Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
Olowkow said:
Watching Secretary Clinton's testimony at the Benghazi hearing, I can't help thinking that the republicans have provided a very cool, polished and professional presidential candidate with a wonderful opportunity to provide voters with a glimpse of her credentials, for free. At the same time, many of the false accusations against her have been solidly debunked, and many committee members have had a their chance to look even sillier, more antagonistic and annoying than ever.

I believe we are witnessing the next president of the United States making the case that she is the most competent and level headed person for the job.
Click to expand...
It really is an embarrassing display of Republicans shooting every arrow in their quiver. Their only hope of winning the presidency is making HRC seem even worse then their lame ass alternatives.

What they fail to realize is that's simply not possible.
 
Last edited:
Olowkow said:
Watching Secretary Clinton's testimony at the Benghazi hearing, I can't help thinking that the republicans have provided a very cool, polished and professional presidential candidate with a wonderful opportunity to provide voters with a glimpse of her credentials, for free.
Click to expand...


Since the facts of Benghazi weren't going to get any clearer and the committee wouldn't be able to unearth any bombshells, there was just no reason for this. The only thing the Republicans could hope for was that she broke down crying and couldn't spell her own name. Since HRC has had enough humiliating moments to prove she can hold it together in public, there was no way she was going to falter.

Tactically a terrible move for the committee. I'm not surprised, however, that they are so blinded by hate that they can't see the bigger picture.
 
DavidJames said:
It really is an embarrassing display of Republicans shooting every arrow in their quiver. Their only hope of winning the presidency is making HRC seem even worse then their lame ass alternatives.

What they fail to realize is that's simply not possible.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget they also have voter suppression and gerrymandering.

Loss Leader said:
Since the facts of Benghazi weren't going to get any clearer and the committee wouldn't be able to unearth any bombshells, there was just no reason for this. The only thing the Republicans could hope for was that she broke down crying and couldn't spell her own name. Since HRC has had enough humiliating moments to prove she can hold it together in public, there was no way she was going to falter.

Tactically a terrible move for the committee. I'm not surprised, however, that they are so blinded by hate that they can't see the bigger picture.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Totally unnecessary, but with, shall we say, now certain unintended consequences. I think she did very well, projecting not only an air of complete self confidence and recounting a remarkable history of performance in her job, but also a stunning command of the details of her material and coolness under fire of snark. This goes far beyond any kudos a candidate might collect from TV ads, debates, or speeches.

I sometimes wonder how the congressmen, or anyone, who promote hate and bigotry can own their uninformed rage day in and day out while managing to live their lives with any modicum of joy. The excited or indignant pitch of their voice, the straw man arguments, the continual interruptions, and the ignorance expressed in their palpable anger over misunderstood or manufactured offenses are often tantamount to a practiced debating technique. They never seem to get around to apologizing for their errors caused by misinformation. Surely this has to take a toll in their health.
 
Loss Leader said:
Tactically a terrible move for the committee. I'm not surprised, however, that they are so blinded by hate that they can't see the bigger picture.
Click to expand...
Well as partisan politicians, we can't expect them to apply critical thinking skills and skeptical reasoning. Now if they were members and posting here, wait....

Nevermind.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
...Working on the gerrymandering and on changing Congress are steps that can be realistically accomplished...
Click to expand...

While this, and the other necessary actions to correct and fix our society are precisely what Senator Sanders has spent his entire political career focused on, I look through HRC's agenda, and I see not a peep about such,...so why, are you supporting her instead of candidates that actually have promoted and worked toward such changes for most of the last 2 decades or so?

Winning doesn't mean much when things keep on as they have been, and the only changes are a movement a little more to the right.
 
Trakar said:
While this, and the other necessary actions to correct and fix our society are precisely what Senator Sanders has spent his entire political career focused on, I look through HRC's agenda, and I see not a peep about such,...so why, are you supporting her instead of candidates that actually have promoted and worked toward such changes for most of the last 2 decades or so?

Winning doesn't mean much when things keep on as they have been, and the only changes are a movement a little more to the right.
Click to expand...

Losing, however, means much worse. I fail to see why one would intentionally lose, knowing that the changes are large movements in the direction one professes not to want.
 
Random said:
Nader in 2000 (as well as Perot in 1992, although people seem to forget that one) showed that under our current electoral system, promoting third parties can lead to the election of opposing candidates that you might have defeated otherwise. Pretty much the only relatively safe mechanism for marginalized voters to express their disapproval is with primary challenges.
Click to expand...
Nader made no effort to run in the Democratic Primary did he? He denounced the party elite from the get go and hoped to get people to back him. - Seriously magical/wishful thinking.

Random said:
And look, that is what Sanders is doing.

If Sanders loses the primary, then we get Hillary in the general, my second choice based on the current crop of all candidates. If Sanders wins the primary, then I get first first choice running in the general.

You say that Sanders can't win the general and you are willing to settle right now because of that, and that is your right. I think that you, and a lot of other people, are really underestimating him, especially when compared to the who he might be running against in the general. Sanders vs Trump? I mean, come on!
Click to expand...
I have no objection to Sanders running, I have no objection to people voting for him if they think he represents their values.

I have come to the conclusion that unless we see a more definitive movement, which a major shift in Congressional elections would be evidence of in my opinion, that Sanders is not a viable 3rd party candidate.

I lived through 2 movements, the Vietnam War protests and the Civil Rights movement. Maybe because I'm comparing what we are seeing now with Sanders, to what it took to effect the major changes in the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War protests. What I see is that the Sanders' movement is too weak to successfully change the country. To me it's obvious.

It's a much stronger effort than Nader's, of course. It has more substance than either Trump or Ross Perot claiming a magical business leader can fix everything. Trump and Perot has/had a fair following of people convinced the private market can run the public sphere more effectively than the public can.

Sanders has a following. They are passionate. Sanders doesn't have the country behind him and at this point in history, he won't.

Time will demonstrate that. I'll keep an open mind, so should Sanders' followers because when it pans out either way, we need to be able to accept the outcome, and not keep believing in the thing that is clearly not happening.

If Clinton stays up in the polls and starts winning state primaries are you going to blame people who had no faith the 'movement' was actually there, like a self-fulfilling prophesy?
 
Last edited:
Olowkow said:
Watching Secretary Clinton's testimony at the Benghazi hearing, I can't help thinking that the republicans have provided a very cool, polished and professional presidential candidate with a wonderful opportunity to provide voters with a glimpse of her credentials, for free. At the same time, many of the false accusations against her have been solidly debunked, and many committee members have had a their chance to look even sillier, more antagonistic and annoying than ever.

I believe we are witnessing the next president of the United States making the case that she is the most competent and level headed person for the job.
Click to expand...
This ^ :thumbsup:
 
Trakar said:
While this, and the other necessary actions to correct and fix our society are precisely what Senator Sanders has spent his entire political career focused on, I look through HRC's agenda, and I see not a peep about such,...so why, are you supporting her instead of candidates that actually have promoted and worked toward such changes for most of the last 2 decades or so?

Winning doesn't mean much when things keep on as they have been, and the only changes are a movement a little more to the right.
Click to expand...
So you missed all her public statements then about the GOP efforts to limit voting access?

Democrats Unveil a Plan to Fight Gerrymandering
Even if a Democrat like Hillary Rodham Clinton captures the White House, Mr. McAuliffe said in an interview, it will be difficult for her as president to move an ambitious agenda through a House that is still likely to be controlled by Republicans.

“We’re going to tie this to the presidential campaign because the next president will need more Democratic members of Congress to work with her to get things done,” said Mr. McAuliffe, a former Democratic National Committee chairman and a longtime friend of the Clintons.
Click to expand...
 
They're already doing that fight here in Florida... and it's already a fiasco. The courts here ruled that a judge must approve one of a set of redistricting proposals so that the districts don't "favor" one party or the other. That requirement for a judge to approve apparently has caused the congressional equivalent of a BSOD on the windows operating system. They're locked up on it and have been back to the drawing board on a new map a few times now
 
Last edited:
Illinois' 4th district Luis V. Gutiérrez (D) has one of the worst examples, for sure. Chicago politics is not for the faint of heart. It's being challenged, so we shall see. It's actually a very small district. I don't like gerrymandering on either side, and there really should be some common sense rules that congress can agree are desirable.

Although today the 4th congressional district is one of the most Democratic in the nation, two of the most famous representatives to represent the 4th congressional district have been Republicans: Edward Derwinski, the first United States Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and Stephen A. Hurlbut, commander of the Army of the Gulf during the Civil War.
Click to expand...

http://www.chicagonow.com/getting-r...onal-district-4-worst-case-of-gerrymandering/

Check out the map below and tell me if you don't think this is the most ridiculous political game ever. Apparently they had to run the district through the middle of Interstate 294 so that they could maintain a contiguous area of homogenous constituents.
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So you missed all her public statements then about the GOP efforts to limit voting access?

Democrats Unveil a Plan to Fight Gerrymandering
Click to expand...

You might as well have claimed Senator Sanders' plan was Hillary's, I didn't realize HRC was a member of the Democratic Governors Association, much less that she authored and developed this plan.

Please explain how this has been a primary plan of action that she has pushed for throughout her political career, and provide good reference not something that talks about a democratic plan and also happens to mention her name in a generally ancillary manner.
 
wareyin said:
Losing, however, means much worse. I fail to see why one would intentionally lose, knowing that the changes are large movements in the direction one professes not to want.
Click to expand...

It won't hurt me in the short run and in the long run it will be much easier to accomplish a lot more in the backlash after the piper comes a calling.
 
Trakar said:
You might as well have claimed Senator Sanders' plan was Hillary's, I didn't realize HRC was a member of the Democratic Governors Association, much less that she authored and developed this plan.

Please explain how this has been a primary plan of action that she has pushed for throughout her political career, and provide good reference not something that talks about a democratic plan and also happens to mention her name in a generally ancillary manner.
Click to expand...
So again you dismiss pertinent data: Terry McAuliffe is political partner with the Clintons.
 
Wrapping up another work week here. So how are we doing. Has anyone submitted the new definition of "done" to the OED?

> SNL gig. Criticism from partisans. Neutrals and fans thought it made her human and more interesting.
> Debate. Major win. Solidified her position as more than just a pin cushion for the HDS fanatics.
> Biden withdraws. A major distraction out of the way and she probably picks up more than half his support. Hillary and Biden were going to be going to the same well for supporters and contributors. It'll be interesting to see the polls with date ranges of 22nd > .
> Witch Hunt Tribunal. Like their brilliant performance in the PPP hearings, the partisan hacks are shown for what they are.... partisan hacks.

I look forward to hearing from the shops stewards of Local 77 of The Hairsplitter, Cherry Pickers, Quote Miners and Spin Doctors Union to explain to us how these were actually horrendous setbacks for Hillary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom