Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Oh yes, another round of solutions like the ACA, which create much animosity while resolving issues poorly. Let's agree that no one is gong to get the GOP to do anything productive, unless it's on their terms. We need less of that and more invective, properly aimed.

Great Presidents know ho to work the crowd, and threaten their adversaries. Reagan did, as did FDR before him. I'm not Bernie is up to the task, but I know that Hillary isn't even interested.

There is the judiciary including the SCOTUS, and that is a change your children will be living with.

And that is an excellent example of how the two tactics will play out.

With President Sanders we'll get an in-your-face, in a highly public way, SCOTUS nominee and give the GOP Congressional Critters not only an excuse to hold up the confirmation indefinitely but to rally their amygdala-dominated for the 2018 mid-terms. By then, the crabby-old-man-isolated-in-the-WH meme will be in full bloom and the disappointed former BernieBros coupled with foaming-at-the-mouth amygdala-dominated will result in a landslide for the GOP - just in time to set the stage for the 2020 census and locking in gerrymandered GOP dominance for another decade.

This scenario is what makes the usual run-of-the mill cynicism of maybe-a-GOPer-in-the-WH-won't-be-so-bad stupid and suicidal.

On the other hand, with President Clinton, most of the work for the SCOTUS nominee will be behind the scenes. Likely, the BernieBros, still-seething over their savior's nomination lost, will see the eventual nominee as a sellout which will actually help the nominee get through the confirmation process and not hand the GOP the touchstone to motivate their amygdala-dominated into a mouth-foaming 2018 voters. Then, some SCOTUS decisions taking the juice out of campaign funding, protecting pro-choice, limiting guns, etc. will make it clear to everyone what HC accomplished

The stakes are very high; its not the time to just let the chips fall where they may on the empty set of promises just to show how frustrated you are - the other side doesn't give a shXt how you feel.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...

Great Presidents know ho to work the crowd, and threaten their adversaries. Reagan did, as did FDR before him. I'm not Bernie is up to the task, but I know that Hillary isn't even interested.

I wanted to address this separately because I think it goes to the very heart of why Sanders is appealing particularly to the young and those of us who see our younger selves in their enthusiasm.

There is this sense that Sanders will bring to Washington the power of the people to move Mitch McConneld and Paul Ryan to get on the socialist train or else!

Or else what, exactly?

We know that around 30% of voters are on the extreme opposite end of the political spectrum, and at least as vocal; to the extent those folks are represented by Senators and by gerrymandering Representatives, those Congress critter will NEVER accept Sanders' agenda. That alone has been shown to frustrate even a 'moderate' agenda of Obama. If you add those on both sides of the aisle that would have some doubts about a "socialist agenda" (because that meme will be constantly pounded on), the likelihood of anything moving for Sanders is nil.

So what happens then?

We lived through a time of major social upheaval and protest against the Vietnam War, that took years. And sorry, as much as single payer motivates the Left, it ain't an unjust war with 58000 dead.

And really, do you think the Millies are up for that?

Are you counting on Twitter shXtstorms from Millies to force those GOP meanies to do the right thing?

Is there an app for that?

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

I'm very conflicted this Super Bowl. I'm from Denver. But the correlation between AFC winners and Republican victories for the White House and NFC winners and the Democrats winning the White House makes me afraid of Denver winning the Super Bowl.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12045298

You say you're from Denver but you write like a Canuck, Limey, Kiwi or Ozzie, using Oxford English? Whatup?

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Republicans were not willing to remove Bill Clinton,

They couldn't without Democratic votes, you need a 2/3 majority to convict.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

That's why someone like Bernie who is willing to butt heads with Congress and organise, organise, organise young liberal voters to actually turn out in a non-Presidential election instead of attempting to compromise would finally be able to prevail. Sanders can target Congresspeople (and perhaps even more importantly, state legislators) for defeat or in extremis, if a criminal case can be brought, removal through indictment.

If it were possible to organise, organise, organise young liberal voters, Bernie would have done that long ago. You don't have to run for president to organize.

Bernie's role is to run, not to be president. It's like someone should run on an across the board tariff, not because the tariff is necessarily a good idea, but that talking about it. Bernie is running on economic inequality. Nothing he promotes is likely to be a good idea in a practical sense, but bringing up the issue, how we got into the predicament and how we got out last time this happened (hint: it wasn't the 1930's New Deal)

Originally Posted by playwrite

You're likely not a Cruz troll, but with your Clinton Hater Derangement Syndrome being so intense and irrational to make that at least a suspicion should give you some pause. You're better than that.

An economic downturn impacts the popularity of anyone in the WH, but it might be particularly acute for Sanders if he winds up as the crabby old man holed up in the WH and deemed completely ineffective particularly by those, like you, who will be the first to abandoned their savior - you all would have taken Obama out if the economy had gone south under his term.

Frankly, I no longer give a shit what people like you think, anymore. You are completely mired in Establishment conventional thinking and are no different than all the other Boomer Clinton supporters who can't help themselves from shitting on Millennials.

Originally Posted by playwrite

There is the judiciary including the SCOTUS, and that is a change your children will be living with.

And that is an excellent example of how the two tactics will play out.

With President Sanders we'll get an in-your-face, in a highly public way, SCOTUS nominee and give the GOP Congressional Critters not only an excuse to hold up the confirmation indefinitely but to rally their amygdala-dominated for the 2018 mid-terms. By then, the crabby-old-man-isolated-in-the-WH meme will be in full bloom and the disappointed former BernieBros coupled with foaming-at-the-mouth amygdala-dominated will result in a landslide for the GOP - just in time to set the stage for the 2020 census and locking in gerrymandered GOP dominance for another decade.

This scenario is what makes the usual run-of-the mill cynicism of maybe-a-GOPer-in-the-WH-won't-be-so-bad stupid and suicidal.

On the other hand, with President Clinton, most of the work for the SCOTUS nominee will be behind the scenes. Likely, the BernieBros, still-seething over their savior's nomination lost, will see the eventual nominee as a sellout which will actually help the nominee get through the confirmation process and not hand the GOP the touchstone to motivate their amygdala-dominated into a mouth-foaming 2018 voters. Then, some SCOTUS decisions taking the juice out of campaign funding, protecting pro-choice, limiting guns, etc. will make it clear to everyone what HC accomplished

The stakes are very high; its not the time to just let the chips fall where they may on the empty set of promises just to show how frustrated you are - the other side doesn't give a shXt how you feel.

Hillary will give in to the Republicans on all the things that matter and hide that with superficial BS that lets her make a BS list that "proves" to gullible idiots how "progressive" she is.

If you think Hillary, who is 100% corrupted by monied interests wants to bite the hand that feeds her and enact campaign finance reform then YOU are the delusional one.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

If it were possible to organise, organise, organise young liberal voters, Bernie would have done that long ago. You don't have to run for president to organize.

Bernie's role is to run, not to be president. It's like someone should run on an across the board tariff, not because the tariff is necessarily a good idea, but that talking about it. Bernie is running on economic inequality. Nothing he promotes is likely to be a good idea in a practical sense, but bringing up the issue, how we got into the predicament and how we got out last time this happened (hint: it wasn't the 1930's New Deal)

I thought Obama's role was to run, not be the president too. Well, it didn't work out that way.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

If it were possible to organise, organise, organise young liberal voters, Bernie would have done that long ago. You don't have to run for president to organize.

Bernie's role is to run, not to be president. It's like someone should run on an across the board tariff, not because the tariff is necessarily a good idea, but that talking about it. Bernie is running on economic inequality. Nothing he promotes is likely to be a good idea in a practical sense, but bringing up the issue, how we got into the predicament and how we got out last time this happened (hint: it wasn't the 1930's New Deal)

I'm not so sure about that. I will say that Bernie's ideas are not PERFECT ideas. Every solution leads to new problems (or should I say new challenges) in life as in science. Obamacare has a great many faults. When Obamacare was being debated and passed, I saw it as a vehicle and a way station on the way to single-payer health care. Single-payer will lead to other issues--like how much health care at what cost should actually be delivered to people. Issues which should be decided openly and democratically, not behind closed corporate doors.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

They couldn't without Democratic votes, you need a 2/3 majority to convict.

Besides, a weakened President Clinton was of more use to the Republicans (repeal of Glass-Steagall got signed) than an incumbent Al Gore. Since impeachment conviction would leave President Clinton open to indictment, they had Bill Clinton over a barrel. Their bet paid off too. Do you honestly think Al Gore would have lost the 2000 Election if he had already been President?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Absolutely. Sanders would be better at this than Hillary Clinton. She needs to realize this and get her and Bill going on this in 2018, FWIW. It depends on millennials getting the message that elections happen every 2 years. Citizenship is not a part-time job. Will millennials become civics, or not?

Racketeering Act. I am wondering how Sanders proposes to "break up the banks." Maybe an option?

I expect a recession in 2018-2019, but it may not be major, and there may also be a green energy boom and post-industrial revolution brewing. But no president is going to get just what he wants. I think Bernie is capable of working with the system, despite Hillary's claims. Sanders is not the Ted Cruz of the Left. He is sincere and knows how to get things done. He also knows you don't succeed by starting out with abandoning your position.

Hillary's policies are not necessarily Bill's. Hillary's record in congress is quite progressive.

That's probably true.


Yes, absolutely.

Either the millennials start voting in midterms and down ballot, or the pressure for a parliamentary systems grows.

Hillary's record was not all that progessive in the Senate. Hillary did vote for bankruptcy "reform" that has made it much more difficult for families to get out of debt. And she's still the same.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

You say you're from Denver but you write like a Canuck, Limey, Kiwi or Ozzie, using Oxford English? Whatup?

What's up is that I lived for 8 years in Australia and wrote a Ph.D. thesis there at Sydney University. And my Linux Word System uses (surprise, surprise!) British spelling. Which I have become comfortable with over the years.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by playwrite

I wanted to address this separately because I think it goes to the very heart of why Sanders is appealing particularly to the young and those of us who see our younger selves in their enthusiasm.

There is this sense that Sanders will bring to Washington the power of the people to move Mitch McConneld and Paul Ryan to get on the socialist train or else!

Or else what, exactly?

A President Sanders has a bully pulpit to organise opposition to Republican congresspeople who stand in his way. FDR did that. There is a world of difference between the way Obama handled McConnell and Boehner and FDR's "Martin Barton and Fish speech (on a much harder sell than the New Deal, getting involved in the struggle against Hitler) See http://livefromthetrail.com/about-th...lano-roosevelt

We know that around 30% of voters are on the extreme opposite end of the political spectrum, and at least as vocal; to the extent those folks are represented by Senators and by gerrymandering Representatives, those Congress critter will NEVER accept Sanders' agenda. That alone has been shown to frustrate even a 'moderate' agenda of Obama. If you add those on both sides of the aisle that would have some doubts about a "socialist agenda" (because that meme will be constantly pounded on), the likelihood of anything moving for Sanders is nil.

So what happens then?

If they don't give in, THAT"S when we may see some more radical solutions like a Constitutional Convention to change some of these rules, possibly leading to a break-up and partial solutions in liberal parts of the Union. It is at the state legislature level that Bernie's Army might well prove most effective if deployed there. Even the realistic threat of a ConCon in which EVERYTHING would be up for grabs might force some very conservative congresspeople to reconsider their positions. It comes down to a refusal of liberals and progressives to let themselves be bullied by conservatives as they have been since the 1990s. Unlike a lot of people who talk revolution, I think Bernie really means it.

We lived through a time of major social upheaval and protest against the Vietnam War, that took years. And sorry, as much as single payer motivates the Left, it ain't an unjust war with 58000 dead.

And if you have been reading the stories from the Mideast, we may soon have another Vietnam--even before the next President takes office. Saudi Arabia and Turkey are demanding that the US commit troops to fight with them against ISIS AND the Assad Regime and the Russians. Bernie (or Trump) may not be able to say "Hell no! We won't go! if we are already there. https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/0...-iii-in-syria/

And really, do you think the Millies are up for that?

Are you counting on Twitter shXtstorms from Millies to force those GOP meanies to do the right thing?

Twiiter ShXstorms can turn into flash mobs very easily, as we saw with Occupy. And Tahrir Square. At least SOME Millies ARE Civics, known for courage. And even Artists have some courage. After all, the Freedom Riders were War Baby Artists. So yes, Millies can generate a great deal of "people power". Especially if an incumbent President Sanders pulls a Corazon Aquino and calls them out. And refuses to allow federal troops or federal agencies to be active in suppressing them. Refusing to allow the US Government to suppress protesters is something a President CAN do unilaterally.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

I'm very conflicted this Super Bowl. I'm from Denver. But the correlation between AFC winners and Republican victories for the White House and NFC winners and the Democrats winning the White House makes me afraid of Denver winning the Super Bowl.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12045298

-- well the Broncs won. But I think Bernie can too if the DNC don't screw him over

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

This method, though, is interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskins_Rule

It seems Gore's popular vote victory in 2000 upset a perfect record in this indicator. Because then the definition of "incumbent" flips.

My theory on why this method works is because the new moon before the election is also applicable to the game (the last home game of the season). Close in time and location. So we should all watch the Washington Redskins final home game. If the Redskins win, the Democrats are likely to win. Only one or two misses, so far; 2000 and 2012.

It seems I was not the only one who called the electoral vote count in 2012 exactly. Moody's did, and predicts a Democratic win in 2016. They have been right since 1980.
http://www.inquisitr.com/2468800/201...-presidential/

Moody's is worth watching too for predictions. But not the Super Bowl. 7 out of 12 isn't great odds.

[QUOTE=MordecaiK;548796]

A President Sanders has a bully pulpit to organise opposition to Republican congresspeople who stand in his way. FDR did that. There is a world of difference between the way Obama handled McConnell and Boehner and FDR's "Martin Barton and Fish speech (on a much harder sell than the New Deal, getting involved in the struggle against Hitler) See http://livefromthetrail.com/about-th...lano-roosevelt


If they don't give in, THAT"S when we may see some more radical solutions like a Constitutional Convention to change some of these rules, possibly leading to a break-up and partial solutions in liberal parts of the Union. It is at the state legislature level that Bernie's Army might well prove most effective if deployed there. Even the realistic threat of a ConCon in which EVERYTHING would be up for grabs might force some very conservative congresspeople to reconsider their positions. It comes down to a refusal of liberals and progressives to let themselves be bullied by conservatives as they have been since the 1990s. Unlike a lot of people who talk revolution, I think Bernie really means it.

-- he can take his case to the ppl when he wants something done. That's what Roosevelt did with his radio fireside chats. He'd say "I want to do this, that, & the other thing but the repugs won't go along" & folx would get on their congresscritturs the next day. Bernie can do the same with social media. He's already using it with awesome results. Ever notice how whenever somebody trashes him ppl send him $? Not sure how that would translate once he's in office, but I'm pretty sure Bernie will know to motivate Congress to do what he wants

And if you have been reading the stories from the Mideast, we may soon have another Vietnam--even before the next President takes office. Saudi Arabia and Turkey are demanding that the US commit troops to fight with them against ISIS AND the Assad Regime and the Russians. Bernie (or Trump) may not be able to say "Hell no! We won't go! if we are already there. https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/0...-iii-in-syria/

-- the Donald will simply pull the troops out if he don't want them there. Bernie will probably have to resort to more oblique tactics

Twiiter ShXstorms can turn into flash mobs very easily, as we saw with Occupy. And Tahrir Square. At least SOME Millies ARE Civics, known for courage. And even Artists have some courage. After all, the Freedom Riders were War Baby Artists. So yes, Millies can generate a great deal of "people power". Especially if an incumbent President Sanders pulls a Corazon Aquino and calls them out. And refuses to allow federal troops or federal agencies to be active in suppressing them. Refusing to allow the US Government to suppress protesters is something a President CAN do unilaterally.

--- this would be one such oblique tactic

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Besides, a weakened President Clinton was of more use to the Republicans (repeal of Glass-Steagall got signed) than an incumbent Al Gore. Since impeachment conviction would leave President Clinton open to indictment, they had Bill Clinton over a barrel. Their bet paid off too. Do you honestly think Al Gore would have lost the 2000 Election if he had already been President?

Clinton was weakened already by the stupid people who voted Republican in November 1994.

[QUOTE=marypoza;548813]

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

-- he can take his case to the ppl when he wants something done. That's what Roosevelt did with his radio fireside chats. He'd say "I want to do this, that, & the other thing but the repugs won't go along" & folx would get on their congresscritturs the next day. Bernie can do the same with social media. He's already using it with awesome results. Ever notice how whenever somebody trashes him ppl send him $? Not sure how that would translate once he's in office, but I'm pretty sure Bernie will know to motivate Congress to do what he wants



-- the Donald will simply pull the troops out if he don't want them there. Bernie will probably have to resort to more oblique tactics




--- this would be one such oblique tactic

The Donald was talking about a safe haven in Syria for refugees. Not sure where he could do that without getting into a confrontation with the Russians. Driving the Assad Regime out of Damascus and making Damascus and Hauran and Deera the safe haven would be an obvious possibility--if the Druse could be protected from the Sunni. Israel and Jordan could do the heavy lifting, though Israel would need some very significant concessions such as recognition of annexation of Jerusalem and the West Bank to make it worth it's while to do so. The Assad Regime could rule a rump Alawite state out of Latakia, effectively partitioning the country.
Though all this could be mooted if Turkey and Saudi Arabia invade in the next few months. And Turkey IS building up troops along the Syrian border. Turkey may not allow Assad to have Aleppo (which was the Ottoman Empire's second city, back in the day) back.With Aleppo 40 miles from Turkey the Turks can be in Aleppo within one day.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Besides, a weakened President Clinton was of more use to the Republicans (repeal of Glass-Steagall got signed) than an incumbent Al Gore. Since impeachment conviction would leave President Clinton open to indictment, they had Bill Clinton over a barrel. Their bet paid off too. Do you honestly think Al Gore would have lost the 2000 Election if he had already been President?

Hey, Mordecai.

Are you saying that you believe the Clinton Administration didn't support GLBA?


Prince

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I thought Obama's role was to run, not be the president too. Well, it didn't work out that way.

No, his job was to win. Your political views prevent you from seeing Obama from the left. Obama was more conservative than Clinton, (you would have to read his books to know this since he hid it well during the campaign). Once in office he showed this by spending way too much time trying to compromise with Republicans. You can tell he's not a African American (he's a Kenyan American--big difference) or he would have known better. I voted for him because he had a plausible theory of change, and because I believed that with Obama there was an outside shot at a 60 seat majority in the Senate (I had it pegged at 58 for Clinton). I cannot complain. Yeah he's done stuff I don't like, but since I set up in advance what I would have done if I were he, I find that a lot of the stuff he's done I don't like is stuff I would have done. So I can't blame him for making the same mistakes I would have made.

Clinton is not a bad choice (again from my perspective) since now it is clear where the lines lay. There will be no attempts at triangulation. She knows that the Republican Congress will do everything in their power to sabotage anything she tries to do. She will be able to do little--unless the economy collapses (50% probability in my estimation). She will then have powerful leverage. Not everyone on the Right believes the economic bullshit Republican politicians peddle to their voters. Clinton will have all the Democrats in Congress, all Ryan will need to stave the collapse is as few dozen Republican votes, of which there are more than enough.

But Ryan cannot easily cave to Clinton, he will want to horse trade. He will want a partial rescue that prevents collapse, but ensures most working class Americans get hit hard. If Clinton goes for this, Republicans will win the 2020 election, and they will inherit a tepid recovery from a crash they can blame on Democrats. That is, they will be Obama's situation and will probably win their next term. With a new gerrymandered map the GOP will be in place for dominance for the next decade or two after 2020. This scenario is a win for the GOP.

If Clinton refuses, we fall into depression. She is crushed in 2020, Republicans come to power with huge Congressional dominance and a highly gerrymandered map. But they will inherit a depression, which will keep on falling as it did under Hoover. The remaining Democrats in Congress will not cooperate with the GOP rescue plan; they will have top pass it on 100% partly-line votes, like Obama had to. There is no way a GOP with a major Tea Party contingent will pass any sort of rescue, so it won't happen. They will either decide to let the market sort it out (the decision they made in 1929) or start a war, figuring WW II got us out of the Depression.

In the first case the depression will get worse and worse until Republicans are driven from power in 2022-6, just like they were over 1932-36. In the second case the war won't work, because it will be a conservative war. Recall the libertarian nostrum "War is the Health of the State". Big wars create big changes, none of them good for capitalists, which is why free market conservatives traditional oppose big wars. But the reason why WW II ended the Depression was BECAUSE it was the "health of the state", that is it was boku stimulus. The Republican war won't pull the country out of the depression any more than the Iraq war brought back 1990's prosperity. So they will now have a depression AND a war. Either way 2024 will then be a big-time wave election against the Republicans who will have over four years openly destroyed the country. It will be 1932 all over again.

Of course either way Clinton is fucked. She cannot win by normal* means unless Ryan agrees to play ball. He controls her fate.

But plenty of people on the Right are going to be aware of these scenarios. There will be pressure** on Ryan to play it safe, let Clinton have her rescue plan. By avoiding a depression nobody gets the blame for making one, and the political situation remains as it was in 2016, with Republicans dominant at the state level and in Congress, and the Dems holding the Presidency. They can live with that. There will be other opportunities to get Clinton. So maybe Ryan decides to play ball.

Then again all of the above only becomes possible if there is a panic in the next recession, which I believe is only 50% likely. So we are talking about probabilities on top of probabilities that are really hard to game.

*There is Playwrite's scenario depicted in the graphic with Hillary holding a big knife. I don't deem this likely at all, but who knows?

**There is zero chance the GOP will play ball with a socialist, the optics alone will destroy the party. Thus a Sanders presidency will deliver either GOP dominance for decades, or gives us a depression (and probably a war too). This is why I don't want him to be president. But I do support him in the primary because I think that an insurgent candidate who calls himself a (democratic) socialist and speaks of a (political) revolution who does really well with the Democratic base will stiffen Clinton's spine against caving to Ryan, and maybe make Playwrite's scenario* more appealing--if it comes to that. This gives more leverage to Clinton, whom I think has an excellent chance to be the next president--assuming we are in a 4T.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Besides, a weakened President Clinton was of more use to the Republicans (repeal of Glass-Steagall got signed) than an incumbent Al Gore. Since impeachment conviction would leave President Clinton open to indictment, they had Bill Clinton over a barrel. Their bet paid off too. Do you honestly think Al Gore would have lost the 2000 Election if he had already been President?

There was no bet to be made. They could not convict even if they wanted to. Look five Republicans voted NOT to convict. There were the last five moderate Republicans. One was Jeffords who switched parties in 2001. Another was Arlen Spector who became a Dem in 2010. A third was Democrat Lincoln Chaffee's dad. The other two were the last of the moderate Republicans, only one of which is left.

Originally Posted by Odin

Hillary will give in to the Republicans on all the things that matter and hide that with superficial BS that lets her make a BS list that "proves" to gullible idiots how "progressive" she is.

What Republicans want is for her to leave office. So you are saying she give that to them? If she is so eager for defeat why in the hell has she run two difficult exhausting campaigns? Just so she could hear them play "Hail the Chief" for her?

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

What's up is that I lived for 8 years in Australia and wrote a Ph.D. thesis there at Sydney University. And my Linux Word System uses (surprise, surprise!) British spelling. Which I have become comfortable with over the years.

What is your Ph.D. in?

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

When Obamacare was being debated and passed, I saw it as a vehicle and a way station on the way to single-payer health care. Single-payer will lead to other issues--like how much health care at what cost should actually be delivered to people.

I saw the same thing. And this is still perfectly possible* All you have to do to get single payer, is to let Medicare bargain with the drug companies and to participate in the ACA exchanges. The premiums must be set so as to not incur any loss to the Medicare system. A simple modification. Sanders wants to scrap the ACA and delay single payer for who knows how long.

*Why do you suppose the GOP have been fighting the ACA with everything they got. I posted back in 2009 that the ACA was a political WMD the GOP had to defeat before it too hold. If Democrats win in 2016, then the ACA will be here to stay.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

What Republicans want is for her to leave office. So you are saying she give that to them? If she is so eager for defeat why in the hell has she run two difficult exhausting campaigns? Just so she could hear them play "Hail the Chief" for her?

What I mean is that she will toe the "Third Way" Neo-Liberal line on economics. She is not going to bite the Wall Street hands that feed her.