Biden: Clinton Never Figured Out Why She Actually Wanted To Be President

On the heels of a poll showing that 62 percent of Democrats and Independents do not want Hillary Clinton to run again, Vice President Joe Biden delivered perhaps the most honest and most stinging post mortem: “I don’t think she ever really figured . . .  out [why she was running].”   While Biden gave a sympathetic take on that dilemma for Clinton, many voters had a harsher view that she ran because she and Democratic leaders treated the office as hers by right.

Many opposed Clinton based on the full-court press of the establishment that seemed more like a coronation rather than an election.  Clinton never seemed to get traction on any message, particularly when faced with the unexpected rise of Bernie Sanders.  Indeed, what was bizarre is that the Clinton staff would periodically announce that they were going to remake her image or message like she was a commercial product being tweaked under continuing market analysis.

Biden, 74, did soften the analysis by saying the Clinton felt forced to run, which certainly did not come across to most voters — or every Saturday Night Live segment.

250 thoughts on “Biden: Clinton Never Figured Out Why She Actually Wanted To Be President”

  1. Hillary’s drive has always been geared towards obtaining the status of a be-er. What Biden actually meant is that she failed to cook up an effective “reason why” voters should prefer her. More wars, favors for the 1%, and implementing more police state policies just weren’t as appealing as the same goals disguised behind a Make America Great Again sales pitch.

    1. Nice reasoning. This is the nib of it.

      Also, the same goals (only draped in a flag) exactly!.

  2. Had she not gone on Saturday Night Live! she would be President elect. But, she went on and made a bad case for herself. Oh, well. Never Mind!

  3. I’m no psychiatrist, but it appears that Hillary thrives on being seen and heard. It is like a nutrient she must have, and approval and praise by others fills some deeply held need. Prediction: A Hillary deprived of the limelight will find a way to get it back.

    Is this the same Joe Biden who said that a white minority was in the offing, and it was a good thing?

    1. “I’m no psychiatrist, but it appears that Hillary thrives on being seen and heard. ”
      ——- and Trump doesn’t ??!!!

      1. Tribalism explains a lot.

        According to E.O.Wilson, it’s in our genetic make up and explains how, like ants, human groups as well as individuals are subject to evolution – both of them through genetic mutations that makes them more adaptable to new conditions. Wilson sees tribalism as a good thing generally though he takes a decidedly long view of it.

        PBS did a very good program on it in 2008.

        Wikipedia has a fair summary,

        Of course there is the down side to this as well.. Can our evolution, tribal and/or individual, evolve fast enough to adapt to GW or to attaining max sustainable population densities on a global scale? Doesn’t look promising right now.

        1. E.O. Wilson studied bugs. I’m sure that’s great preparation for understanding social relations.

          1. Ants in particular. Again, I suggest reviewing the subject, his work that is, before making the usual pejorative noises and sneers you favor for your distinguishing characteristics.

            Wilson’s argument as I understand it (and my understanding is limited), is that humans and ants are somewhat unique in that they both have the individual genetic evolution as well as what he claims to have discovered as a group evolution, also expressed at the genetic level. Altruism’s origin, for example, he claims is genetic as part of the individual’s sacrifice for the group, or tribe, wherein that individual’s genes are likely to survive via other close members of the group.

            1. His work has been misunderstood and misused as opening the door to claims of superiority and, by the same token, inferiority of groups based on genetic differences.

              1. He has a hammer, he sees a nail.

                Richard Lynn wrote a self-confident book on the secret of economic development. Look at his bibliography, and count his citations to the literature in economics, geography, and sociology. Not many. Richard Lynn is a psychometrician. His thesis is that you can understand economic development by studying psychometrics. Funny thing about that.

                1. He has a hammer, he sees a nail.

                  No, he sees situations where altruistic behavior can not be explained by social interaction or learning, but work perfectly within his notion of group genetics.

                  His thesis has also received slow but considerable acclaim at this point.

          2. Darling, you’re right. Pavlov used dogs to study classical conditioning. He had every right to clinically apply what he learned from canines to our species while EO Wilson was hardly the father of sociobiology with his bugs. Bugs aren’t mammals, which are infinitely more familiar with social interactions! It’s nothing less than genius, darling! Oh, thank you!

    1. Unfortunately, it looks like Trump is stepping up to be a big time mid east war hawk. Did you follow what he did with the UN resolution?

      1. Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald 33m33 minutes ago

        Dianne Feinstein’s statement supporting Obama’s UN abstention is surprisingly clear & good (everything is relative) Trump appears to be far more hawkish than Diane Feinstein on mideast policy. Not a good sign……

  4. You’d better believe that every single day – probably from before she ran for the senate – she was BESIEGED by people who were literally begging her to run. Their confidence, support and MONEY had to be overwhelming. Think of the honor. The History of it! With that atmosphere, whether she ever had a personal goal – or a particular policy – was irrelevant. How could she disappoint the people of America by not running?

    1. igpres – I would not have been disappointed if Hillary did not run. In fact, I think she was getting B-12 shots or something to get her through the debates. And that flimsy excuse about the 9/11 Memorial wouldn’t hold up with a 2-year-old. She is ill and she is slowly going down hill.

      1. You’ve seen the Youtube video that pathologist made. I haven’t the background to have much critical engagement, but his thesis (that she’s been under treatment for Parkinson’s since about 2005) doesn’t sound cray cray crazy. He certainly was able to cherry-pick some odd incidents to illustrate his point.

        1. DesperatelySeekingSusan – I have not seen the video, however I am aware that several doctors suspected she had Parkinson’s. However, I do think that she has a persistent disease. If she does have Parkinson’s, this would clearly be her last shot at running for President. Her condition would just get worse.

          1. I agree Paul. I believe she has some other neurological condition but not Parkinson’s. My father lived with Parkinson’s for 25 years. I never saw him have some of Mrs. Clinton’s behaviors (e.g., the 9/11 memorial episode).

            1. I have family members w/ alcoholism and Hillary exhibited those same behaviors, particularly those of the nasty alcoholics. She physically attacked Podesta on election night in a drunken rage.

              1. Nick: Not that it would surprise me if it were true, but is the allegation that Clinton physically attacked Podesta on election night verifiable other than through an Alex Jones assertion or is it converted to fact by it being repeated so many times?

                1. Steve – Dick Morris got in a fist fight with Bill Clinton and Hillary has a history of throwing the furniture at Bill. If someone says she nailed Podesta, I would take their word for it. She’s under arrest.

                    1. Steve – I don’t have images but Dick Morris has talked about it and SS has talked about the flying furniture in the West Wing. I think a lot depends on how much Hillary can actually pick up at this age and with her health problems. A bottle of champagne flying across the room would be perfect. She is not a good loser.

              2. Nick – My understanding is that she is nasty when sober. She could be a ‘secret drinker’ which would explain some of her problems, however, not the collapse and then miraculous recover and hour later at Chelsea’s. For some time she was traveling with a huge black guy who was always next to her and there was speculation that his job was to keep her upright.

                1. He appears in the pathologist’s video. He can be heard on the hot mike advising her how to respond. The pathologist speculates that she had a Parkison’s-induced freeze in reaction to the auditory cacaphony of the crowd and that he was offering cue terms to repeat in order to get back on track mentally. The incident is discussed at 11:18 of the video

  5. She won the “popular vote”. But being popular is not good enough. A candidate must win the students over who attend the Electoral College.
    Hillary is too old to run again. Just like Biden is too old to have run this time. Trump is too old.
    The senility will come forward. I am 85 and cannot remember which way the wind blows on Fridays around here and I am a lifelong sailor.
    There was a commenter on this blog who ran a parallel with Hitler’s coming into power after the Reichstag Fire. The Twin Towers was kinda like the burning of the German Parliament (Reichstag). But Trump is not just the Right Wing of some American political party. He is a new phenomena. Down the road people will call this The Trump Era. In four years we will be fine. As long as we have a weatherman to tell us which way the wind blows. Bob Dylan wrote a song about this. We will be fine under Trump. We need jobs in America. My underwear is sold by Hanes but made in Vietnam. Something wrong here. It will all come out in the wash.

    1. @JackR
      Your right we will be fine. What gave us the Trump era was not the Trade Towers but 8 years of Barry Soetoro.

      1. It’s much more than that, it’s several decades of neoliberalism which gained a foothold in the US in the 1980s during the Thatcher/Reagan era, and was subsequently adopted on both sides of the aisle. Blaming it all on Obama is naive, even though he is indeed neoliberal to the core.

            1. Steve Groen – that is a Conclusionary Comment all in its own. You are still in the race, Stevie, baby. 🙂

Comments are closed.