Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 7:38 pm

Something was definitely missing.

He came - he met - he spoke.

Something was definitely missing.

Was it an obvious pining for his like "missing limb" of old WAG THE DOG power?

What was missing, something was definitely missing.

It just doesn’t add up.

Could it be that President Clinton was invited just to help Democrats get past a lingering "denial" of last November results?

Could it be that President Clinton was needed to show people that they had been defeated and let them see it on his face as happened?

Something was definitely missing - but what could President Obama have hoped for, really?

Surely he realized that on the economy President Clinton couldn’t admit to have been holding out on President Obama with a selfish hoarding of "economic solutions" and especially with Secretary Clinton a "lady in waiting" hopeful for a rise in rank.

Surely he realized that on the economy President Clinton was so already of "Clinton two-fer" selling to a "buy one get one" package deal with "Hillary" his equal and so really he should expect nothing of President Clinton that Secretary Clinton shouldn’t already have willfully and expertly provided.

Surely he realized that on the economy President Clinton if elected was to have had the identically same economic team likely assembled as he, President Obama did and with most alum of the other in Clinton "two-fer" and couldn’t now be revealed to have been holding out as a conspiring "two-fer" with designs and hopes to "overcome" President Obama especially in "apparent" powers.

So maybe this was all just President Obama of a necessary parading of President Clinton to help Democrats get over the loss from last November and their lingering denial.   President Clinton did look enough defeated, right?

Something was definitely missing.  

How was "Hillary’s" "Russian Bear" hubby so paraded by President Obama meant?

Did President Obama need to help President Clinton get over his own "denial" and missing of old WAG THE DOG powers?

Maybe the Clinton "two-fer" was now two years to subterfuge and covert coup plotting and President Obama has finally convinced them it was going no where and with such a parading today of an obviously sad "bear" in "Hillary’s Big Russian Bear" hubby?  But, why wasn’t the complete "two-fer" paraded so?

Something was obviously missing, and again around these partisan days of near gridlock due to President Obama from day one of attempting further covering up of Clintons’ "two-fer" eight years and much near "negligent" in its now historical record.

What could President Obama have hoped to gain and after Clintons of selling America nearly to his job and as an intimate "two-fer" of one as good as the other and no better?

He came - he met - he spoke!

Something was definitely missing.

What could President Obama have been hoping for after two years of pursuing an economics as the Clintons’ "two-fer" were to have done themselves and with the same team largely of Clinton "alum."   What could he have been to expecting after past two years have been to showing that it likely the Clintons don’t know and there didn’t know how the economy in their eight years was to such working.

Something was definitely missing, by the way where was the equal other half of "two-fer" - Feminists must be furious.

He came - he met - he spoke.

Feminists must really be furious, right?

Something was definitely missing, but was this a necessary step for President Obama to move the Democrats past their denial and to a realization that last November really was decisive to a deciding past a discovery that Clintons mustn’t have known how their economy had gotten to working so and/or mustn’t have been realizing that they couldn’t hold back on President Obama in hopes to a successful coup.

Such really was set and joined in the tense of "impeachable Nixonian" and now we may never really know quite how so much it was.  

At least now Democrats are together in admitting to last November election results as really a judgement upon Obama-Clinton economics even past the variables involved about the dishonesty in their hard line partisan "blaming" of "the other party" as a (necessary?) further cover-up of Clintons’ in intimate and equal of "two-fer" and its negligence in guidance and governance during the 90s.

Are they now ready to speak like grown ups and around how contradictory Obama spending has been with messaging conjoined with "message" also about Clintons’ economics and cutting as also right? 

Has the President by inviting President Clinton to a parading brought his party to more rational and constructive adult speak where now we can move past being asked to believe that it is possible to spin Obama spending necessary "morally" while at the same time spinning that Clintons’ un-spending on same programs also "morally" right?

Something was definitely missing.

Again, why was the other half of the Clinton "two-fer" needed unless their was actual subterfuge about?

Feminists must be furious.

He came - he met - he spoke - he got paraded.

And now maybe we can all get past the irrational and childish "it is all Bush’s fault."

At least inescapable now is a conclusion that Clintons still don’t know how the economics were to working as their’s once.   Was it just an ‘economics’ of a rare time or was another, and maybe one more a Republican actually of such effecting?

Comments »

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

Publication may require admin approval; please come back later to view your comment.