2017 impeachment - because it's never too early

[Grey Fox]

How much of there not being a viable alternative to Clinton was a very concerted and conscious effort by the Clinton power bloc within the DNC to make sure another "Obama" was not allowed to have any prominence for the last eight years?

All of it.

[garbon]

I think Bernie is the exception that proves the rule. He was not a Democrat to begin with, hence never needed the establishment blessing, and therefore was able to not need that endorsement.

Heck, the DNC probably thought he was great. After all, they need some token opposition, and he was perfect, since early on he looked like a great token candidate - someone who could run against Clinton, but had no real chance.

Clinton was anointed in 2008, and then this charismatic Obama screwed it all up. It looked to me like Clinton and the DNC made a very concerted effort to not let that happen again...

The alternative explanation, I guess, is that the Democratic Party is basically dead, and the best possible leaders they could come up with is a fatally flawed re-tread and a very old Socialist? That doesn't strike me as a more appealing story...

Or there is, of course, the really easy angle of there were many Dems who actually supported her and wanted her as a candidate and President.

[Berkut]

I think Bernie is the exception that proves the rule. He was not a Democrat to begin with, hence never needed the establishment blessing, and therefore was able to not need that endorsement.

Heck, the DNC probably thought he was great. After all, they need some token opposition, and he was perfect, since early on he looked like a great token candidate - someone who could run against Clinton, but had no real chance.

Clinton was anointed in 2008, and then this charismatic Obama screwed it all up. It looked to me like Clinton and the DNC made a very concerted effort to not let that happen again...

The alternative explanation, I guess, is that the Democratic Party is basically dead, and the best possible leaders they could come up with is a fatally flawed re-tread and a very old Socialist? That doesn't strike me as a more appealing story...

Or there is, of course, the really easy angle of there were many Dems who actually supported her and wanted her as a candidate and President.

Of course there were - but it is a bit silly to think that her popularity within the Democratic Party was just so overwhelming that nobody else even bothered. If that was the case, she would have won in 2008.

[Admiral Yi]

She could have done a much better job about emails.  AFAIK all she did is say she made a mistake and that she was sorry.

Should have done a Bill, go on 60 Minutes, sat on the couch with Bubba and explained everything she did and why she did it.

[derspiess]

She even lied when she denied it was a criminal investigation, calling it a "security review."

[Barrister]

She could have done a much better job about emails.  AFAIK all she did is say she made a mistake and that she was sorry.

Should have done a Bill, go on 60 Minutes, sat on the couch with Bubba and explained everything she did and why she did it.

Indeed.  She could have done a repeat of her 1990s "pink dress" press conference where she stayed until every last question was answered about Whitewater.

But I still think she should have released all the emails.

[Zanza]

Of course there were - but it is a bit silly to think that her popularity within the Democratic Party was just so overwhelming that nobody else even bothered. If that was the case, she would have won in 2008.

According to Wiki five other candidates did in fact bother...? Two governors, two senators and a Harvard professor. In 2000 the Democrats had seven candidates other than her, all members of Congress except for on governor. But in 2008, except for a few delegates for Edwards it was a two-person race as well between her and Obama. Were Biden, Dodd or Richardson in 2008 also somehow smothered by the Clinton machine?

[KRonn]

Fundamentally, she was too flawed of a candidate.  I think she ran a decent campaign but she couldn't overcome all of the 'Crooked Hillary' bullshit.  The party made a huge mistake by just giving the nomination to her.  Bernie's success in the primary helped illustrate what a big mistake it was.

Agreed, she was practically anointed as the next in line to run. There certainly were other dems besides Bernie who would more fit the idea of a change candidate which was what people were looking for. Even curmudgeonly socialist Bernie did well since he was seen more as a change candidate.

Bullshit.  Remember she ran in 2008 as well.  Why wasn't she "anointed" then?

Because in Obama joined the race and was a strong candidate. The dems needed that this time around to give more competition to Hillary but no one really opposed her. In 2008 there were more strong candidates but in 2016 many chose not to run, such as Biden, Warren, and others.

[CountDeMoney]

She even lied when she denied it was a criminal investigation, calling it a "security review."

And yet, derfetuskullfucker still proves he doesn't know the definition of "criminal investigation." 

[Berkut]

Of course there were - but it is a bit silly to think that her popularity within the Democratic Party was just so overwhelming that nobody else even bothered. If that was the case, she would have won in 2008.

According to Wiki five other candidates did in fact bother...? Two governors, two senators and a Harvard professor. In 2000 the Democrats had seven candidates other than her, all members of Congress except for on governor. But in 2008, except for a few delegates for Edwards it was a two-person race as well between her and Obama. Were Biden, Dodd or Richardson in 2008 also somehow smothered by the Clinton machine?

There was zero credible Dem candidates other than Clinton in this primary.

There were quite a few in 2008 who were at least credible. Of course it came down to two eventually, as it almost always does. But yes, even then the Clinton machine had in fact anointed Clinton, it just ran up against a surprising contender who didn't put up a show and then rally behind her as planned, instead Obama surprised them and beat Clinton, because the idea that Clinton is just oh so very super duper popular is a complete fiction.

My question is whether or not the stories that the Clinton machine made sure that would not, could not, happen again by not letting anyone rise to any kind of prominence to begin with during the Obama administration are true, or whether it is really the case that the Democratic Party is so crippled and stale that they went out, found all the best possible candidates, and came up with Clinton...and nobody else of note. At all. Not one single other viable candidate, except for the guy who wasn't a Democrat at all.

[frunk]

I think the bigger problem is that media has become so headline driven that it doesn't matter if you get competent or intelligent candidates, it's about grabbing attention by whatever means necessary.  Look at the Republican primary, it was all Carson early on who said the craziest things and grabbed the attention.  Later on he petered out and Trump came to the fore.  Cruz was pretty crazy, but he couldn't let loose like Trump.

On the Democrat's side it was a two horse race between Emails/Benghazi Clinton (both good for pseudo-scandal headlines) and Socialist Sanders.  Nobody else was exciting or crazy enough to get attention.

The criteria for being a president is fundamentally different now.  The media thinks that it is highlighting reasons not to vote for someone, instead it just distracts from anybody reasonable.

[KRonn]

Of course there were - but it is a bit silly to think that her popularity within the Democratic Party was just so overwhelming that nobody else even bothered. If that was the case, she would have won in 2008.

According to Wiki five other candidates did in fact bother...? Two governors, two senators and a Harvard professor. In 2000 the Democrats had seven candidates other than her, all members of Congress except for on governor. But in 2008, except for a few delegates for Edwards it was a two-person race as well between her and Obama. Were Biden, Dodd or Richardson in 2008 also somehow smothered by the Clinton machine?

There was zero credible Dem candidates other than Clinton in this primary.

There were quite a few in 2008 who were at least credible. Of course it came down to two eventually, as it almost always does. But yes, even then the Clinton machine had in fact anointed Clinton, it just ran up against a surprising contender who didn't put up a show and then rally behind her as planned, instead Obama surprised them and beat Clinton, because the idea that Clinton is just oh so very super duper popular is a complete fiction.

My question is whether or not the stories that the Clinton machine made sure that would not, could not, happen again by not letting anyone rise to any kind of prominence to begin with during the Obama administration are true, or whether it is really the case that the Democratic Party is so crippled and stale that they went out, found all the best possible candidates, and came up with Clinton...and nobody else of note. At all. Not one single other viable candidate, except for the guy who wasn't a Democrat at all.

I think it was more that the Clintons are such a strong entity within democrat circles that it somewhat discouraged others to run against Hillary. Democrats are more of united who follow the party line than the republicans who are more like herding cats, so I think that added into there being less opposition to a politically strong Hillary candidate.

[Berkut]

In 2008 you had Edwards, Clinton, Obama, and Biden - all of them as credible candidates you could imagine winning. Hell, Edwards came in second in Iowa. But even then, Clinton was very much seen as the obvious winner.

In 2016 you had Clinton, and that is it. One credible candidate.

How did that come about?

garbon would have us believe that Dems just love Clinton so much that nobody else wanted to run against her, because she was just that big of a rock star, even compared to 2008.

I don't buy it.

[Razgovory]

Fundamentally, she was too flawed of a candidate.  I think she ran a decent campaign but she couldn't overcome all of the 'Crooked Hillary' bullshit.  The party made a huge mistake by just giving the nomination to her.  Bernie's success in the primary helped illustrate what a big mistake it was.

Agreed, she was practically anointed as the next in line to run. There certainly were other dems besides Bernie who would more fit the idea of a change candidate which was what people were looking for. Even curmudgeonly socialist Bernie did well since he was seen more as a change candidate.

Bullshit.  Remember she ran in 2008 as well.  Why wasn't she "anointed" then?

Because in Obama joined the race and was a strong candidate. The dems needed that this time around to give more competition to Hillary but no one really opposed her. In 2008 there were more strong candidates but in 2016 many chose not to run, such as Biden, Warren, and others.

Okay, so "anointed" really just means, "won the primary". 

[Valmy]

Anointing and inevitability were identified as aspects of both the 2008 and 2016. By the media and pundits I mean.