Interestingly, Mary Burke was not one of "Hillary's losers." She had high-level surrogates here in Wisconsin, shoring up her losing battle against Scott Walker. Michelle Obama (twice), Barack Obama, and even that other Clinton, Bill. But not Hillary. I don't know what the thinking was there, but we didn't get Hillary, and thus Mary Burke didn't make Rand Paul's gallery of #HillarysLosers.
पोस्ट्स
३६ टिप्पण्या:
Walker-Paul 2016?
Didn't Hillary campaign for Anthony Brown in Maryland? Why yes, I believe she did. Color me stunned that the upset I predicted on this very blog came through.
I think the loser should be id'ed in the photo. Who are those people? You can tell by reading the comments, but that's hard :)
Dr. Rand knows how to wield a scalpel.
I do hope somebody was around to put the paddles on Garage when the Walker win was announced.
The third one is pryor, isn't it?
So, so happy he lost! Suck it nepotism.
www.ReadyFor#HillarysLosers.com
Set phasers on "shake and bake".
Hillary is a big loser. She needs to stay that way.
Rand Paul's Hillary fixation is disturbing.
Let's make it an even ten
http://conservativebyte.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/636_110512_fx_benghazi2.jpg
Hillary if she runs will be fighting Obama crowd within the Dem party on the one hand and Paul-like obsessive guys on the other.
You should hear Krauthammer go off on Hillary -- there is some serious psycho issues going on there.
betamax3000 said...
Dr. Rand knows how to wield a scalpel.
Betamax3000 FTW
Hillary embodies the larger problems the Democrats face. Where is the next generation of Democratic Party leaders?
Over on the Republican side, you have no lack of choices — Walker, Cruz, Paul, Martinez, Amash, Rubio, Perry. You mightnot like the choices, but you have choices. Over on the other side of the aisle, you have a bunch of fugitives from Madame Tussaud's.
Rand Paul is a phenomenon in exactly the right place at the right time with the right weapons.
Paul smoothly expresses truths around us and offers to lead us out of the fun house of narrative mirror distortions.
Some people believe this makes Rand Paul a bad sport.
From #HillaryLosers
@SenRandPaul These #HillarysLosers tweets are in bad taste. I thought you were more of a public servant than a politician. Guess I was wrong.
A gloating bad sport? Rand Paul on Michelle Nunn: "Reminds me of a funny story my Dad used to tell me..."
"I don't know what the thinking was there, but we didn't get Hillary . . . "
First question is whether it was Burke's thinking that kept Hillary out, or Hillary's. Perhaps Hillary was a little wiser than credited on this one.
I kind of like that Althouse has sloughed off the cruel neutrality thing for the next election. MSNBC is more honest than John Stewart, after all. Instapundit readers pegged Ann for a secret Hillary fan, but that that just proved they don't read her blog much.
Rand is getting dirty. It almost seems like he's auditioning for VP.
For example you did not see Hillary posing with Wendy Davis.
Hillary is getting internal Democratic points for supporting all those candidates, even though they lost. I doubt she regrets, or will regret, the efforts. Better for her if they had won, but still good for her to have been out there campaigning with them.
"I do hope somebody was around to put the paddles on Garage when the Walker win was announced."
Meh.
I think Rand Paul will probably turn out to be a loser in this election as well. To become the Republican nominee the party had to be convinced that the socially-liberal, multicultural coalition that undergirded the Democrat win in 2012 was permanent and that the Republicans needed to dramatically reconfigure their platform in order to win in the future. Something Rand Paul was ideally positioned to do. The easy wins in this election strengthen the dominant wing of the party ensuring more business as usual, making Rand Paul largely irrelevant.
Paul Ryan is the big winner among Republican presidential candidates. The greatly strengthened Boehner/McConnnell faction will favor his candidacy.
David said...
Hillary is getting internal Democratic points for supporting all those candidates, even though they lost. I doubt she regrets, or will regret, the efforts. Better for her if they had won, but still good for her to have been out there campaigning with them.
Exactly. It is a team sport.
I'm not crazy about the idea of Paul as a presidential candidate, mostly because he's a senator. But wow, he's really stepping up in this pre-campaigning season. I don't think that the Republicans have seen anything like it.
Ironically (?), the top story at Yahoo News is headlined,
"2014 MIDTERM ELECTIONS
Hillary's the real winner in the midterm elections
Despite the GOP gaining control of the Senate for the first time since 2006, the political landscape is primed for Clinton in 2016."
Relevant to a post from a few days ago, Martha Coakley did indeed lose the election for Massachusetts governor to Charlie Baker, though the margin was only 1.87 percentage points: 48.46% - 46.59%.
Why is that 'smart'? It's adolescent - as per usual for politics. It's right up there with people who refer to the other party as Demoncrats or Repuglicans.
I do hope somebody was around to put the paddles on Garage when the Walker win was announced."
I fear for the welfare of his pets.
I am not sold on Rand Paul as a presidential candidate, not opposed, just not sold.
But he is a very smart. I saw the first interview with him last night at the McConnell HQ and he immediately made the Hillary/Clinton/Grimes connection. Even if he is not the Republican nominee, he will inflict a lot of damage. He is one of the few Republicans to have the balls to bring up Hillary's role as enabler of Bill Clinton's serial abuse of women.
@ Roger Sweeney
I saw that too. I wonder if he has secret access to the new Journolist.
This reminds me of how Notre Dame has a bad record when they wear their lucky green jerseys. The reason: they wear the green jerseys when playing a difficult opponent.
One might say that Hillary had to prioritize her time and therefore her appearances disproportionately were in support of candidates in tough elections.
pm317 said...
Rand Paul's Hillary fixation is disturbing.
*cough* *cough* Koch brothers *cough* *cough*
I mean, Hilldozer is at least a politician, right?
Very happy that the Hillarybeest you show--the "lovely" Ms. Nunn--was bested in the Georgia senatorial race. Her foe, David Perdue, may not be any great hero (I keep thinking of P. J. O'Rourke's statement that the GOP attracts the scum of business while the Democratic Party attracts the scum of politics), but I was glad the media blitz the "liberal" Hive put on for her here in Georgia did not put her over. (And by "liberal" I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State-fellators." A lot of Soros bucks must have gone into buying all that expensive air time.
The commercials--in an attempt to paint Nunn as concerned about the little people-- featured a menagerie of the fattest, ugliest, most inbred-looking least educated rednecks you could ever see outside of the movie DELIVERANCE, complaining how corporate meanie Perdue outsourced their jobs to India. What happened to "liberal" internationalism? Doesn't Apu in Dubai deserve a job, too? And aren't the kind of yokels featured in the Nunn ads the Hive's traditional enemies? When did that change? When the Hive--after years of using the terms "middle class" and "bourgeois" as put-downs suddenly decided the party line was going to be "Lo, the Poor Middle Class"? Inquiring minds want to know. Tell us garage mahal--you seem to be a mindless parroter of the party line, so I figure you have to keep up with these switches.
Hillary is going into 2016 with some natural advantages--namely, having no primary to fight (which costs money and time, and requires different positioning from the general) and the natural Democratic advantages of having several large states already locked in. She won't have to do much to get the black vote, the Jewish vote, the Hispanic vote, and the poor vote. She can focus early and heavily on trying to expand that and win moderates, peel off a few purple states and phone it in.
However, she's got a long, ugly record, plenty of people already don't like her, and I'm sure more scandal will emerge during the campaign. While many in the media may favor the Democrats, they also want a real race, and a real story, and even those on the Left will be looking for dirt and gaffes and exploiting them. Hillary is also a terrible campaigner who can't convince a sauna full of old men to buy ice. She doesn't handle pressure well, or the unexpected. Again, her long record is a curse more than a blessing, due to a lack of real accomplishments. And her husband is more hurt than help, as he can't help but make everything about himself and will overshadow her on the campaign.
The remaining questions are twofold: first, will the Democratic brand be damaged enough in 2016 that moderates will drift to the GOP? It's possible--right now Obama and his party are looking weak, though much can change in the economy and world conditions. Second, who will the GOP nominate, and can this person run a smart, effective campaign that can win the middle and create a majority? That's the big unknown--it's a truly open field.
It'll be interesting.
Loved one of the comments at the link:
Hillary, at this point, what do you matter?
Hillaryous!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा