Obama Oversaw "Destruction Of Democratic Party," "Decimated" At All Levels

Democrats have been shuffling through every agonizing step of the acceptance of the devastating 2016 election, but Huffington Post journalist Sam Stein forced them to face and accept the utter decimation on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Wednesday.

In response to President Barack Obama denying his culpability in Hillary’s loss and his insistence that he would have won against Donald Trump in a run for a third term, Stein begrudgingly contradicted the president:

MSNBC's Morning Joe wrote:
This was as much a dig against [Democratic nominee Hillary] Clinton as it was Trump from President Obama, and you know, to a certain extent, you have to say OK, the Democrats are maybe over analyzing their loss a tiny bit because they did end up with 2.9 or 2.8 million more votes for their candidate — it was 80,000 in three states that really cost her.

But then on the other hand, you look at the destruction of the Democratic Party under Barack Obama’s leadership and you have to wonder, you know, what was the political — what were the electoral benefits that he gave to the party?

He leaves them under a much worse position — the states are decimated,  they lost control of the House and the Senate, the governorships are decimated. So yeah, he is obviously a gifted candidate. He did won [sic] election twice by substantial margins, but you know, his legacy as a politician is a bit muddied by all of that.

It’s really difficult to see any other interpretation from the electoral results aside from Obama’s massive political failure.
Clearly, the American people said that they liked Obama personally, but his policies were an abject failure, and they want to seek a different path. Unfortunately for Obama, that means a complete unraveling of his “legacy” under the Trump regime.

Democrats are still struggling to reconcile their adoration for Obama with the decimation of the Democratic Party while he led it and the country.

Below is the WSJ editorial that was discussed in the video, above.  It's very true.

WSJ wrote:
In the post-election annals of “woulda, coulda, shoulda,” it will be hard to top departing President Barack Obama’s boast that he would have defeated Donald Trump if I had run again.”

This, it goes without saying, triggered a tweet from Mr. Trump: “He should say that but I say NO WAY!”

How edifying to witness an American President and President-elect exchanging taunts like two eighth-graders in the schoolyard.

Mr. Obama unburdened himself of this analysis in a podcast with his former White House adviser David Axelrod. Though Mr. Obama is fond of sports analogies, one he seems not to have noticed is that most coaches after a Super Bowl loss don’t blame it on their own quarterback, the diabolical opposition or the media.

Mr. Obama said that Hillary Clinton, who ran as a third Obama term, “played it safe.” People felt the country was on the wrong track because Mitch McConnell threw “sand in the gears” of Washington. His advice to Democrats now is “not thinking that somehow just a great set of progressive policies that we present to the New York Times editorial board will win the day.”

The serious thought inside Mr. Obama’s late hit is whether progressive ideas need revision, or merely need to be recycled with a different messenger, like him. We doubt all Democrats will be as enthusiastic about running again on the economic and foreign-policy record of 2009-2016.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/if-i-had-run-again-1482882726

IVANKA just keeps on pushing his/her lies...
That post above is littered with falsehoods and alt.right rants from beginning to end..

Lies over the presidency..
Lies over the election..
Lies over the fate of the US Democratic party.

Tries to claim "independent" thinking, but can only ever criticise anybody who leans to the left of Attilla the Hun..

Tries to sound informed and analytical, but only succeeds in channeling blogs and puff pieces from fellow right-wing extremist nongs...

One of the leading GOP propaganda trolls to visit Newsfix..    

I like Obama sounding off over Israel and the abstention in the UN.  It shows that there will be two presidents in the next four years.  One is pussy-grabber, who got a minority share of the votes.  The other will be Obama, serving out his third term with one of the greatest popularity ratings for an outgoing president ever.

Trump is right to criticize Obama over Israel, it shows there can be more than one president at one time.  Let the minority executive whine, the public will have Obama to turn to.  

Obama actually touches on something that I've been thinking about lately, and it's part of why I've become extremely frustrated with the Democratic Party.

The party is, bluntly, stuck in the past -- by my calculations, about 22 years behind the times.

They craft their policies they think would help the majority of the people of America, and only then do they consider the fact that they can't implement anything without being in power.

The Republicans, on the other hand, have focused on nothing but power since 1994, when Newt Gingrich became speaker of the house. Look at what we had since then -- an unending attempt to impeach Bill Clinton, an election in which the Republican lost the popular vote but took the White House, two wars without exit strategies, the worst recession since the Great Depression, and after Obama's election, non-stop attempts to delegitimize him, undercut him and oppose everything he tried, then yet another election in which the Republican lost the popular vote (this time getting his ass thoroughly whipped) but taking the White House.

All this time, what were the major Republican policy initiatives? Tax cuts! That's the only idea they ever came to the table with, other than the Patriot Act, which was a reaction to 9/11. They didn't care about policy, they cared about power, and they've cut the Democratic Party's balls off with that approach.

The Democrats can fight back, but the key word here is fight. We need our own version of these guys:



... i.e., meatheads who show up to political rallies, get their pictures taken and circulated in the media, and circulate that message -- "We hate you and we're ready to kill you if we don't get our way."

They need somebody like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren to call all the Democratic senators together and make them agree that they will throw up every last parliamentary roadblock in the book against absolutely everything Trump tries to do.

They need to scare the American voters, and bad. They need to associate Trump with un-American values as much as possible, and there's plenty of ammunition -- everything from Trump's Neo-Nazi supporters and their "Hail Trump" salutes to Vladimir Putin.

They need some gadfly out there who can get downright UGLY -- get on the radio or the Internet and speculate about how many blowjobs Melania Trump has given out in order to further her modeling career. Push the combination of Trump's inappropriate comments about Ivanka, Paris Hilton at age 14 and the multiple claimants who say they were raped by Trump at age 12 or 13 to cement him in the public eye as a predatory pedophile who probably fantasized about his own daughter, or worse.

They need to trot out a parade of women who have been sexually harassed by Trump. They need a black person on TV every month or so who was discriminated against by Trump's father.

In short, the Republican Party has been succeeding since 1994 by fighting in the mud, and we've just been trying to keep the dirt off of us. I say it's time to get down in the mud and fight and scratch and bite, tell the American people that this is our country and that the Republicans are a bunch of outdated Nazi fossils who would sooner suck off an oil company CEO than help anybody who isn't white AND Christian AND male AND straight AND rich.

Ben wrote:Obama actually touches on something that I've been thinking about lately, and it's part of why I've become extremely frustrated with the Democratic Party.

The party is, bluntly, stuck in the past -- by my calculations, about 22 years behind the times.

They craft their policies they think would help the majority of the people of America, and only then do they consider the fact that they can't implement anything without being in power.

It strikes me that it is not the party that is stuck in the past, but the people. The staff of the party has grown old around us. For myself, I was busy rooting for the first female president, when her age crept up on me. So then, I found that indeed I was rooting for old white people, who were only coincidentally female.

Some would say you shouldn’t have been looking for tokens of any race or gender, but the first female president? And she was competent. It’s just that the people are so stupid…they are easily swayed by the Republican myth makers, and what have I been saying about how Republicans lie?

Ben wrote:The Republicans, on the other hand, have focused on nothing but power since 1994, when Newt Gingrich became speaker of the house. Look at what we had since then -- an unending attempt to impeach Bill Clinton, an election in which the Republican lost the popular vote but took the White House, two wars without exit strategies, the worst recession since the Great Depression, and after Obama's election, non-stop attempts to delegitimize him, undercut him and oppose everything he tried, then yet another election in which the Republican lost the popular vote (this time getting his ass thoroughly whipped) but taking the White House.

Republicans in the post-Roosevelt era have always focused on power. RW’rs are, and have always been anti-democratic from the era in Britain of James II and Jacobism (the originals of the Tories), to the present. In America, states like Pennsylvania and those derived from the Plymouth Bay colony were highly democratic, while Virginia and southern states were highly royalist. Communism—which is the ultimate form of democracy—was the bane of all the US and Churchill for some 60-years. So, don’t regard the question of democracy as settled yet. Look at populist heroes like Trump…he has no problem with the electoral college.

Because RW’rs are so adverse to democracy, it’s easy for them to embrace devises for power without regard or concern for the popular vote. Thus conservative elements in rural and conservative states adopt voter restriction measures, and special legislative constraints, such as the Local Government Fiscal Responsibility Act, passed in 1990 in Michigan (leading to the Flint crisis).

Ben wrote:All this time, what were the major Republican policy initiatives? Tax cuts! That's the only idea they ever came to the table with, other than the Patriot Act, which was a reaction to 9/11. They didn't care about policy, they cared about power, and they've cut the Democratic Party's balls off with that approach.

Tax cuts and the Patriot Act are from two entirely different ends of the spectrum. Remember, conservatives have two types, the elite and the stupid ones (John Stuart Mill said: “I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant that stupid persons are generally Conservative”). The tax cuts were for the elite, who are rich. The Patriot Act was for the stupid, to get them enthused for a new enemy to replace Communism (Muslims).

Ben wrote:The Democrats can fight back, but the key word here is fight. We need our own version of these guys:



... i.e., meatheads who show up to political rallies, get their pictures taken and circulated in the media, and circulate that message -- "We hate you and we're ready to kill you if we don't get our way."

I don’t agree that we need our own version of the stupid ones. You make a good point about media attention. But the left doesn’t need a corps of stupids…don’t forget, our business plan is not to be the elitists, pulling tricks on the ignorant. Our business plan is the general weal.

As far as the media is concerned, there is the short term media (pays attention to any noise), and the long term media (history and such…news with intelligent analysis). Right now, the stupid ranks are swelling because the RW has sold its lie, bolstered by the general racism of America, and it’s reaction to a black president.

Ben wrote:They need somebody like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren to call all the Democratic senators together and make them agree that they will throw up every last parliamentary roadblock in the book against absolutely everything Trump tries to do.

They need something. How about a Wendy Davis? Remember, while agism isn’t any more attractive than sexism or racism, there is a bit of reality to it in that we are all going to die.

Ben wrote:They need to scare the American voters, and bad. They need to associate Trump with un-American values as much as possible, and there's plenty of ammunition -- everything from Trump's Neo-Nazi supporters and their "Hail Trump" salutes to Vladimir Putin.

Scare? Again, our plan is not to create a ‘we-them’ distinction (RW elitism) in the business of LW politics.

Ben wrote:They need some gadfly out there who can get downright UGLY -- get on the radio or the Internet and speculate about how many blowjobs Melania Trump has given out in order to further her modeling career. Push the combination of Trump's inappropriate comments about Ivanka, Paris Hilton at age 14 and the multiple claimants who say they were raped by Trump at age 12 or 13 to cement him in the public eye as a predatory pedophile who probably fantasized about his own daughter, or worse.

They need to trot out a parade of women who have been sexually harassed by Trump. They need a black person on TV every month or so who was discriminated against by Trump's father.

In short, the Republican Party has been succeeding since 1994 by fighting in the mud, and we've just been trying to keep the dirt off of us. I say it's time to get down in the mud and fight and scratch and bite, tell the American people that this is our country and that the Republicans are a bunch of outdated Nazi fossils who would sooner suck off an oil company CEO than help anybody who isn't white AND Christian AND male AND straight AND rich.

Hmmm…nothing was ever gained by furthering falsehood. I have said many times that the LW is not selling the same product as the RW. The RW represents special interests; the LW represents the general interest. The RW product is dependent upon mendacity and promoting individual lies. But the LW product is equally dependent upon truth. It’s our vulnerability, but it is also our long-term strength.

If we get into the business of lying, we will also be pulling ourselves by the tail into the business of protecting special interests…perhaps not wealth interests like the RW, but certainly power interests (which is part what you are saying, face it). The Left doesn’t need riches or power, but truth is essential. Truth is our commodity.

If you want a distinction, make it the difference between short-term truth and long-term truth. Truth hasn’t changed; it’s just that the causal model has stretched out, and the less intellectually patient among us are not willing to wait out the answer. We need to stretch out the expectancy about truth. We need to educate—not them, for any ‘we-they’ is a form of elitism—but educate ourselves with them, on the consequences of not only Trumpism—for his ideas were only nascent bits of RW ideology rampant in America anyway—but the whole danger of separating truth from reality, and expedients from justice.