Politics Hillary Clinton to announce White House run

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Wow. Maureen Dowd doesn't sound too happy with Hillary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-grandmama-mia.html?_r=0

Her paranoia, secrecy, scandals and disappearing act with emails from her time as secretary of state have inspired a cascade of comparisons with Nixon.

Pat Buchanan, a former Nixon adviser, bluntly told Jason Zengerle recently in New York magazine: “She reminds me of Nixon,” another pol who’s more comfortable behind the scenes than grinding it out in the arena.

As Hillary finally admits the axiomatic — she wants to be president — she will take the Nixon approach, trying to charm people one by one in the early states for 2016, an acknowledgement that she cannot emulate the wholesale allure of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.

...

As the old maxim goes, if you can fake humility, you’ve got it made. But seeing Rahm and Hillary do it in the same season might be too much to take.

President Obama has said: “If she’s her wonderful self, I’m sure she’s going to do great.” But which self is that?

...

But if Hillary really wants to help those children, maybe she should give them some of the ostensible and obscene $2.5 billion that she is planning to spend to persuade us to make her grandmother of our country.
 
MarAzul said:
Well do you know anyone dumb enough to vote for Hillary?
Click to expand...
I won't just vote for her. My husband I will volunteer at her Brooklyn office and I will donate money to the cause. And I believe she is the favorite to win.
 
[QUOTE="BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94, post: 3597735, member: 27804]
Honestly if I were one of those rich people looking to back a candidate, I'd look for a gay black woman who is Christian. You really can't lose an election with that.[/QUOTE]

congress is 80% white, 80% male, and 99% straight (or so they say)
 
KingSpeed said:
I won't just vote for her. My husband I will volunteer at her Brooklyn office and I will donate money to the cause. And I believe she is the favorite to win.
Click to expand...
Glad to see you being politically active. Last time I felt that way was McGovern's campaign.
 
riverman said:
I felt that way was McGovern's campaign
Click to expand...
McGovern might be a good parallel for Clinton, carry one state and DC.
That was one of the few time I couldn't vote for either the Republican or the Democrat. Never did vote for Nixon. Might be in that boat again if Bush is the nominee
 
riverman said:
Glad to see you being politically active. Last time I felt that way was McGovern's campaign.
Click to expand...

I handed out bumper stickers and pamphlets for McGovern and Carter. 4 years of Carter and I could not support another Democrat. They were all empty headed idiots, except for a few.

After Reagan, I couldn't support another republican, so I became a Libertarian in '88. Never looked back.
 
MarAzul said:
McGovern might be a good parallel for Clinton, carry one state and DC.
Click to expand...

Then again, you were predicting the stalker was going to be senator, so maybe your predictions aren't spot on.

barfo
 
Denny Crane said:
I handed out bumper stickers and pamphlets for McGovern and Carter. 4 years of Carter and I could not support another Democrat. They were all empty headed idiots, except for a few.

After Reagan, I couldn't support another republican, so I became a Libertarian in '88. Never looked back.
Click to expand...

I wonder what you'll be next?

barfo
 
MarAzul said:
McGovern might be a good parallel for Clinton, carry one state and DC.
Click to expand...

1972 was a crooked election. Nixon's burglars broke into many crucial Democratic locations. After the Watergate revelations, some media writers were surprised that there weren't riots demanding to re-do the fake election.
 
Farrs-Hillary.jpg
 
Franky, if Hilary actually makes it past the primaries, she is dead in the water. She has too much bad history to overcome.
 
Why you should vote for Hillary:


Even if we break this down to its simplest form, ignoring any mention of who is or isn’t running for president, then the question really comes down to: Who do you want potentially replacing four Supreme Court Justices in the next 8 to 10 years – a Democrat who supports same-sex marriage, abortion rights, health care and the separation of church and state, or a Republican who opposes all of that and then some?

Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/reality-hillary-clinton-liberals-need-face/
 
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/hillary-clintons-gay-marriage-problem/372717/

Hillary Clinton's Gay-Marriage Problem
Until 2013, she held a position that lots of Democratic voters now regard as deeply wrongheaded.

Hillary Clinton didn't refrain from supporting same-sex marriage for political reasons—before last year, she earnestly believed that marriage equality should be denied to gays and lesbians. That's the story the 66-year-old Democrat settled on when NPR host Terry Gross pressed her on her views. The admission is easily the most significant in the interview with the former senator, secretary of State, and presidential candidate, though much of the subsequent media attention has focused on the perception that there was a "heated exchange" where Clinton "lashed out" at her interviewer.* The mild tension stemmed from persistent questioning as Clinton obfuscated on an issue that could damage her chances in a 2016 primary but is relatively unlikely to hurt her in a contest against a Republican, given that her coalition is so much stronger on gay rights than the opposition.

In a primary, Clinton could be forced to explain a longtime position that a significant part of that Democratic political coalition now views as suspect or even bigoted. Most famously, the Silicon Valley left forced the ouster of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for a 2008 donation he made to an anti-gay-marriage ballot initiative. That same year, Clinton ran for president while openly opposing gay marriage. If she is to be believed, she also opposed gay marriage as recently as 2013, long after a majority of Americans already held a more gay-friendly position. Would the subset of Democrats who thought 2008 opposition to gay marriage should prevent a man from becoming CEO in 2013 really support the 2015 presidential campaign of a woman who openly opposed gay marriage until last year?

(More at the link)
 
You don't remember Clinton in office, do you?

When he was elected, there was a massive LGBT march on D.C.

Clinton left town, as a way of showing support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_Washington_for_Lesbian,_Gay_and_Bi_Equal_Rights_and_Liberation

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/26/u...archers-throng-mall-in-appeal-for-rights.html

"President Clinton, who chose not to attend the rally or make a video or audio presentation, going instead to Boston to speak before newspaper publishers sent a five-paragraph letter that was read to marchers by Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California.

Reaction to the letter was moderate applause mixed with boos."
 
Last edited:
None of these candidates are even slightly interesting.
 
KingSpeed said:
Why you should vote for Hillary:


Even if we break this down to its simplest form, ignoring any mention of who is or isn’t running for president, then the question really comes down to: Who do you want potentially replacing four Supreme Court Justices in the next 8 to 10 years – a Democrat who supports same-sex marriage, abortion rights, health care and the separation of church and state, or a Republican who opposes all of that and then some?

Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/reality-hillary-clinton-liberals-need-face/
Click to expand...
If you are looking for a president that supports gay marriages, you better hope and pray it's not Hilary that wins the primaries.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/politics/book-questions-clinton-donations.html?_r=0

Book Questions Clinton Donations

“Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer — a 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities — is proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy.

The book, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.

“We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,” Mr. Schweizer writes.

His examples include a free-trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor’s natural resource investments in the South American nation, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010, and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top