Biden got 638 votes in New Hampshire primary.

Lately there has been some “buzz” about VP Joe Biden jumping into the Democratic primary race. The latest “love note” to Joe appeared in today’s New York Post. Although a reporter’s byline appears on the story, one gets the sense that someone on the Biden staff wrote the piece.

Let’s take a look at how well Biden did during the last New Hampshire primary. The following story is about the vice president after he was selected to run with Obama. It originally appeared in A Rake’s Progress, August 24, 2008. As you read, ask yourself how different things would be in 2016. My bet: Not much.

With his inside-the-Beltway media friends singing his praises as a “heavyweight,” you might guess that Joe Biden has a fantastic track-record as a vote-getting machine.

 

Once the fairy dust settles, it will become clear to Democrats that Obama couldn’t have made a worse choice.

 

Let’s start with the plagiarism problem. It won’t go away no matter how hard Howard Fineman and other liberal reporters try to minimize it. Cheating says something about a candidate’s character — and Biden has a long, nefarious track record as someone who is willing to steal ideas and words, to exaggerate and lie about his background to get ahead. People don’t like cheaters.

 

Second problem: Biden is on record as saying that Obama is not ready to be president! He didn’t suggest this, he came flat out and said it: “Obama is not qualified to be president.” So Obama picked him because. . . . More poor judgment from BO.

 

Third problem: Biden is Kerry lite. Biden has spent decades in the Senate and has accomplished nothing except to get old and become a senior “force” within the senate itself. Like John Kerry, over the years he has developed a senator’s sense of entitlement. He is lazy and self-indulgent. The reason he is so outspoken is that he feels invulnerable. It’s an affliction suffered by many long-serving senators. Assuming they have a lifetime appointment, they feel they can say whatever is on their little minds without consequence. And they do — sometimes with fatal consequences.

 

Fourth problem: Biden is a strategic nightmare for Obama. The “president of change” has selected the ultimate insider as his VP? Leading up to this announcement it was become clear even to the most dedicated Obama supporter than their man was drifting away from his core values (as nebulous as they were). Now he picks someone who says the Great One is not ready for the White House, someone who is more about the “politics of the past” than Obama’s favorite ex-foe, Hillary Clinton. What is Obama thinking? This is now a great opportunity for Republicans to show voters who is the real president of change. And they can thank Obama for giving him this opening. . . .

 

Fifth problem: Biden is an uninspiring, uninspired candidate. In the New Hampshire primary, he got a pathetic 638 votes. Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, even Dennis the Menace did better than Biden. No one want to see this guy, listen to him, vote for him.

 

Biden is day-old newspaper delivered late, day after day after day. Put it in the cat box. Wrap your fish with it. But no way are you going to read it or vote for it! I promise that after three weeks on the campaign trail, Americans will be zapping Biden whenever he appears on their TV screens. . .and that means fewer adoring eyes for Obama.

 

Nice work, Barack.

Far-left Democrats still out to destroy Hillary.

Following the same “Anyone But Hillary” strategy they used in 2008, far-left Democrats are still trying to get even with Hillary for voting for the Iraq war and not being liberal enough.

If we consider the declared candidates and non-candidates like Elizabeth Warren, when they say Hillary has “too much baggage,” they don’t just mean the various Clinton scandals. They mean her policies, her votes, her personal beliefs, the track record of political inclusion that sometimes requires compromise with the opposition. They literally can’t stomach her and will do anything to stop her.

Eight years have changed Barack Obama’s political game, but many of his supporters from 2008 have not. Remember that “1984” anti-Hillary ad? Presumably, the President would not approve of such an outrageous attack on the former First Lady, but he did back in 2008. The ad was not just about a policy disagreement. It was a personal attack on Hillary the person and everything she believed in.

Here is the ad again in case you need a refresher:

There’s a connection between the “1984 video” and the current far left campaign to smear Hillary. Blue State Digital, the company that employed the person who created the anti-Hillary “1984 video,” was founded by a group of anti-war activists who worked on the Howard Dean 2004 campaign.

As previously noted on the company’s web site:

“The partners of Blue State Digital – Jascha Franklin-Hodge, Clay Johnson, Joe Rospars and Ben Self – started the company immediately after working for Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in 2004. Since then, the company has grown to 22 employees with offices in Boston and Washington, D.C. and works with over 40 clients – including Sen. Ted Kennedy’s (D-Mass.) campaign, Gov. Tom Vilsack’s (D-Iowa) PAC — Heartland PAC, the AFL-CIO, the DNC and the Democratic Governors Association.”

Although the company released a statement distancing itself from the video’s creator, Phillip de Vellis, clearly there was an anti-Hillary Clinton, anti-war fervor within the company that fed into de Vellis’ warped view of then-Senator Clinton as “Big Brother.” Ultimately, the company — and Barack Obama — were responsible for their role as “enablers” of de Vellis and for encouraging and promoting such extreme anti-war positions.

A viewing of the 1984 video would suggest that de Vellis takes himself and his views very seriously. However, in a comic understatement, his reaction after being fired by Blue State Digital was that the incident “changed the trajectory of my career.”

And, in an apparent effort to rebuild the bridges that were quickly burning behind him, he offered his support to Hillary Clinton and vowed to vote for her if she won the nomination.

Perhaps playing seer for this controversy, Blue State Digital co-founder Clay Johnson said in a round-table discussion entitled “Net Politics: the Internet Can Make You President” — “The thing that scares the crap out of me are the camera phone and YouTube. They are going to be the death of a candidate. ”

Or a video producer.

Our advice here at HCQ is to keep an eye on what the far left Democrats (so-called progressives) are doing to keep Hillary out of the White House. In 2008 they helped defeat her in the Democratic primaries. In 2015 they’re still trying to destroy her political career.

Some pundits think voters are fools.

As I was looking at today’s news stories about Hillary, this article from CNN popped into view. Give Glenn Beck credit for knowing how to generate publicity for himself. If you didn’t read or hear this, he is predicting that Hillary will be the next president. His spin on Hillary’s electability is that she harkens back to the “glory” days of the Clinton Administration. Well, of course.

Where the story gets funky is the idea from some “friends of Hillary” and media pundits that voters will consider her “Barack Three” if she runs and will therefore reject her.

They must think voters are fools. I don’t.

Most voters know that there are distinct differences between Hillary and Barack. Especially now, when foreign policy is such an important issue, they know that Hillary sees the world in quite different terms from the President.

She (or her staff) can also easily make the case that her primary battle with Barack Obama was based on strongly-felt differences in policy and style of governing. So if the GOP wants to make the case that Hillary would be giving Obama a third term, Hillary just has to roll out the media coverage of her attacking him back in 2008.