Election 2020

2020 Dems Love Obama, Hate Obama's Policies

For both good and ill, the Democratic field has moved so far to the left that 2012 Obama would have a hard time fitting in.


How does a political party replicate the electoral success of its most revered member even while repudiating a whole host of his policies? That's the riddle facing Democrats in 2020.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released last week put numbers on what has long been a visceral cultural nostalgia for the 44th presidency. Ninety percent of Democrats hold a favorable view of Barack Obama today, compared with just 4% unfavorable (Bill Clinton, by contrast, is at 64/15). Sixty-nine percent hold a "very positive" view of Obama, up 8 percentage points over 2015. Most relevant, 78% say they are "satisfied" that the previous occupant of the White House "did as much as was possible at the time in addressing issues facing the country."

So why, then, on issue after issue, are the 2020 Democratic presidential contenders staking out positions far to the left of anything Obama ever imagined — even while attempting to bask in his holy glow?

Remember when Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted "You lie!" during Obama's 2009 speech to a joint session of Congress about the Affordable Care Act? That was in response to the president assuring lawmakers that Obamacare wouldn't cover immigrants in the U.S. illegally. In 2019, the only presidential candidates willing to say "no" when asked whether such patients should be covered under government health insurance are fourth-tier candidates John Delaney, Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock.

Some of these changes are unambiguously for the better. At this point in the 2012 campaign, Obama was still cracking down on state-legal marijuana dispensaries and laughing derisively when asked about legalizing recreational pot. In 2019, the only presidential candidate not in favor of full legalization is Joe Biden.

And eight years ago was peak surge time for the war in Afghanistan. This month, not only did all the candidates speaking about it at the debate agree to bring the troops home, there was even talk of restoring the legislative branch's constitutional role in declaring war, a notion that Obama brazenly flouted in Libya.

But on economic and spending issues, the recent Democratic past — including Obama's campaign promise of a "net spending cut" — might as well be another planet. Such has been the outsize role of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in moving domestic policy to the left that he occasionally finds himself outflanked in both promissory extravagance (Julián Castro's reparations for slavery come to mind), and also in the polls.

The largely unacknowledged dissonance between Obama's iconography and policy platform has led to some of the 2020 campaign's more embarrassing moments, such as when front-runner Biden claimed (falsely) about the previous administration's immigration record: "We didn't lock people up in cages. We didn't separate families."

The evident discomfort at being challenged in 2019 for holding 2012-era views is hardly limited to Obama's vice president, even if Biden's half-century of nonprogressive policymaking makes him the juiciest target for the Very Online Left. Basically every time Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) attempts to portray herself as a lifelong criminal justice reformer, ghosts from her attorney general past come bearing receipts.

On gay marriage and deportations, on boosting charter schools and enabling hydraulic fracturing, Democrats in 2019 are just in a different place.

Some of the shift is a reflection of changing public opinion. Approval of gay marriage, thank goodness, has gone in just 15 years from 2 to 1 against to 2 to 1 in favor. And in 2003, 71% of Americans said George W. Bush made the right decision in launching the Iraq war, compared with just 43% today.

But Democratic candidates, rather than keeping abreast of the electorate, are also charging ahead into uncharted waters. Whereas Obama tied himself in knots to get a 10-year price estimate on his signature piece of legislation at under $1 trillion, that's far less than the opening bids on any number of 2020 candidates' plans. Spending proposals have gotten so wild that few people raised an eyebrow when Harris suggested $2 trillion alone for historically black colleges.

It is no small irony that one of the only candidates recognizing potential constraints on presidential action is the one with the most damning votes on his record: Joe Biden. And so the 2020 primary race may boil down to one question: Is Biden capable of admitting his mistakes without spitting out a word salad of defensive gibberish, and if so, are Democratic voters willing to show grace to Obama's right-hand man?

This article originally appeared in the L.A. Times.

NEXT: Facebook Says Its New Digital Currency Will Be 'Open to Anyone.' That's Not True.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There is no doubt in my mind that Obama would have "evolved" on most of the issues the current crap, I mean crop, of Democrats is running on.

    1. Evolved? That’s racist!

      .....you imply he’s not a homo sap

      1. I never said he wasn't a homo or a sap.

    2. It is not as if we do not have evidence that Obama presented himself as more moderate than what he actually preferred for political purposes, i.e. his flip flopping on same sex marriage.

      1. It's not his fault his pen and phone were communists. He got them with the Mao ornament.

        1. +1000

          Exactly. reason is full of shit here, as usual.

          Obama is a Communist, just like his dad was, he just could not get away with doing much because the 112th Republican Congress starting Jan 3, 2011.

      2. It is funny to think how recently even for democrats, declaring that "marriage is between a man and a woman" was standard obligatory campaign talk. Right along with pretending you are religious.

        1. Democrats also act like they like America...

          that they are NOT corrupt...
          that they are patriotic...
          that they like American workers...


      3. Obama still likes money. The Dems are trying to go to war against money. If Warren is the nominee (65% chance at least) then I don't see how people in the finance industry can stay in the party. They're the "enemy." I know a lot of them felt butthurt during the Occupy movements and Warren is basically the Occupy candidate.

    3. Candidate Obama evolved into 180 degrees opposite President Obama. What further evolving can he do? He's tapped out. These new candidates are in a whole new dimension. 3D chess? Ha! They are all diagonally parked in different non-parallel universes.

    4. Yes. Which is why current Democrats don't disapprove of Obama -- they understand he was as far left as he thought he could be. The point is not that Obama was a moderate and the current crop are extremists but rather how far left Democratic voters have moved in such a short time. It should go without saying that the politicians will follow their party's Overton window and shift to wherever they think the most votes can be harvested. Though in a multi-candidate race, a candidate may try to profit from what they think is an under-exploited 'moderate' niche and/or may find themselves constrained by a history of centrism (e.g. Biden and Harris on the drug war and crime, for example). And there is at least some limit to how much 'evolution', sincerity, and authenticity even a career politician can fake and get voters to swallow.

      1. I think this batch of candidates over estimate how far left Democratic voters have moved. The noisy left commentators have moved their rhetoric quite a bit but in following them, the politicians may leave the votes behind

      2. Even Paul Krugman thinks the Green New Deal is asking for hyperinflation. https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/mmt-again/

    5. My Uncle Nicholas just got Buick Regal GS by work part-time using a laptop. site link>>> http://earny.xyz/PQ9BUhu

    6. Well, at least legalization of cannabis would be a positive in an otherwise sea of insanity.

  2. Article presumes DNC candidates have a choice. The messianic defense Obama received for 8 years is part of the reason why we have somebody so clearly fault-able now; it is almost refreshing. If Obama does not endorse Biden, Trump will win in a landslide.

    Great photo selection, btw. “Get your fckng hands off me, Joe. Thanks.”

    1. There is no way Drumpf wins at all in 2020. Certainly not in a landslide.

      1. At this point in 2015 everyone thought there was no way Trump would win... then he did. I've given up trying to predict politics. Anybody can win as long as they go through one of the two major parties.

    2. Alt text - "Gee, your hair smells terrific - doesn't hardly smell like Negro hair at all."

      1. Hey jheri curl hair is a clean as white hair!

  3. Trying to be fair here, there's obviously a "thing" about trying to "advance society" into fantastical states of advancement that don't exist, and cannot exist. A fave around here seems to be, "advancing society" to a state where it's powered by unicorn farts!

    But there IS such a thing as advancing society! We don't hold as many slaves any more (let's not get side-tracked into tax slavery), and we allow women to vote, now. Etc.

    But one thing never changes, and that's demoed by the below quote Ralph Waldo Emerson:

    (Short version up top).
    Ralph Waldo Emerson, who said, ‘The State must follow, and not lead, the character and progress of the citizen.’

    Here is the full-blown quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson:
    ‘Republics abound in young civilians who believe that the laws make the city, that grave modifications of the policy and modes of living and employments of the population, that commerce, education and religion may be voted in or out; and that any measure, though it were absurd, may be imposed on a people if only you can get sufficient voices to make it a law. But the wise know that foolish legislation is a rope of sand which perishes in the twisting; that the State must follow and not lead the character and progress of the citizen; that the form of government which prevails is the expression of what cultivation exists in the population which permits it. The law is only a memorandum.’

    OK, then, for example, suppose we decide that meat-eating is just horrible, while HUGE numbers of people still want to eat meat! Government Almighty outlaws meat? What happens next?

    Government Almighty goes too far, and mandates no-meat diets, which many people disagree with, just like the War on Drugs today…

    Then there will be underground, makeshift, amateurish animal-killing-and-butchering shops, where the animals will be treated far less humanely than they are today! (Thank You Do-Gooders!!!)
    You will not be able to let your cat or dog wander through the bushes in your own back yard, for fear of meat-hungry lawbreaking pet-snatchers!

    (But, Meat-Hungry Lawbreaking Pet-Snatchers would make an MOST EXCELLENT name for a garage band!)

    1. "We don’t hold as many slaves any more"

      Which would be different if you had your way you shit eating slaver.

      Fuck off now slaver.

    2. SQRLSY One
      September.22.2019 at 10:42 am
      Nobody ever died for lack of a cake. Laws about non-bigot-driven access to emergency rooms, OK then. Hotels & restaurants, essential for travelling, OK then

      You = shit eating slaver.

      1. Still better than a slave-eating shitter.

    3. Yes, that Emerson quote is excellent. Something everyone needs to keep in mind. Laws only really work when they are mostly in line with what most people would do anyway. They (one would hope) reflect society's values, they don't make them.

    4. That Emersonian notion is imo probably a better way of understanding what the D's are actually trying to do here - but you misunderstand it. D's have to transition to the next generation (say GenX and younger) which has a completely different set of priorities and problems than boomers/older. But the D's (and even more so R's who seem to have entirely given up on anything Genx or younger) generation that is currently in power doesn't have the slightest understanding of what that next gen really wants and has no intention of relinquishing power so is simply making money promises in lieu of actual policy discussion. And since polling support seems to have coalesced around the 3 oldest, it forces the younger candidates to frame everything on those same terms too.

      The generation gap is seriously real now. eg in the House, Amash and Gabbard are the only two millennials with more than 2 terms in office (and all but a couple more are freshmen). It's no surprise to me that none of them 'fit' their party. Nor do they have the remotest chance of setting a policy agenda or even discussing their agenda within the DeRp framework - and, best case, won't for at least a decade more.

      You can't tell me that a policy debate between a Gabbard and an Amash wouldn't be completely different than what we are seeing. And if the role of older wisers is to ground those debates in reality that would be a far better role than the current one of entirely setting the terms of the agenda/debate.

      GenX and younger have got to simply leave the DeRp tent. There is no future for them there until AFTER they get older and are coopted and sell out. Withhold their votes from DeRp - take over L's and G's as the left/right framework - and at least start debating policy on their own terms. They won't 'win' - but they ain't gonna win for the next few elections anyway. But over time, death being inevitable, this will produce a win instead of watching themselves get fossilized into the borg as happened to the boomers.

      1. A better quote that defines what's happening now is the one attributed to Churchill (though prob actually a dig at Lord Beaverbook):

        Churchill (to a famous young actress) - Would you sleep with me if I gave you £5 million?
        Young Actress - Well I might consider that.
        Churchill - How about if I gave you £5?
        Young Actress - Certainly not. What do you think I am?
        Churchill - We've already established that. Now we are just haggling over the price.

      2. Just looked at the GenX'ers in the House with the most power (not just seniority) - afaics Kevin McCarthy and Debbie Wasserman-Schulz. Two complete sellouts. Whatever they may once have believed in, they have compromised in order to advance. That's the end game for all GenX'ers and millennials and, in time, Z's within DeRp - as it was for boomers before them. That's how 'changing things within the DeRp tent' works. It's how it's always worked and how it only works. It ain't the DeRp that changes. The only thing that changes is the one who thinks they are gonna change things.

        1. Yes, but all these frauds should certainly be taking more of other people’s money to waste, because, resentment, correct?

          You’re an enabler of the derp dooshes. Good luck getting anything to change.


          1. I bet you $20+ trillion that boomers and older have zero credibility to make the remotest claim of or render one iota of wisdom about 'how to be fiscally responsible' or 'how to pay for something ourselves'.

            If the next generation ends up doing worse (which is possible though unlikely since that bar is now so low), then that's OK. It's THEIR money now. Over 65's are welfare leeches who aren't carrying their weight. That's how we designed our govt. If the next generation wants that to change, then it is time for them to seize the power. And the only way they can do that is by eliminating their support of the DeRps who can never change the system DeRps depend on. It won't and can't happen inside the DeRp tent.

            1. Oooookay. I’m gen-x myself, but that wasn’t the point. I never said anything about anyone being fiscally responsible.

              You want these dooshes to take more money from the rich because you don’t think they pay their “fair share”?

              You’re an enabler. A resentful one. Good luck getting anything to change.

              1. No - I want those generations to debate policy ON THEIR OWN TERMS.

                If 'environment' is an issue, then what they actually want to do is something re the environment. Not find some fucking pricetag where DeRps promise that old people will do something about it while that young gen votes DeRp.

                1. Ah yes, there’s that hostility I remember!

                  You once said that I “was too fucking stupid” to see that “the rich pay no taxes” after I (quite civilly) pointed out that middle class taxpayers actually don’t get a bad deal, the poor and lower middle class pay little to no federal income taxes, so by process of elimination, we have to concede that the staggering amount of bloat and waste in government spending must be coming from somewhere. Sure, there’s a deficit, but easily obtainable statistics show where most of the revenue comes from.

                  You want the derps to take more of other people’s money even though you seem to be putting a pox on both their houses. You’re a hypocrite. And an enabler.

                  Good luck getting anything changed.


      3. GenX is checked out. We're too small to matter. We think the boomers are selfish and short sighted and the millennials are fools. But they have the numbers and we will transition from stupid Boomer politics to vapid Millennial politics. They both kind of share denial of human nature and history of societies at their core. Same magic wand, different spells.

    5. OK, then, for example, suppose we decide that meat-eating is just horrible, while HUGE numbers of people still want to eat meat! Government Almighty outlaws meat? What happens next?

      I'm buying t-bones from a guy out of the back of a white panel van parked in the alley?

      1. Eat the Vegans then revote?

  4. "How does a political party replicate the electoral success of its most revered member even while repudiating a whole host of his policies?"

    Justin Trudeau once knew the secret...

    1. Justin Trudeau: gives a whole new meaning to brown out

  5. From a Koch / Reason libertarian perspective, the most relevant change in the Democratic Party platform is the gradual embrace of open borders. I predict the 2020 nominee will explicitly call for unlimited, unrestricted immigration. And, of course, the abolition of the concentration camps Drumpf is running.


    1. One more thing:

      "Spending proposals have gotten so wild that few people raised an eyebrow when Harris suggested $2 trillion alone for historically black colleges."

      Most estimates for the price tag of reparations for slavery are in the tens of trillions of dollars. So $2 trillion for education seems like a reasonable start.


      1. And let’s not forget that Obama had the whole “diversity” thing going for him, so he could get a pass from the progs for being more centrist.

        1. Obama could swing from full-blown Communist to Socialist without missing a beat, hence Welch's confusion that Obama was a Centrist.

          1. Welch isn't confused. He is a progressive trying to frame his preferences to appear libertarian.

        2. Clingers are going to ride that stale bigotry all the way to political irrelevance, societal scorn, and replacement. They can't help themselves.

          1. That bigotry seems to be far from stale in Chicago.

          2. Are you Smooth Jimmy Apollo on The Federalist comment threads, Rev? Or one of the other leftist socks?

            1. No. No. Are you a clinger?

          3. I almost feel sorry for ya, rev. Your coping mechanism for your sad, bitter existence clearly involves fantasies of being at the forefront of a virtuous “culture war” that you are winning, yet you are still gracious enough to “permit” the “clingers” to “carry on”. Haha. Wow.

            How deluded and self important can ya get?

            It’s either that or you’re working for the other side by making progs look as ridiculous as possible. If so, bravo! You’re doing a great job! Don’t change a thing, old man.

            Or should I say, “carry on, cling”..,,,, nah.

            You might not “permit” it!


    2. Sock,

      Why should libertarians vote for concentration camp advocates and drug warriors in the GOP? Fuck off and die.

  6. All you gotta do is print more dollars, hide debt Enron style in the fed, and increase tariffs (taxes) where people don’t notice. Your careful saving for retirement will be worth much less but you will enjoy the benefits of an all government buffet feast of programs. And heck all we are doing is leaving the mess for the future kids to clean up and they will not be like us so who cares?

  7. Let's not overlook the elephant in the room - how do you criticize a black man without being accused of racism a racist?

    1. Put him in the conservative party first.

      1. Well then he or she is a traitor to his race. Because everyone of a particular color is supposed to look alike, wait, I meant THINK alike.

    2. Black Men are right about women.

  8. For both good and ill, the Democratic field has moved so far to the left that 2012 Obama would have a hard time fitting in.

    Jesus, Welch, Obama was/is just as much of a Socialist as the clowns running for President under the Party of slavery banner.

    Obamacare was one of the most Socialist and unconstitutional laws ever passed in the USA. Democrats would have done more damage had they not spent 2 years on that, then lost both Houses of Congress the next election cycle. The Republicans kept Obama and his band of Socialists in check for 6 more years.

    1. You really need to pay more attention to Palin's Buttplug. Obama was far from a socialist. Not only did he create the strongest 8-year run in US economic history, his Presidency was especially profitable for the richest people on the planet like Warren Buffett.


      1. Sock,

        What was the deficit and GDP IN Jan 2009 and in Jan 2017?

    2. Good job missing the point.

      1. The point is that Welch is wrong, as usual.

        Obama was just as bad, if not worse, than the current batch of goofballs running as Blackface candidates for President.

        1. I stand by my original assessment.

        2. But Trump did the one unforgivable thing in Welch-land - criticize NATO. You don't do that. It. Just. Isn't. Done.

  9. ‘ Biden claimed (falsely) about the previous administration's immigration record: "We didn't lock people up in cages. We didn't separate families.’

    Excuse me, but I think PolitiFact declares this “mostly true” because “immigration detention centers” are not “cages”, nor did the Obama administration force anyone to get divorced.


  10. "For both good and ill, the Democratic field has moved so far to the left that 2012 Obama would have a hard time fitting in."

    "At this point in the 2012 campaign, Obama was still cracking down on state-legal marijuana dispensaries and laughing derisively when asked about legalizing recreational pot"

    We might also point out that circa 2008, Obama was still going on about how, "Marriage is between a man and a woman". 2008 is also the year that California voted down gay marriage in a popular referendum.

    It's hard for me to remember these facts and think of gay marriage and marijuana legalization as left or right issues. They still can't get recreational marijuana legalized in New Jersey or New York, and that sure as hell isn't because the Republicans in those states are getting in the way of the left.

    The idea that you should be free to consume what you want and associate with whomever you please are libertarian, anti-authoritarian ideas--not left, liberal, or progressives ideas--and they don't become ideas of the left because you don't like Republicans or Donald Trump either.

    1. Republicans were mostly anti-drug legalization and anti-gay marriage change.

      Democrats wanted some of the Silent Majority, so they parroted those positions. Only after the Queen Bitch lost badly to Trump, did the Party of slavery switch gears to try to keep political power base as Democrat voters fled the Party in swarms.

      1. Actually, the reason the people of California had to legalize recreational marijuana by way of a referendum is because the left, which has controlled Sacramento for decades, refused to do so.

        That's the same reason they don't have recreational marijuana in New Jersey. Meanwhile, there's never been a more objectively pro-marijuana president than Donald Trump.

        If you think freedom of association is an issue of the left, you're nuts.

        Because average people have come to think of certain aspects of these issues as left or right at some point in time doesn't make them so. Average people are wrong about a lot of things, and the idea that we should all be free to consume whatever substances we please and the idea of freedom of association are libertarian ideas--rather than left or right.

        Freedom of association was just as libertarian when Obama was campaigning against gay marriage as when he was for it. The freedom to consume what you want was just as libertarian when Obama was raiding state legal medical marijuana dispensaries in California hundreds of times circa 2012 as it was when he stopped.

        My position on these issues always remained the same--no matter what Barack Obama did. If your position on these issues changes because of what Barack Obama did, then it wasn't the libertarianess of the issues that changed. It was just your perception of them.

        1. And we can't forget that regulations are about free association as well. The political Left loves to put up barriers to entry in any industry. Their favorite is probably the minimum wage where they basically say "If your labor isn't worth at least $15 per hour, then you're better off sitting at home on welfare while your betters take care of you."

          1. They don't think much of freedom of association when it comes to bakers and gay weddings either. At that point, they're all-in on forced association.

            Meanwhile, plenty on the right seems to think I should be criminally prosecuted if the person I hire to clean my house, mow my lawn, or work in my restaurant isn't a citizen of the USA.

            Freedom of association is a libertarian vs. authoritarian issue. When the right and left get involved, it's mostly just posturing.

            1. I don’t think anyone thinks that you should be criminally prosecuted for hiring an illegal house cleaner.

              But if you knowingly hire hundreds of them for your factory, maybe you should be.

              Silly hyperbole adds nothing to the conversation, wall o words notwithstanding.

              1. But if you knowingly hire hundreds of them for your factory, maybe you should be.

                Why? Why should anyone need a government permission slip to work?

                1. Regardless of whether you agree with him, it's a libertarian vs. authoritarian issue rather than a left vs. right issue.

                  It's not as if the left were all on board with the idea that the government has no business tracking who you've hired either.

                2. You can take that up with the social security administration. Why should I have to comply with that? I’ve never worked for anyone who didn’t require that number. Not to mention drivers license, bank accounts, etc.

                  Apparently you’re advocating for different rules for people who sneak into the country.

                  Virtue signaling must feel wonderful. Haha.

  11. "Remember when Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted "You lie!" during Obama's 2009 speech to a joint session of Congress about the Affordable Care Act? That was in response to the president assuring lawmakers that Obamacare wouldn't cover immigrants in the U.S. illegally. In 2019, the only presidential candidates willing to say "no" when asked whether such patients should be covered under government health insurance are fourth-tier candidates John Delaney, Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock."

    So Joe Wilson was right, and it just took a while for his assertion to come true. Can we expect apologies from all the liberals soon?

      1. lol. good lord.

    1. One of the problems with Joe Wilson's outburst there was that what Obama said about ACA and illegal immigrants may have been the least dishonest thing Obama said about the ACA.

      I know a woman who was forced change plans and doctors halfway through chemo because the ACA said that the benefits of her plan were too generous.


      If she liked her doctor, she should have been able to keep her doctor. If she liked her plan, she should have been able to keep her plan.

      There were lies about the cost to taxpayers.

      There were lies about how the exchanges would bring the cost of premiums down.

      When you lay all the lies out and rank them by severity, the lies about how illegal aliens won't be covered is way down on the list.

      It's like yelling at Hitler for not paying his parking tickets. If the fact is that Hitler really didn't pay his parking tickets, then that's hardly the issue. All the rotten things he did, and that's what finally makes you stand up and call him a liar?

      The stack of lies Obama was standing on at that point was already so high. What's so special about that particular lie? What's that tell us about Wilson's tolerance for other lies? I guess it's okay to lie about the cost of something to taxpayers, the effects of expanding Medicaid, the effects on the cost of premiums, etc, but lying about the effects on illegal immigration, well that's where his tolerance for lies finally breaks down?!

      1. I think the sentiment may be more simplistic than you give it credit for. There's (obviously) a lot of regulation, spending and central planning most Americans are willing to live with when it comes to the pan-welfare state. But the second you suggest that said pan-welfare state will now apply to people who haven't... and ostensibly won't put anything into the system-- that's when people get angry.

        Being asked to kick in and help your neighbor is one thing-- being forced to kick in to someone who showed up to the party 5 minutes ago and wasn't invited? Yeah.

        1. Straw, camel, some assembly required.

      2. That was the republicans fault, my NY friends assure me.

  12. President Obama was among the Democratic leaders who pushed the base to the left.

  13. Obama started the turn to full on socialism.
    Or, made it "cool"
    The Ds thought they had a stranglehold on the country thanks to him.

    1. I wonder why Obama had so much hubris.

      1. white privilege from grandma.

  14. Don't Lump Harris's malfeasance during her time as a prosecutor in with the Democrat's shift. Her actions are well documented in articles in this site. Withholding evidence? Refusing to prosecute police brutality? No, bringing that up is quite reasonable.

    1. Don't forget attempting to enter a knowingly false confession into evidence. After another assistant DA had been thrown out for the exact same thing.

  15. Obama the moderate.


  16. More than anything else, Welchie Boy and the rest of his fellow lefties were disappointed that their venerated godhead Block Yomomma wasn’t nearly as successful a dictator as he aspired to be.

  17. 2012 O was a lying tyrant and the 2020 field is heart on the sleeves tyrants

  18. Yep, Basically all of the Democrats running now are manifestly better than Obama on just about everything— gay rights, marijuana legalization, immigration, war. Maybe we should vote for them this time instead of Detention City Don.

  19. I started earning $350/hour in my free time by completing tasks with my
    laptop that i got from this company I stumbled upon online…
    Check it out, and start earning yourself . for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot

    >>>>>>>> W­­w­­w­­.­­g­­o­­l­­d­­e­­n­­.­­j­­o­­b­­s­­6­­7­­.­­c­­o­­m?

    Don’t include this ? ?? in web link THANKS

  20. "For both good and ill, the Democratic field has moved so far to the left that 2012 Obama would have a hard time fitting in."

    Lenin would have a hard time fitting in the contemporary democratic party.

  21. Obama sold bad policies with a comfortable speaking style. Every good scam artist must have a winning demeanor. You don't go in saying we will take your freedom and money and dictate all the rules.
    "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." Daniel Webster

  22. Lest us not forget how Obummer changed the world...that is why we are in the mess we are in now. Hillary anyone? I expect her name to be bounced off the walls of the demonic halls of the socialist stronghold.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.