Clinton In PANIC Mode: May Slash Staff After Expecting A Devastating Defeat...

Clinton In PANIC Mode: May Slash Staff After Expecting A Devastating Defeat In New Hampshire

It looks like Hillary Clinton is “feeling the Bern,” so much so, she will likely fire key staff members after tomorrow’s New Hampshire primary.

Changes were originally scheduled to be assessed at the end of the month, but have now been moved up because of strong concerns over the campaign…

According to Politico:

“Hillary and Bill Clinton are so dissatisfied with their campaign’s messaging and digital operations they are considering staffing and strategy changes after what’s expected to be a loss in Tuesday’s primary here, according to a half-dozen people with direct knowledge of the situation.

The Clintons — stung by her narrow victory in Iowa — had been planning to reassess staffing at the campaign’s Brooklyn headquarters after the first four primaries, but the Clintons have become increasingly caustic in their criticism of aides and demanded the reassessment sooner, a source told POLITICO.

The talk of shake-up echoes what happened in 2008 – when Clinton was on the verge of sacking her campaign manager and several top communications officials – before her surprise win here bailed out her beleaguered staff.”

[wpdevfb]

17 COMMENTS

  1. “Hillary and Bill Clinton are so dissatisfied with their campaign’s messaging and digital operations they are considering staffing and strategy changes….”

    Ya gotta love the liberals. They always seem to think it is because they haven’t gotten their message out that people are against them. Their narcissism won’t allow them to even consider the possibility that it is precisely because they have been successful at getting their message out, that people are rejecting them.

    Never forget: In liberal la la land, it is *always* someone elses fault.

  2. The American people have seen enugh of the Hildabeast, as well as Jeb the sleeping pill. Sad to think the younger geneation is being sucked in by socialist Bernie and the giveaway of the century, but young skulls of mush, as Ruch called them, have an excuse- they’re ignorant. That can be cured with information and an explanation that THEY will be the ones paying for all that crap Bernie is promising to get their vote. Hope they get just that.

    • Spot on to the word with my own thoughts…Jeb needs to go home for a nap and time with Mom. He is a vacuum for a ton of money that could be supporting someone with a chance.

      • What’s he spent now, David, 33, 35 mil? Last time I found an accurat number it was over 31 million. Sheesh, what a fool. And the RINO’s say he’s the best they got?? God help us.

    • The billionaires who have nearly destroyed our country thought that they had it made because the winner would be either Jeb or Hillary. Both were bought in advance. What a surprise! Maybe they will kidnap Trump’s dog in order to control him. Not many other alternatives for them if they want to keep selling America out.

      • While I do have issues with Trunp’s bravado and rants at times, I do love his candor and in your face attitude on his aims. I also love the fact that the RINO establishment is crapping their diaper because he won’t stay on their leash and won’t take their money. This is fun to watch.

      • He might be a billionaire. . not presidential material. . .still street!. . .another slam/slur on women last night. . .But you all will accept him. . .why?

        • Simple. Unlike you and all of the huffy “offended” people, I would like to see our country win for a change. Also, I want to see our productive citizens get an even break. If you think that one of the polite, bought in advance insider candidates will do these things, then God help you.

    • Hi Charles. I have an old skull and I cannot remember the USA ever having a socialist President. We have two conservative parties so we have been ruled by conservatives for my lifetime and much more. As a result, we have a very unequal, and cold-hearted society. I think it would help to restore the balance if we elected Bernie for a couple of terms.

      However, we should not get too carried away by presidential candidate promises. it is not like we have a parliamentary system in which the prime minister is always the leader of the majority party in the lower house. So the PM mcan make promises because he has the power to implement them. Our President does not, and he can’t. So old Bernie would be a breath of fresh air thast we should not be afraid of because unless we give him both houses there is not very much he could do to bring socialism to the USA, other than say the right things.

      • Thanks for the belly laugh, and hello again. Bernie the socialis would have as much chance of doubling the national debt as a snowball in hell, and he knows it, as do you. All the “Gimmie” rhetoric is pap for the skulls full of mush young folks. Bernie may be a breath of fresh air, but only to the illiterate left, which is definitely his target group. The US actually has a socialist president at this moment. . . well, a disguised socialist/marxist president, but he made no bones about that as he was preparing to run back in 2006-2007. Problem is, nobody was listening, blinded and bedazzled by “Fundamental change,” which has happened for Wall Street in much larger measure than Main Street, as it always does for the drum-beating democrats who abhore money for anybody but themselves. Amazing that universal healthcare was first floated by the socialists in 1913. They were laughed out of congress. Yet now, it’s the jewel in Obama’s crown. . . too bad that it’s crumbling in 32 of the exchanges, but then it was never meant to work. It was just a place holder for single payer- the aim all along. Socialism has never worked anywhere- ever- but the intellectuals always are convinced they CAN make it work, since they alwas ignore human nature in favor of unicorn farts and rainbows. Why try when hard work and merit is not rewarded any more than the loafer that does little- that’s when the system collapses. Ignore human nature at your peril, but you progressives, socialists and marxists always ask us to do that. Only ones listening are the ignorant. Be well.

        • Charles,
          When we talk about “socialism” we are talking about different things. Fo you, I think it is the arch-evil system of government despised by all conservatives. Youi see it as a non viable alternative to capitalism and free enterprise.
          For me it is a philosopy that says that sometimes the market will not provide the kind of services that our people need and deserve, and that there may be a better way that collectively we can do some of these things without using private enterprise.
          So, in some areas of government services (usually niominated as health, education or wealfare) there might be a better way of doing it by using a public enterprise. The Germans have done it with largely free education; the Australians have done it in health; and, the Scandinavians in welfare. Coservatives will scream that none of these countries has actually done it because they have poor services and high taxation, but that is not at all completely true. It is just selfish interest groups protecting their wealth by trying to scare our simple conservatives.

          We have some very high quality health and (college level) education services in this country that may be better than in any other country. However, they are extremely expensive and can easily ruin normal people. That is not a good outcome. We also have poor destitute homeless men women and children living in our great cities. Many are below the poverty line even though they hold down full time jobs and work hard. That is not a good outcome either. I think we can do better.

          If Obama was a socialist in spirit we never really saw it in his actions. He acted as a centrist trying to balance the policies of the right and left to get outcomes that were the best possible in the circumstances of Congress. Obamacare was a very small step in the direction of universal health care. As such it was hated and reviled by conservatives, even those whose personal circumstances made them very vulnerable to health and financial breakdown.
          It is very interesting that these people break the great assumption of why capitalism and free enterprize is alwayse the best way: because all people will always act in the way that is in their own personal selfish best interest. Somehow our conservatives have been convinced to act in the best interest of the very wealthy, even though the policies that they are vehemently supporting potentially hurt them very much.

          Sure, these overseas socialist policy successes have been matched in other places with a lot of failures, because it is not easy to make public enterprises work efficiently. Many Americans consider that it is impossible to do that. I don’t agree with that, and I think we have only been convinced because many of our big businesses see these things as something that they should be entitled to make vast profits from (e.g. our HMOs).
          The success of policies that we call socialist in philosophy generally come down to good management which amounts to leadership, supervision, accountability, and auditing. I think we are a smart enough people to do it, but there are powerful interset groups here that have convinced conservatives that we are not that capable.
          Charles, your scathing hyperbolic attitude would be humorous if it were not potentially embarrassing for you. If you had studied public policy at college level you would appreciate that the academics and many governments have put a great deal of rigorous study and experiment into this. They would eat you in a debate on socialism vs capitalisim, so you would be wise to not be so sure of yourself. Does it not conern you that so many smart people do not think the way you do.
          So I am suggesting that the great mix of public policy in the USA would work better if some policies that we call socialist were mixed in and given a good try. This would not mean that we have a socialist government, rather we would have one that is willing to put all the options on the table and not rule out anything due to idealism.
          I am sorry if this sounfs preachy and pedagogic as you have accused me of being in the past, but you have written off al lot of seriously good ideas with nothing more than a few idealistic assertions and I refuse to play that game. I know I can’t convince you here because there is not the time or space for that but I hope I can introduce a little doubt into you so that you migh be more open to seeing what socialism is all about.

  3. What she should do, is get rid of her political staff and substitute a legal staff for her impending indictment!

  4. It has nothing to do with the staff or the “message.” People do not like or trust the Mean Old Lady.

    • I disagree with your use of the term “lady.” A lady is the one thing she is not!

      Mean old bitch would be more appropriate.

  5. The problem beyond the message of lies is the LIAR who tries to deliver the message.
    Hillary for Prison. 2016

    • Telling lies is routinely required of the secretary of State. Top secret CIA operations are running constantly form all our embassies. These are not necessarily “black ops” involving special forces raids, but usually are mundane local agent intel gathering exercises. Everyone involved has to learn the cover stories, so as to not expose the operations to the media. So when she is accused of telling lies about what was going on in Benghazi before and during the attack, of course she had to lie about it. Would you expect a person in that position to tell the truth. Why? It is only the media. The journalists know all that very well, but their employers want a story and a Sec State found to be telling lies is a big story because conservative voters really are that naive.

Leave a Reply