OCinBuffalo

If I was advising the next R president, that's precisely what I'd tell him to do. Toung in cheek of course, but still: you know, the Jon Stewart, "I'm kidding but not kidding" way. Not in the first speech out of the gate, which is supposed to be uplifting, etc. But, about 5-6 weeks, in the first press conference with reporters in the briefing room, you go on offense. I'd set them up by promising the Washington Post, New York Times, and LA Times the first 3 questions, and tell them they had to be either on the economy, foreign policy, or Obamacare. "Well, as we know, I inherited the mess that is Obamacare, and since you here in the press decided to give my predecssor a consistent pass on "inheritance", I clearly deserve the same consideration". Or something like that. Walk them right into it. It innoculates that R admin right away, and completely hamstrings the MSM initial efforts to define the R presidency as "troubled"....which is what they did with Bush. You chop their legs out right at the starting line. And, come on, if you are the next R president, you are going to war with these people no matter what. If war is inevitable, just like when a fight is inevitable, the guy who lands the first real punch almost always wins.

Christ, after all this time, we still haven't destroyed North Carolina yet? I thought we would be well on our way. Perhaps this is another 20 years of doing nothing, and then assault/breech w/ snipers plan? I think we should send the BLM and start tasering asses. Especially whoever got the contract to provide the shrubbery. There's nothing neat about that at all. That's actually quite icky, when you could have spent it on teachers, and shrubbery tends to grow all by itself, especially in NC. Do they have Boy Scouts in need of Eagle projects in NC?

I'll say it again: Look at the difference between Benghazigate(a Hillary Operation) and IRSgate(an Obama Operation) In the former, you have a guy who is already out of way, paid off, and has nothing to lose by falling on his sword, which is actually a pen knife, because he has been coached, and manipulated the story expertly. He may not be done, but Hillary is free and clear. In the latter, you have a lady who is at some point going to be counseled by a lawyer, who doesn't represent the Democratic party, but only her, who is going to tell her to take the deal. Obama remains on the hook for this, and there's no way he should be, after all this time. All hell is going to break loose on the day Lerner takes the deal. All Obama had to do was get Lerner a job, she cops to the crime, names the Justice people and the Treasury people, and the FBI, ATF, and other IRS people she got to send people to this one lady's home/business, and this is over. Everybody gets slaps, Lerner does a little time, and walks out a rich person/sells her story to Hollywood/publishers. Instead? I'm really starting to believe that the only reason such an obvious damage control approach was not taken, is because there's some higher up people who are demanding that this be stonewalled, because they know they are completely screwed no matter what, if the real story gets out. At this point, what makes the most sense? Are you really telling me that the DNC hasn't been able to get Lerner to play ball? Come on. This whole thing should have been done with months ago. But...here we still are....

I would, if they hadn't taken down the video? CIting factual error that the guy wants to get right before he re-posts. This was still the case as of this time stamp. This is what I am saying. The 20 years of hidebound bureaucratic inertia and government incompetence....is what I expected. That's normal. Why not another 20 years? That would be also be: normal. I see the 20 years as supporting, not detracting, from the point that there must be some new stimulus here, that suddenly requires tasers, dogs and snipers... and to hell with what it may look like on youtube, because the reward, or greater risk, to hidebound #1-100 of the BLM management team, outweighs that risk. Look, I fully expect the government clods to sit on their asses and do nothing. I don't expect them to take drastic action that almost certainly invites Congressional review/subpeonas/career ending testimony. Well, with that much cattle, a police car is bound to be crapped on at some point. I'm not there yet. I don't want to name names, because for all we know this is some constituent X, who's represented by Congressman Y, who could be a Republican, or from another state, or whatever. This could easily come from some environtologist group, who's owed a favor by Congessman Z from Florida. As we see with the IRS scandal, a Congressman can apparently do all sorts of nasty stuff, and get the executive branch to go along with it. That congressman is from nowhere near the lady he persecuted. I'm not saying you're wrong. I am saying: I'm not buying that this is a merely a logical progression of 20 years of nothing, to snipers on the hill, just because it just happens to be time for snipers on the hill. I'm not buying that 5 years, 3 years, 18 months, 2 months, 2 weeks ago, snipers on the hill was always part of the "what we are doing about Clive Bundy" project plan. Are you arguing that going from 20 years of nothing, to suddenly snipers on the hill, is normal behavior for government employees? What about the mandatory, "we need to study this for 3 months, and perhaps engage a consultant", approach that you will find at almost every step of every single thing they do? Followed by the mandatory 2 month review of the study, and the comittee that must be formed to do the review, and the selection process for the comittee, and on and on? Suddenly moving at this level and pace? Nope.

"But Bush is an idiot, he's the dumbest president we'eve ever had. But he got all these people to believe his lies, he must be the smartest president we've ever had. No, Bush is an idiot, he's too dumb to do that. But, he did do it, how else could this have happened, if not for Bush being an evil genius. Bush is an idiot, and I don't care what you say, because I know he's an idiot. Bush lied so well, he got Hillary to believe it, so I don't care what you say, because the only way he could have tricked Hillary is by being pretty smart, because, you know, she's definitely a genius. Look at how well she did as Secretary of State!" - The inane babbling that goes on in the head of a leftist, since only there can things that are polar opposites both be true at the same time. It's a magical place, that spawns so much magical thinking, like the notion that Obamacare can be both a tax, and not a tax, at the same time. But it's main feature is the absolutist, and child-like approach to complex concepts, reducing all things to the 1st-grade reading level. What the hell are you talking about? You've never heard of artisitic license? That's what's going on here: GreggyT's impressionist approach to the topic. This is all flourish, rhetorical flourish. And sissone, a piroutte, and if he doesn't cut it out he's gonna get piqued. It's impressionist, but at least it's not free association. That is gatorman's domain. Christ, if you want the non-fiction section you should be reading \GoBillsinDallas/, or perhaps B-Man....although there will be crying about the sources with that.

I gave you the exact thing you asked for in the other thread. I can't help but notice that you had no reply. I can give you the same report in every thread. In all cases, the cat is out of the bag on "single payer". It's a lie. The only place on earth single payer health care exists: is in the mind of the kooks that espouse it. And here's another report that includes China. http://www.google.co....65058239,d.cWc Notice the premise. Yeah, public insurance has worked so well....that they are looking for alternatives. Now I don't know about you, but, those ar some healthy(or starving) people, and even they, with a 1 billion person "risk pool" need something that ain't public. And this is McKinsey's work, so spare me.

You know, since we are doing "what happens to me is the only thing that matters/must mean it works for everybody"? My aunt runs a small business. She and my elected Democrat uncle(who is a good guy, but stereotypical dimwitted politician) have been telling me, well, parroting the latest DNC Obamacare email, for years. I have been telling them they are going to wish they never heard of Obama for as many years. All of sudden, 2 nights ago, I get this panicked phone call: and you can guess what it's about! "We have more than 50 people working here, holy crap we are gonna get killed! You know this stuff! HELP!" Yeah, a problem they have had for years suddenly becomes a crisis, and now it's my crisis. Par for the course. I haven't even had time to make fun of them yet. But, when I'm done, there will be plenty of hazing. I'm thinking matching T-shirts for the next family get together. "Obama lied, and I cried....to OCinBuffalo" So, to sum up: it's not going well for everybody. Least of all me, because now I have give up good drinking time, trying to finagle a way...well, I did do most of the thinking at the bar, so, not that bad I guess ...I think I have the answer, but I need an accountant and/or a tax lawyer. The corporate restructure stuff I got.

Ha! If I start calling you names, you'll know it. I don't need to bother, as my argument doesn't require it. There's no opinion here: there's only observable fact. You can observe the success rate of rookie/2nd year QBs, the same as everybody else. Thus, betting against any of them is a safer bet than for. An opinion, sure, but how much value does a stacked deck opinion hold? If you are right, is it because you were right, or because the math makes you right? I'm not sure how any of us are supposed to come away from an "I do/don't believe in EJ" opinion, with nothing else attached, and see any value in it. Now, if you were to pick out something in his mechanics, and better still, tell us why it can't be corrected/it's difficult to correct, and actually start adding some value to that opinion, great: tell us something we don't know. And, before you ask me when I've ever done that, I present you with this: http://forums.twobil...hins +tannehill I took great pleasure being at the Dolphins game last year, both from our new, awesome, tailgate spot, and from having my observations confirmed, live, right in front of me. Staring down recievers, only looking at half the field, and holding the ball as a result = lots of sacks and 0 points.

It's hilarious that yes, in fact, these are the bullet points of Obamacare 2009. Not one of these has been delivered as designed. Not one. And, instead of blaming the implementers and designers of the plan....we have clowns here and elsewhere that blame Republicans for wanting nothing to do with this. (Which is basically saying: only Republicans are smart enough to recognize stupidity/a ripoff when they see it. Does that mean Democrats are too dumb to see it? And, I think more than enough independents and Democrats have seen the dumb here). Republicans simply could not have had an effect on the people who designed this system. This was designed at the WH/CMS without any oversight from Congress at all. And the Rs were completely out of power when this thing was being designed. Single payer was killed by moderate Ds, not Rs. When a design is flawed, you blame the designer. Morover, with 100% control of a design(man, I can only dream of having that), you're telling me that these designers couldn't have factored in "Red states dragging their feet on Medicaid expansion"? Um, they were aware: they created the 2 year Medicaid handout for states. But, after 2 years, the states have to pay for it themselves: it's like drug dealing, with the Federal government as the pusher. Sure, you get the first couple of fixes for free, but, later you gotta pay. The R states saw that as the street hustle that it is. What do we have now? Pathetic, "the Rs are stopping it from working" excuses from Democrats. You're trying to tell me that with complete control, you couldn't make something capable of overcoming the Rs? Who's fault is that? And the providers, don't forget the providers. That's the hilarious part: these clowns were so pissy about the 10% of their cost being the "free" health care they had to hand out in the ER, that they are going to end up with 30% of their patients paying them Medicaid rates, and end up 20-25% down in revenue from where they started. The more people that get thrown onto Medicaid, the worse it is. Over half of the Medicaid "tasks" cost more than they are reimbursed. The providers are like raccoons: you catch them with their own greed. You put an apple in a box and cut a hole in the side small enough for the raccoon to reach in, but, you put an apple in there, that's too big for the hole. Sure as hell, you'll find a dumbass raccoon sitting there by the box, so pleased that he's got the apple, that he doesn't see/hear anything else. The providers are sitting here with their "no more free ER care" apple, not realizing that they are about to get bashed by the Medicaid shovel.

Yeah, and guess what? At this point in time, you have a 60-70% chance of being right. Great work....at betting with the odds...and not actually analyzing EJ's game, finding specific data to point to, and making a cogent argument. However, what is going to happen if you are wrong, exactly? You gonna come back to this thread, and admit it? Bet you'll want this thread closed then.

No, no, no. We are talking about ghosts here, not astral projections.

Just wondering how many of you think the Mike Williams bust has had anything to do with us not drafting an O lineman #1 since. Yes, we've gone through quite a few FO changes since, but, we still haven't taken a LT #1 throughout. And, if any of you are worried about drafting a tackle this year, because of Mike Williams residual...residue. Ectoplasm? Personally, I couldn't care less. This is the happiest I've been pre-draft in years, because I know, regardless of what anybody says: the Bills are finally in a place where they can go BPA/trade/are in the driver's seat. This is cool, because if a value pick drops, we're right there to scoop him up. It also means we can trade up(although I hate the idea, unless it's for Cornelius Bennett, then it's awesome ). I voted probably, because I can easily see Brandon, when he was GM, being scared.

I've tried this. Unfortunately, I always end up ahead/behind who I want to pick. The novelty of feeling like a GM a little, whose guy was just taken ahead of his pick, and cripes "now what do we do?" has worn off. Seriously, I'm starting to get the feeling that if I keep doing this, my bad mojo is going to screw us up somehow. The last thing I want is the draft to go the way it has when I've done this thing.

What says you can't be religious but also reject having to "believe" in a QB? There are a ton of things that clowns in this world expect me to believe in, just because they say so. And, usually, the more data that contradicts the belief they want me to have, the more shrill they become. I don't need to believe in EJ Manuel any more than I need to believe in Global Warming. I will take the data and observations that we can all make for ourselves, which will tell me what I think, far and away over the babble that comes from supposed experts, especially since those experts consistently have a worse batting average than the weather...person. Yeah. Your agenda in this thread is clear. I do know, that anyone who says they know EJ isn't the answer is merely: taking the safe bet. Given the history of "new" QBs in the NFL, and their odds of "making it", any clown can bet against EJ, be right, and then self-congratulate their "football knowledge". That's crap. All you are doing by taking the other side of any new QB, including EJ, is betting with the odds. So, now we are supposed to draft a QB, because somebody "knows" (read: is betting against a new QB @ "60% to win" odds) that EJ isn't going to make it? And, that's solid "analysis"? No. Betting with the odds doesn't make you right. As I said: that's crap. There are plenty of posters in this thread that have correctly described EJ's lower body mechanical issues. In preseason, it should be easy to see if they are fixed. Now, when and if somebody wants to do that analysis, and then make a prediction based on it, that is actually worth something. That's something we CAN know. I know plenty, and I'm not about to let a dopey premise slide by. Yep. But, hopefully I've been able to expose this "play the odds = football knowledge" thinking as the dopiness that it is.

Therefore, it must also be a fine line between pessimism, and denial. I know a certain person, who declared himself for Marty Biron years ago, and, after Ryan Miller was named the starter, clearly proved he was better, won the damn vezina, and even today, even after Miller's very real value, even as a rental, was displayed in no uncertain terms via the trade.... ....still insists that Ryan Miller is a horrible goalie. Would you call that denial, or "being realistic", or pessimism? I would call it something else, but the filter here would render my use of composite swear words utterly pointless. Also, I reject the premise of this thread. Asking me if I believe in something, when I can easily get the data that confirms/disconfirms it, and thus know, it instead, is silly. Especially when all that is required to get that data is having some patience, and waiting for the games to be played. Why do I need to believe in EJ? He's going to get himself together, or he isn't. Nobody in the world knows that, yet. When we know, we will know. This is like asking me how I feel about something, rather than what I think about it. The latter is useful, the former is a waste.

I don't know. But, I do know to look for seemingly unrelated info and see if it has any implications for what we are looking at. It's patterns in my work. Always patterns. The information we've been presented thus far makes little sense. And, as we get more, the explanations for this chain of events are even more strange. Everything I know about this says: there's something else going on here besides a dumbass rancher and some, suddenly way overzealous bureaucrats. My experience with Federal employees says they don't take risks to their turf like this without a very good reason, or somebody ordering them to do it. and either threatening that turf, or promising more turf and/or protection.

Did the "You can keep your doctor/plan. Period" lie destroy the Democratic health care agenda of the last 60 years? We don't know...yet...but, we shall. Without the Bill Clinton lie, is it even remotely possible that anyone in that political strategy meeting they had, where the specific wording about the Obamacare lie was discussed, at length, would have suggested it, never mind advocated for having the POTUS come out and tell a bald-faced lie? This was: calculation. They calculated that they would get away with it, and the risk to the election, of actually telling the truth was higher, because telling the truth required more "nuance". Buddy: they made that calculation based on the Clinton Big Lie. As I've said: you've deluded yourselves into believing you can get away with any lie, because Bill got away with his. But, you can't. Obama certainly can't. And now? There's nothing but consequences left to face.

Oh please, the law is broken all the time. People get off/get over, largely due to the dicretion of those who enforce the law...or did you forget all about Eric Holder...and his record of enforcing the law? Why not? Please. Either you are a child, or you are acting like one intentionally. After 20 years of this, and the turtle going by the wayside, suddenly this becomes worthy of an assualt force? They ran because they were ordered to, by the same guy who ordered them there to begin with. You haven't answered the most important question: where did both orders originate? Both orders make so little sense, one after the other, that it looks a hell of a lot like somebody with just enough power to be threatening, but not enough to not be ignored once the PR battle was lost, gave them. Oh I see. For anything to be a fact, it has to be done in court? Smart phones/tablets have supplanted PCs as their primary internet device, for 68% of 18-32 demographic market. But, since that hasn't been proven in a court, it cannot be a fact? Moronic. I understand. The problem is: it still doesn't wash. If either of you were put in charge of this situation, and there was no sudden and undue influence from an external source, would things have gone down even kinda how they have? Of course not. This is a debacle. Plain and simple. And what's worse? The Federal government isn't wrong here. The rancher is, but, the immediacy and the tactics have combined to say: somebody's agenda is at work here. This is a CF that is the result of sudden, rash activity, that clearly wasn't thought through.

Finally? They finally got the order? Somehow, 20 years and the word "finally" don't fit, do they? It's just an amazing coincidence that this had to be done immediately, with snipers and riot gear. And, why not arrest the rancher? Why go after the cattle instead? You know, if we are concerned about "the rule of law"...why not go after the law-breaker? What laws have the cattle broken? It's a bit odd, that clearing the land, was more important than arresting the man? They started with the land. Something about the land...says it is more important than anything, or anybody, else.

I wonder: Lois Lerner violated the law. It's a provable fact. Does she get to walk away? Does the guy who intentionally changed the Benghazi talking points, and then intentionally lied via omission, under oath(um, the "whole truth" part of that oath)? Does he get to walk away? If what Harry Reid says is true, and the rule of law is inviolate, then before this administration is over: a whole lot of them don't get to walk away, starting with Eric Holder. Of course, that's only if we apply Harry Reid's standard, along with the "equal protection under the law" concept, properly. From where I sit, all of the above need to do some time, including Harry Reid. Especially including Harry Reid, once the truth about this thing comes out.

No no gatorman: you have a lot of questions to answer first. Start answering questions like: why here, why now, what government manager pokes their head out this far, only to run and hide almost immediately.....while Harry Reid starts talking about the rule of law? And then? Perhaps I might tell you what I believe is going on here. Not before.

Sorta. But not really. Accepting the "original sin" of the Bill Clinton/Lewinsky lie has gotten them where they are today. It's the social contract they've written for themselves. Ever since they took it upon themselves to defend Clinton's bald-faced lie, they now have to defend all other bald-faced lies from any leftist. It's about: consistency. The Clinton lie made Obama, and really, his handlers, think it was OK to tell the "If you like your doctor/plan you can keep it" lie. Or, in this case, makes it Ok to keep telling the Benghazi lie. It makes going on TV and telling everybody the same big lie, that you are almost certainly going to get caught telling....feasible. So, we can see the great effect it has. It causes new outrageous lies to be considered plausible political tactics/strategy, even though the consequences of getting caught does incalculable political damage. Because? "Bill Clinton got away with it, so why can't we?" They are blind to the risk, because they think it won't happen to them, because it didn't happen to Bill.

What does Sarah Palin do? Sarah Palin occupies a very unique position in this country. She has a job that has been designed purely by leftist d-baggery, for which she was recruited by leftist d-baggery, and which is, apparently eternally, funded by leftist d-baggery. She is the very best fund-raiser/rabble rouser the right has. She knows her job and does it well. All she has to do is show up at your event, and you are guaranteed publicity that would cost you big time PR $ otherwise. I have the hows/whys if you require. Just say the word. Or, you can accept this as it is. The Sarah Palin that was, died years ago. The Sarah Palin that is? She was struck down, and did become more powerful than any of those that struck could have possibly imagined. Which isn't surprising because, as I said, leftist d-baggery. Leftist D-bags have very little imagination And how much education is really occurring in our schools, but really, in our colleges/universities? Before you answer, why are online schools taking off and doing so well? Dumb luck? Just happened to find a niche? Online education is delivering what it promises: come see us and we'll tell you what you need to know, for a price that can't be beat, and we won't ask you to participate in any of our leftist reindeer games. You can see where this may go: IT companies hiring out of high school. We hire lots of kids, we give them crap work to do, cut the wheat from the chaff, and then sponsor the online education of the wheat, while they are working full time for us. They pay with their time, not debt. Thus no time to get into trouble, with our work ethic and expectatins ingrained in them from day 1. We're not there yet, but, how competitive are we going to be, do you think, with somebody who wants $50k a year from an 18-year-old, and, does very little to find them work after 4 years of that? Everybody that works for us gets paid every day they do. What guarantee does that $50k a year in debt get you? Etc. Something like this is where I see it going. How many traditional campuses are even trying to deliver on the promise a 4 year degree makes anymore? Having recently been by my old campus, I can tell you: leftist reindeer games have apparently become job #1 there and I'm told by most students, and even some professors, that they have recognized that this state of affairs ain't worth the pricetag. Leftist reindeer games with "gender theory" and the rest of the identitiy/political indoctrination....serves no one's interest on campus. It doesn't lead to anyone building a career, and as these are smart people in general, they see it for what it is, and they want it off campus. One comment that seems to sum it up: "if college was ordering off the menu, none of us would order the gender classes". Online education is: ordering off the menu. The only shocking thing here is that you don't realize: most of the posters here read most of the posts, and most of the people who claim not to are: liars. They lie, and lie and lie. But the fact is: anybody on the board might have said something funny/stupid/interesting at any time. You can't know that, unless you read posts. So? We read posts. Consider: how can I make fun of you for being a Hollywood, leftist d-bag, who, in reality, more plays the role of leftist d-bag, to fit in with his social accquaintences and co-workers, than actually is leftist d-bag....if I don't read your posts? Did you really imagine that whole "tell me about gay characters/Game of Thrones" thing was just...I don't know...some sort of odd obsession of mine? Or, was I dragging your thought process out of you...so that I could use it later? But yeah...act surprised when somebod cops to doing the thing we all do...on a message board.

"What exactly is your your problem Mr. Billz-Fan? Mr. Ezra Klien started vox dot com so he could explain things to you, and he is one of the finest teachers we have. It's not Ezra's fault if you can't understand his lessons. He's doing a find job of teaching you the proper way to look at this. Therefore, the fault must lie with you, the student. You seem to require additional instruction, since you have a history of trouble-making with your damned common sense and real business experience. So, I am putting you on detention, indefinitely. If I had my way, you'd be sent to a intensive explanation facility, conducted by Ezra and other fine teachers, 24/7. That would be the best way to meet your special needs. Then, you'd realize that there was never any point in being a Republican, or libertarian, or anything else that is offensive to properly educated people. Unfortunately, we do not have the budget for that, thanks to the Republicans. See? Now who feels foolish? That's just one example of things you don't know, because you refuse to take Ezra's instruction. I'm trying to help you here, we all are. I understand that you have some trouble wiht Ezra telling you: and that you are having a problem understanding this, Mr. Billz-Fan. Please understand: We can very easily know something, and not know it, at the same time. Because. It's clear. You still don't understand? Fine. I shall give you an example: there is absolutely nothing wrong with this: It is clear. Now you are just being obstinate, Mr. Billz-Fan. Mr. Klein has said it is clear, therefore, it is. Once we say something is clear, that's it. It's settled. Because we said it is clear. Insurers aren't going to quit the program or raise their rates in 2015. Because there is a massive wave of healthy, young applicants coming in 2015, and obviously insurers will want to compete for their business, thus they will stick with the program and offer stable rates, which will attract the wave of kids. That has been made clear. No, that is not circular reasoning, Mr. Billz-Fan. It is clear reasoning, that you seem unable to grasp, which is why you will spend most of your time in detention learning about clear reasoning. You have a lot of learning yet to do, Mr. Billz-Fan. I suggest you get to it, and start paying better attention in Mr. Klien's class. You don't want to spend the rest of the semester in my office, do you?" Massive design flaws rarely need to be put into production to be seen and corrected ahead of time...by those with the traning/experience to see them. The design flaws that you see? You see them because you have said training/experience. Others, like Ezra Klien have no experience, therefore the above idiocy makes it past their BS filter, and into their posts.

They are just getting this now? Man who changes talking points to suit Obama narrative, that just happens to protect Hillary...gets job working for Clinton "research group" right after he quits government. Yeah, what a coincidence! This whole thing has always been about Hillary. The right has been looking in the wrong place, largely because they made a bad assumption. The bad assumption? That Obama/his staff is actually competent enough, and has enough personal wealth and political clout in DC, to pull something like this off. All we know about Obama/his staff is governing incompetence. So, why would we assume that on this one issue, they were not only competent, but quick and smart enough to respond this well? Ask yourself: does Obama have any real political power beyond the office he currently holds? Will he have any power when he leaves? Does he have personally funded "strategy companies" just laying around waiting to hire people as reward for doing his unseemly bidding? Of course not. In fact, unless he tries to pull a Jimmy Carter, he's going to be completely ignored when he leaves(Obama, post-president is going to be a real shitshow of consistent embarrassment for the left, but, that's for later). The right appears to have forgotten this as well. The right can't seem to shake the idea that Obama is nothing more than a Hollywood character actor. He's the black guy that you hire to make the show more "real", and...what are the other words they like to use? Oh yes, "marketable...to a larger audience". Ask GreggyT, he's the expert. Obama: the LL Cool J of Democratic politics. Now ask yourself: how much political power/$ did Hillary have before she lost the nomination, after, the entire time in office, and now? Answer: tons. Clintons have people willing to shove NSC papers in thier socks: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Sandy_Berger And guess who showed up as NS advisor in 2008? They, meaning the real power in D politics, see Hillary as Chris O'Donnell, the actual reason the show does well. They have to protect "the show", so they have to protect "the Hillary". They can always re-write the script, and find themselves another Obama. There are plenty of Obama wannabes lying around. But, there are very few stars in D politics today, and nobody is a bigger star than Hillary. None of the DC establishment ever forgot what a Clinton means to them, and what a satisfied Clinton can do for them, just because they let this Obama thing get away from them.