Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
She was elected to the Senate after eight years as the President's wife. You think she would have been a serious candidate, let alone elected, from a state she had no previous connection with otherwise? And if you want to keep citing her job titles, what did she actually accomplish as Senator and Secretary of State, except to comport herself in a manner that Henry Kissinger likes?

Yes, I do. If Hillary never met Bill, she would be the same talented educated and skillful person.

Your dismissal as if the only thing the woman did was marry into politics is sexist, blatantly, disgustingly sexist.
 

I'm sure that it is possible to find support for nearly any conceivable position somewhere on or referenced by, the internet. The first two are fringe, and the first itself is beyond normal fringe and pretty far into CT land. The NYT article doesn't document sexism, but merely the charges of sexism by over-the-top Hillary supporters 8 years ago and aimed primarily at Obama and his campaign back in 2008...

Please do go on, and let me know when you approach something compelling, and current.
 
Yes, I do. If Hillary never met Bill, she would be the same talented educated and skillful person.

Your dismissal as if the only thing the woman did was marry into politics is sexist, blatantly, disgustingly sexist.

I have no doubt that in some alternative universe, if she had never met Bill, Hillary would have had an active and successful career in law and politics, most likely in her hometown of Chicago. But in this universe, she devoted her life to Bill's advancement, starting when this urban northern woman followed him home to a small southern town, and continuing when she took on her husband's name after realizing that keeping "Rodham" was costing him votes. The fact is that most of her adult life experience before 2000 was as the wife of a state attorney general, governor and President. Someone with no previous experience in public office -- as a mayor, congressman or state legislatorl -- simply could not move to a state with which she had no previous connection and immediately run for U.S. Senate. It's just delusional to pretend that Hillary would be in the same place if she had not been married to a President.
 
On the actual topic of this thread;

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/07/its..._a_mass_insurrection_against_a_rigged_system/

<SNIP>
If you strip away all the nonsense about polls, money, firewalls and ground games, Clinton’s left with two arguments, neither one pretty. One is that Sanders is too far left. Pundits dismiss his polls by repeating her “wait till the Republicans get ahold of him” line. And they’ll say what? That he’s old? Jewish? A socialist? Everybody already knows and anyone who’d even think of voting Democratic is already down with it or soon could be. The “socialist” tag needs explaining, but so do “corrupt” and “fascist.” Both parties’ frontrunners carry baggage. For my money, Bernie’s is the lightest. As for the notion that voters can’t see that paying $1,000 in taxes beats paying $5,000 in health insurance premiums, it is an insult to the American people.
<SNIP>
Bill Curry was White House counselor to President Clinton and a two-time Democratic nominee for governor of Connecticut. He is at work on a book on President Obama and the politics of populism.
 
I have no doubt that in some alternative universe, if she had never met Bill, Hillary would have had an active and successful career in law and politics, most likely in her hometown of Chicago. But in this universe, she devoted her life to Bill's advancement, starting when this urban northern woman followed him home to a small southern town, and continuing when she took on her husband's name after realizing that keeping "Rodham" was costing him votes. The fact is that most of her adult life experience before 2000 was as the wife of a state attorney general, governor and President. Someone with no previous experience in public office -- as a mayor, congressman or state legislatorl -- simply could not move to a state with which she had no previous connection and immediately run for U.S. Senate. It's just delusional to pretend that Hillary would be in the same place if she had not been married to a President.

Family connections are, like it or not (mostly I do not), a big part of politics. For some reason, people like voting for family dynasties. The Kennedys and Bushes are the most notable examples. Ted Kennedy would never have been elected to the U.S. Senate at age 30 if not for his brother. And Rand Paul would have been nothing more than an opthamologist and political crank if it had not been for his father. This goes down to the local level - a commissioner in my county retired last year, and his son was elected in his place.

I can think of two other examples of people moving to New York and immediately being elected to the Senate - Robert Kennedy and James Buckley. For some reason, New York is particularly prone to that.

So no, Hillary wouldn't have had the same career if not for her husband. But I don't hold that against her. It was the voters who decided. Debate how she did in her job all you want, but don't blame her for getting there.
 
I think we need a "shooting yourself in the foot" icon to go along with the laughing dog.

“In the debate the other night, you said you’d look into whether or not to release the transcripts of your speeches to financial groups. Have you made up your mind?” host George Stephanopoulos, a Clinton Foundation donor, asked.

“Yeah, you know, here’s another thing I want to say,” Clinton said. “Let everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them. We’ll all release them at the same time. You know, I don’t mind being the subject in Republican debates, the subject in the Democratic primary. That kind of goes with the territory … At some point, these rules need to apply to everybody.”

Who on the Clinton campaign team thinks answers like this do anything other than make her look terrible?
 
Last edited:
Family connections are, like it or not (mostly I do not), a big part of politics. For some reason, people like voting for family dynasties. The Kennedys and Bushes are the most notable examples. Ted Kennedy would never have been elected to the U.S. Senate at age 30 if not for his brother. And Rand Paul would have been nothing more than an opthamologist and political crank if it had not been for his father. This goes down to the local level - a commissioner in my county retired last year, and his son was elected in his place.

I can think of two other examples of people moving to New York and immediately being elected to the Senate - Robert Kennedy and James Buckley. For some reason, New York is particularly prone to that.

So no, Hillary wouldn't have had the same career if not for her husband. But I don't hold that against her. It was the voters who decided. Debate how she did in her job all you want, but don't blame her for getting there.


All true. I think Americans might value family connections in politics in part because they think it establishes a "brand" identity (if you liked George and Barbara, you get more of the same from George W. and Jeb, or if you loved JFK, his relatives will carry his torch), and in part because we don't have an actual royal family, so we are moved to create them where we can (as in Hollywood "royalty"). I don't blame Hillary. But I do object when anyone claims that she is where she is only as a result of her own unique merits, just as it would be ridiculous for the Bush boys to claim that they made it on their own, or for the third- and fourth-generation Kennedys to claim that their name and money doesn't give them a big boost. Hillary wouldn't be where she is if she hadn't spent 30+ years attached to Bill. And if somebody without her name ran as a progressive on her record -- supporting the Iraq invasion, protecting Wall Street while she takes their millions, promoting intervention in Libya and Syria, etc., etc. -- her road would be much tougher than it's been as President Bill's wife.
 
Last edited:
I think we need a "shooting yourself in the foot" icon to go along with the laughing dog.

Who on the Clinton campaign team thinks answers like this do anything other than make her look terrible?

While I agree, in reference to specific issue discussion, I have zero problem with all candidates releasing the transcripts of their fund-raising speeches and talks in the name of open public disclosure.
 
While I agree, in reference to specific issue discussion, I have zero problem with all candidates releasing the transcripts of their fund-raising speeches and talks in the name of open public disclosure.

Agreed
 
It’s almost over for Hillary: This election is a mass insurrection against a rigged system - Sanders has ended the coronation and fired up the grass roots. Now Clinton's electability argument is crumbling too.
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/07/its..._a_mass_insurrection_against_a_rigged_system/

It would be hard to overstate what Bernie Sanders has already achieved in his campaign for president, or the obstacles he’s had to surmount in order to achieve it. Not only has he turned a planned Hillary Clinton coronation into an exercise in grass-roots democracy, he’s reset the terms of the debate. We are edging closer to the national conversation we so desperately need to have. If we get there, all credit goes to Bernie...

There is no Clinton firewall. At most, ten states are out of Sanders’ reach and public opinion is never static. Nor does she have a better “ground game.” Real grass-roots organizations like The Working Families Party, MoveOn.org and Democracy for America let members guide endorsements. (Sanders’ support in each of those groups was at or above 85%) Such groups are building the movement Sanders speaks of in every speech. Building a movement is like wiring a house for electricity. You can buy the most expensive lamps in the store but with no electricity, when you hit the switch the lights don’t go on. It takes real conviction to fuel grass-roots politics. In Iowa, Sanders ran five points ahead of late polls. It won’t be the last time it happens...

Democrats are deeply loyal to Barack Obama and Bill Clinton who didn’t so much reconcile their party’s conflicts as engross them within their protean personalities. Hillary accuses Sanders of disloyalty to them and to the modern party they held together. When Sanders suggested that some progressive groups might be part of the establishment, she ripped into him, denying there even is such a thing. There is, of course. Its main components were once grass-roots movements that traded independence for access and are now Washington lobbies with grass-roots mailing lists. They were better off when they played harder to get.

The absence of an independent, progressive movement left a vacuum that groups like The Working Families Party and MoveOn.org have begun to fill not a moment too soon. Clinton seeks to cast Sanders as the “other” by calling into question his loyalty to the establishment. It gets her nothing. Democrats will always be loyal to Bill and Barack, but know in their hearts it’s time to move on. The debate now is over what comes next...

One way to sum up the case he’s trying to make might be as follows. In the 1990s a near bipartisan consensus celebrated a new age of globalization and information technology in which technology and trade spur growth that in turn fosters a broad and inclusive prosperity. Government’s job is to deregulate finance and trade and work with business in ‘public private partnerships’ for progress.

Twenty years on, Hillary still sees the world through the rose-colored glasses of that ’90s consensus. Not Bernie. He sees that in 2016 rising tides don’t even lift most boats, that growth comes at a steep price when it comes at all, and that new technology cost more jobs than it creates. He understands that when jobs flow to countries with weak governments and low wages, the American middle class can’t get a raise. He sees that public-private partnership meant pay-to-play politics, and that the whole system runs not on innovation but corruption. My guess is the middle class sees what he sees and wants what he wants: a revolution. If he can continue to drive the debate, they may get one.

Interesting article. Apologies for having to hack it up to fit it in here, follow link to read it in its entirety.
 
Clinton's accomplishments:

- An incompetent attempt at health care reform as First Lady that set back the reform effort for years.
- Voting for the Iraq war
- Making huge amounts of money giving speeches to Wall Street firms
- Supporting DOMA
- Dodging sniper fire
- Losing the 2008 Democratic nomination to a Freshman senator
- The "Russia Reset"
- The current state of the Mid-East
- Embroiled in an FBI investigation
- Beating an old socialist in Iowa by coin toss
- Losing New Hampshire to said socialist (pending).

Someone tell me again why I should support this person?
 
It’s almost over for Hillary: This election is a mass insurrection against a rigged system - Sanders has ended the coronation and fired up the grass roots. Now Clinton's electability argument is crumbling too.
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/07/its..._a_mass_insurrection_against_a_rigged_system/



Interesting article. Apologies for having to hack it up to fit it in here, follow link to read it in its entirety.

Um,*I already posted that above, but with a much smaller quote... ;)
 
Two views about those emails:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e8022e-c36a-11e5-8965-0607e0e265ce_story.html


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...69dfea-cc18-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html

Marc Thiessen is a right-wing ideologue. But Colbert King is a thoughtful progressive. This is what Hillary is going to be dealing with throughout the primaries and, if nominated, all the way up to the election. It won't go away.

From what I was reading yesterday it's not anywhere as bad as these reporters are trying to make it, i.e. that classified materials were removed from the classified system and then sent on the unclassified system.

The main issue seems to be between the State Department and the CIA, and for the most part it's over things like Drone Strikes.

The CIA consider any information about drone strikes as Top Secret because they are a Special Access Program, yet obvious drone strikes are well known about publicly, so there is a major grey area. From the CIA point of view anything that mentions Drone Strikes is classified Top Secret, even if it doesn't come from their systems and reports. Thus is Clinton received an email from a DoS official in Pakistan talking about a strike and what was happening with it, even though this was not from the CIA, or using CIA assets, the CIA would still consider it Classified Top Secret, were as the DoS wouldn't consider it classified at all.

This seems to be the major issue with the 22 emails
 
Hillary's sarcastic refusal to turn over transcripts from her Goldman pay days is further exposing what a *********** phony she is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom