Preparing for 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton embracing Obama

[gudtymchuk]

Looks like Hillary riding Obama's coattail might be just what to doctor ordered for the GOP..... Seems like all the brainiac liberals can't remember as far back as the last two election cycles... Campaigns are driven by polls and the polls are not trending in a Hillary direction.

American voters give Obama a negative 39 - 54 percent approval rating, close to his lowest-ever 38 - 57 percent score in a December 10, 2013, Quinnipiac University poll. Democrats and voters under 30 years old are the only party, gender or age groups who approve of the president. Only 42 percent of American voters trust Obama more than Republicans in Congress to do what is best for the nation, while 47 percent trust Republicans more. It's good for the country that Republicans have taken over control of the U.S. Senate, voters say 51 - 37 percent, but 67 percent of voters expect more gridlock in the next two years. Gridlock will be Obama's fault, 44 percent of voters say, as 42 percent would blame Republicans. "American voters are happy the Republicans have the ball, but don't feel confident there will be a lot of scoring on the deal-making front," Malloy said. "If that's the case, the numbers say blame will fall on Obama as much as Republicans.

Yes Hillary, run baby, run.

[jamesjohnsonthird]

Back to the subject of the original post.

THIS is why Hillary is embracing Obama & why the republican party has their panties in a twist. Americans vote with their pocketbook.

Score?

Bush= -56%

Obama= +205% and still going.

sp5oo screenshot.png

After the Bush fiasco, the stock market had to claw it's way back over 100% just to break even & recover from Bush!

Every American with a 401k or retirement account would be 100% more wealthy if it wasn't for the republicans policy.

Luckily, the 2009 Obama plan averted a depression and a worldwide economic calamity. Millions were losing their jobs, their homes and their retirement savings.

Obamas plan halted the jobs loss, saved the housing industry, increased wealth, reduced dependence on foreign oil, ended 2 wars, killed Bin Laden and droned their leadership, forced deadbeats into paying for health care, reducing the budget deficit at record rates, stopped torturing, got the Iranians to the negotiation table and a lot more.

The republicans won't be able to run on the economy.

All the have is their fake Benngggaaazziii scandal in a lame attempt to derail the democratic frontrunner.

The stock market growth during the past few years has nothing to do with what Obama has done or not done. The president only controls one branch of government. I'm sure at least a couple of the liberal posters on this site invests in the market, and knows presidents have very little influence of what the market does or doesn't do.

As far as the Benghazi scandal, this is real. People lost their lives because of what Obama and his side kick Hillary did and didn't do. Both of these people are exceptional liars and excellent at deception. I believe the truth will evidently come out about Benghazi, in spite of the liberal media who shields these two people. This will derail the Democrats plan for Hillary running for president.

The last time Hillary lived in the White House, she basically just picked up dog poop on the White House lawn, while her husband Bill, was molesting White House interns. Could you imagine these two people back in the White House? Come on you guys, get real.

"Hillary pickup up the dog poop"

I didn't hear that on the "liberal lamestream media"

You guys get a lot of information the liberal media shields us from.

Good work for pointing out the dog poop scoop.

[chuckd]

Hillary Clinton is a psycho. Having her as the president of the worlds most powerfull country would be scary.

Simply pointing out who said what.

[JakeSully]

Considering the alternative Republican playbook is privatize everything, getting cronies to run it into the ground , cutting taxes on the rich, cutting food stamps/ pell grants/ medicaid/ medicare for everyone else, raising middle class and poor income taxes and property taxes and fees, then railing about how Government doesn't work... I'd rather vote for Obama's dog Bo in the white house.

[gudtymchuk]

Considering the alternative Republican playbook is privatize everything, getting cronies to run it into the ground , cutting taxes on the rich, cutting food stamps/ pell grants/ medicaid/ medicare for everyone else, raising middle class and poor income taxes and property taxes and fees, then railing about how Government doesn't work... I'd rather vote for Obama's dog Bo in the white house.

Well done Sir. You've done a masterful job memorizing and chirping those Obamazombie/Clintonite talking points.

You make MSNBC proud - all 9 viewers.....

Hillary, get your saddle and buckle on those spurs and hang on to those coattails... Run baby, run.

[gudtymchuk]

Headline in "The Hill" today. 'Why Americans Should Consider O'Malley for President'. The article gives a glowing account of O'Malley's successful career as Governor of Maryland and before that Mayor of Baltimore. The article begins with an O'Malley quote, something to the effect that "The Presidency is not a crown to be past between two families". It also pointed out, unlike Hillary his political career has not been marred by an endless list of scandals.

But, for what ever reason, the Liberal left is down on their knees praying that Hillary can survive long enough to be granted the coveted Dem Coronation all the while demonizing any future GOP opponent. The hope is that the sheep will keep their blinders firmly in place, their ears and minds subjectively closed until that magical day when Hillary crawls up between the styrofoam pillars left over from Obama's acceptance speech so long ago. Many on the right truly hope the libs pull it off. A squeaky clean O'Malley would be a much more formidable opponent than Hillary with all her baggage, arrogance and self righteous entitlement.

So go for it Hillary. Run baby, run!!!

[Jingthing]

Sure consider him. Why not?

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[JakeSully]

Actually I too think Hillary has some baggage.. namely her husband so a primary battle would be interesting especially if it is a repeat like last time, Obama came first, Edwards second and Hillary third.

But Iowa has never been kind to the Clintons.. New Hamshire is where they rebound.. South Carolina I don't know.. not a state that will likely swing the election... but when they have the super tuesday primaries.. that will be the big teller.

[Publicus]

HRC remains solid.

Everyone knows how they're going to vote in November of 2016, which is really sour news to the Republican party and not really news.

The Republicans are going to spend the next 12 months hollering at one another about everything and spending money to knock off the other guy.

Republican party campaign Bubba Buses are lined up already at the GOP transportation terminal, waiting for the clown car arrive with their transfer tickets. The ultimate destination is off a cliff.

Republican party candidates have much higher negatives in their own party than HRC does.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-who-would-americans-consider-voting-for-in-2016/

Edited April 2, 2015 by Publicus

[Jingthing]

Sure Hillary has baggage but she's still a very strong brand name.

O'Malley may not have baggage (or maybe does). People don't know him. People don't care. Do 5 percent of Americans even know he exists? What is known is that he is a big bore.

I suspect a lot of people pushing O'Malley are republicans afraid of Hillary, who will of course be very hard to beat.

O'Bama was also relatively unknown before (but not as unknown as O'Malley) but O'Bama had the x factor on steroids.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Jingthing

[Asiantravel]

Aren't Americans worried at all how the international community would view the United States with this lady potentially at the helm? Presidents and Kings may be concerned how trustworthy she would be.

[Publicus]

Aren't Americans worried at all how the international community would view the United States with this lady potentially at the helm? Presidents and Kings may be concerned how trustworthy she would be.

No.

[jamesjohnsonthird]

Aren't Americans worried at all how the international community would view the United States with this lady potentially at the helm? Presidents and Kings may be concerned how trustworthy she would be.

Presidents and Kings don't trust Hillary? Why?

I guess I could picture Putin or that guy in Syria or North Korea cheering on Hannity when he is on a Hillary rant!! You think they buy that garbage?

I don't think the international community was very impressed with the republicans last offering as president to be honest.

Matter of fact, i remember there was a worldwide celebration when good old George Bush's term ended. Remember that? They greeted Obama like a rock star! They even gave Obama a Nobel Prize they were so happy Bush was finally gone.

Seriously now, they have no problems with Hillary. She personally knows more heads of State than anyone on the planet. They like Bill too.

Can't wait for the Bill and Hillary show.

[gudtymchuk]

Sure Hillary has baggage but she's still a very strong brand name.

O'Malley may not have baggage (or maybe does). People don't know him. People don't care. Do 5 percent of Americans even know he exists? What is known is that he is a big bore.

I suspect a lot of people pushing O'Malley are republicans afraid of Hillary, who will of course be very hard to beat.

O'Bama was also relatively unknown before (but not as unknown as O'Malley) but O'Bama had the x factor on steroids.

I suspect there were less than 5% who knew or cared about Barry 8 years ago until he hit the stump and began perpetrating his special style of hope and change deceit and propaganda. With Billy Boy at her side Hillary was the undeniable shoe in. Deja vu..

Yes Hillary. Run baby, run....

[Publicus]

In the 2016 contest for prez one can count the undecided voters on the head of a pin.

[gudtymchuk]

In the 2016 contest for prez one can count the undecided voters on the head of a pin.

When Barack was elected he waltzed his way into a gold mine. A new Liberal savior in the White House with Liberal majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Then the free fall began. San Fran Nan Pelosi took a shellacking and lost the House in 2010. Whore House Harry Reid, (his mamma was the local brothel laundress), was sent to the back of the bus when the GOP took back control of the Senate in 2012. Present day there are 31 Republican Governors compared to only 18 Democrats. That is not haphazard circumstance, thats a trend. Lots of time between now and the first Tuesday of Nov, 2016 but still, it would be a foolish notion to think that trend won’t continue. Lots of politicking, lying, deceiving and stones to turn between now and then.

Yeah baby, Run Hillary, run!!!

[Publicus]

Read all about it.

With only the rare exception, the states with the highest quality of education, the highest GDP per capita, the largest populations, vote for the Democratic party for president, to include of course Barack Obama, twice. HRC is the natural inheritor of this empirical reality.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-product-current-dollars-per-capita

Republicans want to win in 2016, they have to get a minimum of 40% of the Hispanic vote when they will instead get 20-23% of it. Republicans to win in 2014 will need to get 55% of voters under 30 instead of 40% of 'em. Above all, Republicans will need to win 70% of white voters nationally instead of the 59% the party won in 2012.

Bad Bet: Why Republicans Can't Win With Whites Alone http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/bad-bet-why-republicans-can-t-win-with-whites-alone-20130905

All of the right wing mud slinging and racial raging since the 2008 election has been for naught. It has in fact backfired.

[gudtymchuk]

Nice cut and past publicus.... You learn that in an O'Zombie conference?

All your empirical data aside facts paint a clearer picture. Three decidedly Democratic states—namely Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland elected Republican governors. Republicans gubernatorial candidates won in other blue states, like Michigan and Wisconsin. And Republicans came close to winning in Connecticut, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Seven states that haven’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate in at least twenty-six years (Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, Wisconsin) will have Republican governors. New Mexico, a Blue Hispanic state elected a Conservative Republican (former Democrat) female, Suzana Martinez in 2010. Some have tagged her as a possible VP nominee.

These seven states have had elected Republican US senators serve a combined 64 years in office since 1995, or just 22 percent of the time for all 14 US Senate seats. Thirty-eight of those years can be attributed to William Cohen, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe of Maine. Republican US senators have only been in office less than 17 percent of the time in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Wisconsin. New Jersey and Maryland haven’t had an elected Republican senator since 1979 and 1987, respectively. These states certainly are a dark shade of blue. Yet they’ve had Republican governors for 44 percent of the time. If you don’t include Maryland, it’s half the time.

Again, not speculative haphazard circumstances but a trend. You can cut-n-paste op-ed spin from your favorite left wing mags and blogs, and speculate to your hearts content but that doesn't change the political environment your girl is jumping into.

Oh Hillary, run baby, run!!

Edited April 2, 2015 by gudtymchuk

[sdanielmcev]

Considering the alternative Republican playbook is privatize everything, getting cronies to run it into the ground , cutting taxes on the rich, cutting food stamps/ pell grants/ medicaid/ medicare for everyone else, raising middle class and poor income taxes and property taxes and fees, then railing about how Government doesn't work... I'd rather vote for Obama's dog Bo in the white house.

Since you are so ready for all these government hand-outs, you'll do more than your fair share of paying then? I thought not.

[sdanielmcev]

Read all about it.

With only the rare exception, the states with the highest quality of education, the highest GDP per capita, the largest populations, vote for the Democratic party for president, to include of course Barack Obama, twice. HRC is the natural inheritor of this empirical reality.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-product-current-dollars-per-capita

Republicans want to win in 2016, they have to get a minimum of 40% of the Hispanic vote when they will instead get 20-23% of it. Republicans to win in 2014 will need to get 55% of voters under 30 instead of 40% of 'em. Above all, Republicans will need to win 70% of white voters nationally instead of the 59% the party won in 2012.

Bad Bet: Why Republicans Can't Win With Whites Alonehttp://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/bad-bet-why-republicans-can-t-win-with-whites-alone-20130905

All of the right wing mud slinging and racial raging since the 2008 election has been for naught. It has in fact backfired.

Another inane post made to skew statistics with absolutely no corroborating evidence. High per capita means nothing without cost of living factored into it. "Highest quality of education?" You mean indoctrination.

[snarky66]

Considering the alternative Republican playbook is privatize everything, getting cronies to run it into the ground , cutting taxes on the rich, cutting food stamps/ pell grants/ medicaid/ medicare for everyone else, raising middle class and poor income taxes and property taxes and fees, then railing about how Government doesn't work... I'd rather vote for Obama's dog Bo in the white house.

Sure. Cronies like Solyndra maybe. This is the result of the most corrupt administration in history. Glad you spotted that.

Don't assume barry didn't funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to his chums. Because he did.

[Publicus]

Nice cut and past publicus.... You learn that in an O'Zombie conference?

All your empirical data aside facts paint a clearer picture. Three decidedly Democratic states—namely Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland elected Republican governors. Republicans gubernatorial candidates won in other blue states, like Michigan and Wisconsin. And Republicans came close to winning in Connecticut, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Seven states that haven’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate in at least twenty-six years (Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, Wisconsin) will have Republican governors. New Mexico, a Blue Hispanic state elected a Conservative Republican (former Democrat) female, Suzana Martinez in 2010. Some have tagged her as a possible VP nominee.

These seven states have had elected Republican US senators serve a combined 64 years in office since 1995, or just 22 percent of the time for all 14 US Senate seats. Thirty-eight of those years can be attributed to William Cohen, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe of Maine. Republican US senators have only been in office less than 17 percent of the time in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Wisconsin. New Jersey and Maryland haven’t had an elected Republican senator since 1979 and 1987, respectively. These states certainly are a dark shade of blue. Yet they’ve had Republican governors for 44 percent of the time. If you don’t include Maryland, it’s half the time.

Again, not speculative haphazard circumstances but a trend. You can cut-n-paste op-ed spin from your favorite left wing mags and blogs, and speculate to your hearts content but that doesn't change the political environment your girl is jumping into.

Oh Hillary, run baby, run!!

Nice cut and past publicus.... You learn that in an O'Zombie conference?

Swing and a miss, strike threee....now grab some bench.

And Republicans came close to winning.....

Close only counts in hand grenades and horse shoes, and the discussion is zero-sum, win-lose elections and the R's are down for the count.

The Republican governors in the post, and the Republican senators also, are not Ted Cruz Republicans, nor are they Mike Huckabee Republicans....nor are they Mitch Daniels Republicans....among the long list of dinosaurs currently before the public for all to see. The traditional and conventional Eastern Republicans named in the post have their legacy carried forward by Staten Island Borough of NYC Republican Congressman Peter King, who had this to say......

GOP Rep. Peter King dismisses Ted Cruz as 'carnival barker'

Rep. Peter King called Sen. Ted Cruz a "big mouth" who "basically led the Republican Party over the cliff" and dismissed Sen. Rand Paul as an "isolationist" on Monday as he said their party should ignore those two candidates for its 2016 presidential nomination.

King's sharpest comments were directed at Cruz.

"To me, he's a guy with a big mouth and no results," the New York Republican told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview on "The Situation Room."

"We have very, very complex issues facing the country today, and he goes out of his way to oversimplify," King said of Cruz. "Ted Cruz may be an intelligent person, but he doesn't carry out an intelligent debate. He oversimplifies, he exaggerates ... he doesn't provide leadership and he has no real experience."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/23/politics/peter-king-ted-cruz-carnival/

Almost all of the Republicans named in the post are this kind of Republican.

Olympia Snowe of Maine, for instance, left the Senate after she was manhandled by all other Republicans because of her vote in Committee for Obamacare. A moderate and calm voice and vote in the Senate, Snowe was so abused and 'punished' by her colleagues/thugs that she announced she would not seek a fourth term which had been assured. The direct consequence was the election as her successor of the Independent former governor, Angus King, who caucuses and votes with the Democrats and stayed with the Ds even after last November's election. We don't call 'em 'Mainiacs' up there for nuthin

There are people who need to learn who it is they are referring to when they start naming Republican names, their records in government, their reputations. There's not a Rick Santorum in the bunch, nothing like a Santorum or anywhere near a Santorum, or a Cruz, a Paul, or in this day and age, a Jeb Bush who was for the new Indiana law before he wuz against it.

My native state is among the states named in the post and I've voted for a good number of Republicans for state office, but Republican for prez only once, which is a pattern among the voters of almost all of the states mentioned in the post.

As for Scott Walker out there in Wisconsin, the state has a long history of Republican governors, such as Tommy Thompson among others, yet Wisconsin votes the D for prez. The entire thesis of the post is wrong, wrong, wrong.

[JakeSully]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Considering the alternative Republican playbook is privatize everything, getting cronies to run it into the ground , cutting taxes on the rich, cutting food stamps/ pell grants/ medicaid/ medicare for everyone else, raising middle class and poor income taxes and property taxes and fees, then railing about how Government doesn't work... I'd rather vote for Obama's dog Bo in the white house.

Sure. Cronies like Solyndra maybe. This is the result of the most corrupt administration in history. Glad you spotted that.

Don't assume barry didn't funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to his chums. Because he did.

Is it as bad as Halliburton or so called Republican Governors who have been voted in on the so called tidal wave and then stolen the pension of their state's workers?

http://www.ibtimes.com/chris-christie-administration-paid-600m-financial-fees-2014-1833872

The worst adminstration? *rolls eyes*

Considering the alternative Republican playbook is privatize everything, getting cronies to run it into the ground , cutting taxes on the rich, cutting food stamps/ pell grants/ medicaid/ medicare for everyone else, raising middle class and poor income taxes and property taxes and fees, then railing about how Government doesn't work... I'd rather vote for Obama's dog Bo in the white house.

Since you are so ready for all these government hand-outs, you'll do more than your fair share of paying then? I thought not.

I think that pretty much says your ignorance since you would like nothing more than another Great Leap Forward - the American version where over 30% of the population die of starvation.

We spent over 5 trillion dollars on a war in Iraq we didn't need, so maybe you'd like to pay for it? No.. what happened to paying for your fair share of Bush's mistakes?

[NeverSure]

Posting polls right now doesn't mean anything. Hillary is the presumed one, and the Republicans are split among many. Once the primaries are over and there are just two people to choose from, polls may or may not be accurate.

No one but Hillary has much national name recognition. That will change as the national races start.

Hillary is a proven loser. She couldn't even get the Democratic nomination last time after entering as the anointed one.

Deja vu all over again, and Run Hillary Run.

[snarky66]

That's in the unlikely event that Hillary is not under indictment by the time the primaries start. To say that she is crooked is a wild understatement. I liked the guy that called her Hill the shrill. Purrrrrfect.

[Publicus]

That's in the unlikely event that Hillary is not under indictment by the time the primaries start. To say that she is crooked is a wild understatement. I liked the guy that called her Hill the shrill. Purrrrrfect.

Indictment by whom?

Department of Justice announced this week they would not seek contempt charges against Lois Lerner of the IRS that the House referred to it due to her having invoked the 5th Amendment refusal to testify before the House special investigating committee number 17....or was it the special committee 32....or was it special committee 86.....hard to keep track, it is.

No contempt charges against Lois Lerner for taking the 5th to refuse to testify to a House Special Committee of Inquisition.

Congress does not indict. Impeachment is a form of indictment but HRC is not in office any longer to be removed.

All Congress can do is to refer a case of contempt to the Justice Department to decide whether to prosecute.

Indicted by whom?

The Republican Party Martyrs Committee?

Edited April 2, 2015 by Publicus

[NeverSure]

I think that pretty much says your ignorance since you would like nothing more than another Great Leap Forward - the American version where over 30% of the population die of starvation.

Yes of course. The last time a Republican was president, 30% of the population died of starvation. (Yawn.)

We spent over 5 trillion dollars on a war in Iraq we didn't need, so maybe you'd like to pay for it? No.. what happened to paying for your fair share of Bush's mistakes?

Uh, the national debt will have about doubled from about 10 tril to about $20 tril while Obama's been in office. Yeah, it was only about $10 tril when Obama took office. Now, you can blame that on past presidents if you wish, but after 8 years I hope Obama will be understood to be responsible for his own presidency.

Yawn.

[NeverSure]

That's in the unlikely event that Hillary is not under indictment by the time the primaries start. To say that she is crooked is a wild understatement. I liked the guy that called her Hill the shrill. Purrrrrfect.

Indictment by whom?

Congress.

[Publicus]

That's in the unlikely event that Hillary is not under indictment by the time the primaries start. To say that she is crooked is a wild understatement. I liked the guy that called her Hill the shrill. Purrrrrfect.

Indictment by whom?

Congress.

Each the House and the Senate respectively have a Sergeant-At-Arms to send out to arrest people it has declared in contempt of Congress. Hasn't done that since the 19th century. And that hasn't ever gone too well: see the article below.

The Lois Lerner contempt of the congress maximus that I just referenced was sent to the Justice Department with a recommendation to indict. DoJ gave the congress maximus its due consideration, i.e., no further action will be taken, which means case closed. If the House wants to do anything, the only thing it can do is to send its Sergeant-At-Arms to arrest Ms Lerner, and thus bring her to detention in the Capitol Building dungeon until she sees the light of Republican party wisdom.

The congress maximus in 2012 declared Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. It of course did not refer the case to the Attorney General to indict and prosecute the Attorney General . And the congress maximus thought twice about sending the Sergeant and his posse out to arrest the AG cause there might have been a shootout between the House Sergeant and his posse and the Secret Service protecting the AG .

Congress can however send the Sergeant out to arrest Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I and billions of people want to see that.

From the 2012 Event:

When the House of Representatives found Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress Thursday, the afternoon was brimming with drama.

But one dramatic turn that didn’t come to pass? The House sending the sergeant-at-arms to arrest the attorney general and imprison him in the Capitol until it gets its way. That’s a move well within congressional rights with a contempt resolution, albeit one that hasn’t been tried in about a century.

Had the House tried to do so, it may have risked a showdown with executive branch police who protect Holder, according to Josh Chafetz, a law professor at Cornell University.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2012/0629/Could-Congress-jail-Attorney-General-Eric-Holder-for-contempt

There have been several such cases recently, one involving Karl Rogue Rove who refused to testify before a House committee and got off the hook because then Speaker Pelosi decided not to send the Sergeant and his posse to the White House to apprehend him for disposition to the Capitol Building dungeon.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Publicus

[jamesjohnsonthird]

I think that pretty much says your ignorance since you would like nothing more than another Great Leap Forward - the American version where over 30% of the population die of starvation.

Yes of course. The last time a Republican was president, 30% of the population died of starvation. (Yawn.)

We spent over 5 trillion dollars on a war in Iraq we didn't need, so maybe you'd like to pay for it? No.. what happened to paying for your fair share of Bush's mistakes?

Uh, the national debt will have about doubled from about 10 tril to about $20 tril while Obama's been in office. Yeah, it was only about $10 tril when Obama took office. Now, you can blame that on past presidents if you wish, but after 8 years I hope Obama will be understood to be responsible for his own presidency.

Yawn.

Correction.

Obama not only inherited 10 trillion debt but also the interest on that too.

Let's allocate about 16 trillion to Bush. Ok

Then Obama had to save the world from economic calamity and wind down those stupid wars bush got us into.

Almost all of the debt is owned by the previous administration.

Thankfully the US economy is booming, the economic crisis averted, housing and jobs have recovered, deficit going down at record rates, wars over.

The republicans better not mention the economy in the next election. Are you better off than you were 6 years ago? 5555

Al they have are fake scandals and a fake news channel.... or an indictment

Edited April 2, 2015 by jamesjohnsonthird