Eyes.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

From The American President, or are you thinking of something else?

The American President.

Where the evil plot (so far as I was able to discern it) was to reveal that the hot JFKish president with an incredibly cute young daughter who was tragically widowed while in office was thinking about dating an educated, accomplished woman who looked just like Annette Bening after being alone for over a year.

Because Republicans are just that fiendishly clever.

I think Dreyfus is a fantastic actor, Aaron Sorkin is an incredible hack.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

By the way, here is a link to President Clinton's review of the movie Independence Day.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/weekend-update-segment---bill-clinton/n10878

For no reason whatsoever.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

And here is the trailer for The American President.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFtc85R2hPA

I can't find a clip where Dreyfuss is in the smoke filled room plotting his dastardly deed. In fact, I think Dastardly Deed was the characters original name in the first draft of the script. Or maybe Dick Cheney.

Brando said...

"That is what Bernie is promising the nation, to turn us into a dystopian dictatorship, and people are lapping it up like it isn't the sewage it is made of. That should chill you to the bone."

Oh, I don't welcome it--but then I don't think Bernie is going to be president, and even if he somehow was his program would be deader than Obama's second term agenda. Frustrating as gridlock is when it comes to tax reforms, immigration, entitlement reform and regulatory reform, it's at least been able to prevent some of the Left's biggest plans.

I have no dog in this fall's fight, considering the likely choices are unacceptable, but I'm not too worried because the balance of power serves at least as some sort of check on the next megalomaniac-in-chief.

CharlesVegas said...

Tommy Duncan said...

I expect Trump to begin inoculating himself against a Biden run.

What is interesting about that strategy is that Trump setting sights on Biden will only bury Hillary deeper.

The Godfather said...

As a Republican, I'm unhappy about the outcome of the nomination process, but at least I can console myself that Tromp beat several very well qualified candidates. But if I were a Democrat, I'd ask, How the f*ck did we end up with [Clinton/Sanders] when the opposition was so weak?