Hillary Clinton declares 2016 Democratic presidential bid

[Publicus]

My prognostication for 2000 was Senator Bill Bradley (D) vs. Senator John McCain ( R)

So my pick for 2016: Former MD Governor Martin O'Malley (D) vs. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida ( R)

Don't you think it's a little unusual Jasper Lamar Crabb made predictions today when he passed away two weeks ago?

Forget it Jake, it's Chinatowne.

http://www.quotes.net/mquote/17468

It's not crucial but may I inquire whether there were any predictions in 2004 for the Ds, in 08 for either, in 12 for the Rs?

Do as little as possible?

[jamesjohnsonthird]

Strongly favored?

are we not jumping the gun a little bit? There is this little thing called the Nomination,We have not seen her opposition in the primary yet, but we favor her over them? and then we have the general election, I assume there will be a republican opponent, we don't even know who that will be, yet we favor her over him/her?

as much as the media would like this to be a coronation, there is this pesky little thing called , the democratic process.

Unfortunately, the primaries are not very democratic as long as PAC money rules the roost.

The reason why the nomination process is being treated as a done deal is because no one viable has yet to come out against Clinton. The Democrats will keep the process civil and try to debate ideas and policies and to keep the personal attacks to a minimum. The GOP process if it is anything like the last one, will be a bloodbath and multiple embarrassments, one after the other. Don't you remember the little wacko congressman Paul kept impaling his opponents and making them look like dimwits, even though many of them didn't need the help. I doubt there will be anyone as stupid as that Bachmann woman this time around, but with luck, Rubio and Cruz will make desperate attacks on Jeb Bush ruining any chance he has to be elected.

If Jeb Bush is nominated vs. Hilary Clinton, we may actually get to see a presidential election where ideas and policies are debated and compared. Both are hard nosed experienced politicians, but both are civil and not given to cheap shots. Former President Clinton has grown close to the former President Bush the elder and the type of personal attacks one has seen in previous elections will be a rarity. We just might see a return of civility and politeness, to the presidential electoral process, with its dignity restored. America doesn't need another spectacle of people like airhead white trash Sarah Palin or slime ball John Edwards mucking about.

The analysis about the Clintons and the Bushes is very likely an accurate one as I would wholeheartedly agree each would be pretty civil toward the other.

It's the rabid out there on the right that will be firing the flames all over and about fueled by the deep cover extremists with their truckloads of cash and more cash.

Rubio would hammer on the age issue while Walker would hammer his thumb instead trying to.

Reality is JEB is still rusty on the campaign course and may not get past the 9th Hole, Rubio is still immature and Walker is a klutz. Cruz is crazy and Paul is a fruit. After that with Huckabee and the rest of 'em it's all downhill right into the ravine.

John Huntsman was a reasonable republican candidate last time but the republicans laughed him off the stage when he said he "believed the scientists when it comes to evolution and global warming."

[sirineou]

Strongly favored?

are we not jumping the gun a little bit? There is this little thing called the Nomination,We have not seen her opposition in the primary yet, but we favor her over them? and then we have the general election, I assume there will be a republican opponent, we don't even know who that will be, yet we favor her over him/her?

as much as the media would like this to be a coronation, there is this pesky little thing called , the democratic process.

Unfortunately, the primaries are not very democratic as long as PAC money rules the roost.

The reason why the nomination process is being treated as a done deal is because no one viable has yet to come out against Clinton. The Democrats will keep the process civil and try to debate ideas and policies and to keep the personal attacks to a minimum. The GOP process if it is anything like the last one, will be a bloodbath and multiple embarrassments, one after the other. Don't you remember the little wacko congressman Paul kept impaling his opponents and making them look like dimwits, even though many of them didn't need the help. I doubt there will be anyone as stupid as that Bachmann woman this time around, but with luck, Rubio and Cruz will make desperate attacks on Jeb Bush ruining any chance he has to be elected.

If Jeb Bush is nominated vs. Hilary Clinton, we may actually get to see a presidential election where ideas and policies are debated and compared. Both are hard nosed experienced politicians, but both are civil and not given to cheap shots. Former President Clinton has grown close to the former President Bush the elder and the type of personal attacks one has seen in previous elections will be a rarity. We just might see a return of civility and politeness, to the presidential electoral process, with its dignity restored. America doesn't need another spectacle of people like airhead white trash Sarah Palin or slime ball John Edwards mucking about.

A pleasure to see some one making a reasonable educated reply and an opinion supported by facts. I find very little to argue with on what you said other than the following

The Dem, Convention is over a year away and a lot can happen between now and then, and the Rep.'s with out a presumed favorite son, will form a circular firing squad, I am sure Jeb will try to stay out of it

and if in the end it does come down to Hillary and Jeb , the two will try to keep it civil and presidential,

Hillary does bring a lot of experience to the table,and I am sure will try to make that a large part of her talking point, but with that experience she brings a lot of baggage, (whitewater, Vince Foster, travelgate, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, benghazi Emails, etc) and though Jeb might stay out of the fray, you can bet his surrogates will not, especially if it looks like Hillary is winning, Every time she Get's on message, they will try to knock her off message by bringing this things up and putting her on the defensive.

At the very least it will be interesting, but I cringe at the prospect of an other Bush or Clinton in the white house.

PS: though the democratic process might not be very democratic, it is a process, and with in that process there are a lot of variables and unforeseen outcomes,

.

Edited April 15, 2015 by sirineou

[boomerangutang]

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

It would seem Hillary's first campaign appearance was underwhelming, to say he least.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reporters Outnumber Voters as Hillary Clinton Opens Campaign in Iowa

BY EMILY SCHULTHEIS

April 14, 2015 MONTICELLO, Iowa—

Hillary Clinton may have been speaking to just 22 people here at her Iowa kickoff event, but the now-official 2016 candidate was looking far beyond the voters in the room when she outlined in the clearest terms yet the rationale for her campaign.

"A lot of people in the last few days have asked me, 'Why do you want to do this?' and 'What motivates you?'" Clinton said at the event. "And I've thought a lot about it, and I guess the short answer is, I've been fighting for children and families my entire life. ... I want to be the champion who goes to bat for Americans."

Article continues here: http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/hillary-clinton-2016-iowa-20150414

Interesting that the article claims this is the design for Hillary's campaign. Small and intimate panels where she sits, instead of "rousing" speeches before thousands where she stands. It is a campaign designed for no energy, because to do otherwise would exhaust her. A tired campaign for a tired old woman.

Dang, the woman chooses to start off with moderate campaign. Can anyone throw barbs at that? Yes, apparently. What next to dis about Hillary, by the ever-negative right wingers? ....her choice of breakfast cereal? How she holds her tea cup?

[Chicog]

Dang, the woman chooses to start off with moderate campaign. Can anyone throw barbs at that? Yes, apparently. What next to dis about Hillary, by the ever-negative right wingers? ....her choice of breakfast cereal? How she holds her tea cup?

Ah yes, breakfastgate is coming!

Edited April 15, 2015 by Chicog

[chuckd]

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

It would seem Hillary's first campaign appearance was underwhelming, to say he least.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reporters Outnumber Voters as Hillary Clinton Opens Campaign in Iowa

BY EMILY SCHULTHEIS

April 14, 2015 MONTICELLO, Iowa—

Hillary Clinton may have been speaking to just 22 people here at her Iowa kickoff event, but the now-official 2016 candidate was looking far beyond the voters in the room when she outlined in the clearest terms yet the rationale for her campaign.

"A lot of people in the last few days have asked me, 'Why do you want to do this?' and 'What motivates you?'" Clinton said at the event. "And I've thought a lot about it, and I guess the short answer is, I've been fighting for children and families my entire life. ... I want to be the champion who goes to bat for Americans."

Article continues here: http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/hillary-clinton-2016-iowa-20150414

Interesting that the article claims this is the design for Hillary's campaign. Small and intimate panels where she sits, instead of "rousing" speeches before thousands where she stands. It is a campaign designed for no energy, because to do otherwise would exhaust her. A tired campaign for a tired old woman.

Dang, the woman chooses to start off with moderate campaign. Can anyone throw barbs at that? Yes, apparently. What next to dis about Hillary, by the ever-negative right wingers? ....her choice of breakfast cereal? How she holds her tea cup?

Is criticism of Hillary not allowed for some reason? If so, please tell that to her supporters on the Rubio thread.

One poster brought up a fender bender Rubio's wife had at a campaign rally. It doesn't get much more ridiculous than that.

Edited April 15, 2015 by chuckd

[Jingthing]

Yes sure criticism but if unfair, sexist, or ageist expect pushback.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[chuckd]

Without being sexist or ageist, let me be a teensy bit unfair by posting what seems to be general misinterpretation about her new logo. The unfair bit is that the web site is NOT in Hillary's back pocket just yet.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIDEO: What Do Americans Think of Hillary's New Campaign Logo?

Dan Joseph | April 14, 2015 11:02am ET

Last Sunday, Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy for the presidency of the United States. She also revealed her new campaign logo.

The logo is unique to say the least and was met with a great deal of mockery and derision from all corners of the World Wide Web.

Many Americans still haven't had a chance to see the logo yet, so I went down to the National Mall and asked Americans what the logo reminded them of and whether they thought it would make a good symbol for Hillary's fledgling campaign.

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/video-americans-give-their-thoughts-hillarys-new-campaign-logo

[Jingthing]

Blue and red for blue and red states.

The arrow is a symbol for male.

I hope she changes the logo ... it's a long campaign.

Of course, another theory is the ugly boring logo was done INTENTIONALLY. I have this theory they are banking on her midwestern boring qualities and that perhaps Americans don't want anything exciting at all now in their president. I've read her model now is the campaign of the SENIOR Bush ... the dour boring one.

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/13/8406265/theres-a-reason-nobody-likes-hillary-clintons-campaign-logo

Edited April 15, 2015 by Jingthing

[boomerangutang]

Yes sure criticism but if unfair, sexist, or ageist expect pushback.

.... or mindlessly petty (no offense to Tom)

[canman]

Did anyone see Megan Kelly get stuck into Debbie Wasserman Shultz last night? The emergence of strong female conservative commentators who are not afraid of asking the hard questions and thus being labeled a misogynist is going to be fun to watch.

How do the dems justify their opposition to capital punishment for henious crimes, a judgement only passed after trial and appeal yet support killing a viable baby based on the opinion of one woman and her doctor?

[zydeco]

Without being sexist or ageist, let me be a teensy bit unfair by posting what seems to be general misinterpretation about her new logo. The unfair bit is that the web site is NOT in Hillary's back pocket just yet.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIDEO: What Do Americans Think of Hillary's New Campaign Logo?

Dan Joseph | April 14, 2015 11:02am ET

Last Sunday, Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy for the presidency of the United States. She also revealed her new campaign logo.

The logo is unique to say the least and was met with a great deal of mockery and derision from all corners of the World Wide Web.

Many Americans still haven't had a chance to see the logo yet, so I went down to the National Mall and asked Americans what the logo reminded them of and whether they thought it would make a good symbol for Hillary's fledgling campaign.

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/video-americans-give-their-thoughts-hillarys-new-campaign-logo

As for the logo? This way to Hell?

[Chicog]

Did anyone see Megan Kelly get stuck into Debbie Wasserman Shultz last night? The emergence of strong female conservative commentators who are not afraid of asking the hard questions and thus being labeled a misogynist is going to be fun to watch.

How do the dems justify their opposition to capital punishment for henious crimes, a judgement only passed after trial and appeal yet support killing a viable baby based on the opinion of one woman and her doctor?

You seriously call this vacuous blonde bimbo a "strong female conservative commentator"?

Good grief man, get a grip.

The first question she asked was a diversion from the one Rand was asked.

And she got a straight answer: The Dems position is Roe vs Wade et al. No surprise there.

Were you expecting something else?

Only today did she expand the conversation to third trimester abortion. THAT was what she should have asked about yesterday.

Instead she saves it for when she has a fawning 'Fox News Contributor'.

Like the rest of the channel her agenda is obvious and a big fat joke.

Still, at least it stopped her banging on about emails for weeks.

[chuckd]

Here's a little information on that spontaneous stop and round table with the select 7.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paper: Clinton Iowa Stop Staged; Campaign Drove 'Ordinary' Voters For Photo-Op

By David Martosko

Her Tuesday morning visit to a coffee shop in LeClaire, Iowa was staged from beginning to end, according to Austin Bird, one of the men pictured sitting at the table with Mrs. Clinton.

Bird told Daily Mail Online that campaign staffer Troy Price called and asked him and two other young people to meet him Tuesday morning at a restaurant in Davenport, a nearby city.

Price then drove them to the coffee house to meet Clinton after vetting them for about a half-hour.

The three got the lion's share of Mrs. Clinton's time and participated in what breathless news reports described as a 'roundtable'– the first of many in her brief Iowa campaign swing.

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=50441

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The article then goes on to add Mr. Bird worked on Obama's 2012 re-election campaign and participates in Democratic Party events.

Clinton took no questions from the press...not that any of them would have been substantive anyway.

[canman]

Did anyone see Megan Kelly get stuck into Debbie Wasserman Shultz last night? The emergence of strong female conservative commentators who are not afraid of asking the hard questions and thus being labeled a misogynist is going to be fun to watch.

How do the dems justify their opposition to capital punishment for henious crimes, a judgement only passed after trial and appeal yet support killing a viable baby based on the opinion of one woman and her doctor?

You seriously call this vacuous blonde bimbo a "strong female conservative commentator"?

Good grief man, get a grip.

The first question she asked was a diversion from the one Rand was asked.

And she got a straight answer: The Dems position is Roe vs Wade et al. No surprise there.

Were you expecting something else?

Only today did she expand the conversation to third trimester abortion. THAT was what she should have asked about yesterday.

Instead she saves it for when she has a fawning 'Fox News Contributor'.

Like the rest of the channel her agenda is obvious and a big fat joke.

Still, at least it stopped her banging on about emails for weeks.

"You seriously call this vacuous blonde bimbo a "strong female conservative commentator"?"

Hilarious! There's some classic sexist mysogony from the left for ya!!

[boomerangutang]

Come on ya'll. Are we going to dig trenches on the two sides of the divide (?) - and we're still 18.5 months from the election. Granted, it makes for interesting typed interactions, but..... , well, umm, nothing I write here is going to make a bit of difference.

I admit, I'm opinionated on one side of the divide. I liked Hillary even after she dropped out of contention vs Obama in 2008. I've liked her husband all along, and actually listened to his audio-book auto-bio. As an American, I'm hoping the person with the best leadership qualities (and least wacko ideology) gets elected to top spot. I acknowledge the US has problems. People (usually elder men) have been saying for decades that it (and SS) are imminently bankrupt, yet the US still rumbles along as the world's strongest economy, even though it's up to its neck in debt. Some silver linings: it's downshifting a bit on its self-destructive 'War on Drugs' - which may inspire SE Asian countries to become a tad less draconian in killing people, in its zeal to comply with the DEA (and DEA's bribes/incentives to be harsh).

The US may be less quick to jump in feet-first to react to the never-ending wars in the Middle East. Currently, Saudi Arabia is leading the war in Yemen.

The centuries-old fixation with sugar (National Geographic calls it 'an addictive substance') may lessen, though Big Sugar will fight with all its might to keep gov't away - just like Big Tobacco fought valiantly to try and do the same.

All eyes are on the US. The US sets most of the trends for the rest of the world. More ahead.

Edited April 16, 2015 by boomerangutang

[zydeco]

Come on ya'll. Are we going to dig trenches on the two sides of the divide - and we're still 18.5 months from the election. Granted, it makes for interesting typed interactions, but..... , well, umm, nothing I write here is going to make a bit of difference.

I admit, I'm opinionated on one side of the divide. I liked Hillary even after she dropped out of contention vs Obama in 2008. I've like her husband all along, and actually listened to his audio-book auto-bio. Yet, as an American, I'm hoping the person with the best leadership qualities (and least whacko ideology) get elected to top spot. I acknowledge the US has problems. People (usually elder men) have been saying for decades that it (and SS) are imminently bankrupt, yet it still rumbles along as the world's strongest economy, even though its up to its neck in debt. Some silver linings: it's downshifting a bit on its self-destructive 'War on Drugs' - which may inspire SE Asian countries to become a tad less draconian in killing people, in its zeal to comply with the DEA (and DEA's bribes).

The US may be a bit less quick to jump in feet-first to react to the never-ending wars in the Middle East. Currently, Saudi Arabia is leading the war in Yemen.

The centuries-old fixation with sugar (National Geographic calls it 'an addictive substance') may lessen, though Big Sugar will fight with all its might to keep gov't away - just like Big Tobacco fought valiantly to try and do the same.

All eyes are on the US. The US sets most of the trends for the rest of the world. More ahead.

I don't know where the sugar conspiracy fits in with the rest, but do realize it effects some groups more than others, which is why hispanics and blacks are the two most obese groups in America. Take them out of the statistics, and Americans fall into a much more normalized pattern of Western obesity. Amerinds also fall into this category, although their treatment on reservations partly explains their problem. As for the rest, actually, there is one circumstance where I would vote for Hillary Clinton. If Jeb Bush was the opponent.

[Publicus]

Here's a little information on that spontaneous stop and round table with the select 7.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paper: Clinton Iowa Stop Staged; Campaign Drove 'Ordinary' Voters For Photo-Op

By David Martosko

Her Tuesday morning visit to a coffee shop in LeClaire, Iowa was staged from beginning to end, according to Austin Bird, one of the men pictured sitting at the table with Mrs. Clinton.

Bird told Daily Mail Online that campaign staffer Troy Price called and asked him and two other young people to meet him Tuesday morning at a restaurant in Davenport, a nearby city.

Price then drove them to the coffee house to meet Clinton after vetting them for about a half-hour.

The three got the lion's share of Mrs. Clinton's time and participated in what breathless news reports described as a 'roundtable'– the first of many in her brief Iowa campaign swing.

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=50441

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The article then goes on to add Mr. Bird worked on Obama's 2012 re-election campaign and participates in Democratic Party events.

Clinton took no questions from the press...not that any of them would have been substantive anyway.

Gottya the first time thx.

I did want to add that editors in media print, tv, online organizations and other media usually assign a reporter to a candidate the reporter is at least not opposed to, and often known to think reasonably well of.

Many moons ago my editor sent me to do a story in of the first round voting results in which the mayor had finished second. I had voted for the mayor and it was low key known I supported him. However, the paper I wrote for hated the mayor and daily dragged him through the news pages and ragged on him in the editorial pages on anything and everything.

On that election night I walked into the mayor's campaign headquarters where the mayor's supporters blamed the paper for the 2nd place finish, the mayor had to call out to his people there who were on the verge of taking out on me their detestation of the newspaper for which I wrote. This is a major reason why media owners/editors consciously place their political reporters in the least threatening situation and one in which the candidate and supporters can say, well we lost but we got reasonable coverage from most or almost every media.

The next month when the Democratic party nominee for prez visited the city I was assigned and got an exclusive interview with him in his car on the way to an event, which is the way media and the candidates like it best. Every candidate or campaign on both sides know who to call in the news media to give a breaking story to or a strong lead to, which is the way media and the politicians like it to be cause it not only works both ways, it works in every way, today and over the long haul.

[AZBill]

Great news for Republicans. She's a complete dumpster fire!

[sgtsabai]

"They probably prefer Pocahontas Warren". DAWG WHISTLE. Racist statement and I would certainly rather see a real Democrat running than one that is owned lock stock and barrel by Wall Street criminals, banksters and corporations. Can the right wing ever learn to "intensely dislike" for the right reasons? No, because they don't have more than one functioning brain cell. I hope Sanders primaries her and I hope she is not the Dems candidate for Pres. On the other hand, as bad as she is for all the correct reasons, she is 1,000 times better than any bat-shit crazy, fundalmentalist, dominionist, homophobic, woman hating, racist etc., etc. the Repubs would put up and yes that includes the fake Texan from Fla.

[metisdead]

An off topic nonsense post has been removed.

[Johpa]

And one more thing, why take the chance on electing a 70 year old woman with a history of recent health issues? The Left mercilessly attacked Reagan for his age in 1980 and now they put up the aging crone as their answer to the 21st century? I doubt she has the stamina, energy, or good health to hold the job.

Oh my, yet another purely ad hominem attack against Hillary Clinton. May I remind you that a far more youthful and physically vigorous Bush the Younger was on watch when his administration brought the country to its knees both militarily and financially. It would appear that age and physical robustness are somewhat irrelevant factors. I am no fan of the Clintons, the faux Democrats who are as much in the lap of the corporations as the Bush family but without the direct Cheney the Dick connection. Clinton follows the same policies as her husband in protecting the wealth of the 1%, and she and Bill have been amply compensated for their efforts.

Did anyone see Megan Kelly get stuck into Debbie Wasserman Shultz last night? The emergence of strong female conservative commentators who are not afraid of asking the hard questions and thus being labeled a misogynist is going to be fun to watch.

Just watched Kelly behave herself when confronted with an articulate woman who responded politely to Kelly's rather jaded questions. I actually sensed a bit of mutual respect between these two women who harbor opposing political viewpoints.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Johpa

[chuckd]

If you jump over to the Rubio thread, you will notice our liberal friends trashing Rubio big time. One ad hominem attack begets another.

Calling out incidents about his wife's driving abilities, his gulping of water and his seeming untruths about his family's heritage, to name only a few silly criticisms.

Well, guess what? He isn't the only one with problems mis-speaking about his family's heritage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hillary Clinton Wrong On Family’s Immigration History, Records Show

Speaking in Iowa Wednesday, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that all her grandparents had immigrated to the United States, a story that conflicts with public census and other records related to her maternal and paternal grandparents.

The story of her grandmother specifically immigrating is one Clinton has told before. Clinton’s sole foreign-born grandparent, Hugh Rodham Sr., immigrated as a child.

“Her grandparents always spoke about the immigrant experience and, as a result she has always thought of them as immigrants,” a Clinton spokesman told BuzzFeed News. “As has been correctly pointed out, while her grandfather was an immigrant, it appears that Hillary’s grandmother was born shortly after her parents and siblings arrived in the U.S. in the early 1880s.”

posted on April 16, 2015, at 8:34 a.m.

Andrew Kaczynski

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/hillary-clinton-wrong-on-familys-immigration-history-records#.fqnLEdYpb

[Chicog]

And one more thing, why take the chance on electing a 70 year old woman with a history of recent health issues? The Left mercilessly attacked Reagan for his age in 1980 and now they put up the aging crone as their answer to the 21st century? I doubt she has the stamina, energy, or good health to hold the job.

Oh my, yet another purely ad hominem attack against Hillary Clinton. May I remind you that a far more youthful and physically vigorous Bush the Younger was on watch when his administration brought the country to its knees both militarily and financially. It would appear that age and physical robustness are somewhat irrelevant factors. I am no fan of the Clintons, the faux Democrats who are as much in the lap of the corporations as the Bush family but without the direct Cheney the Dick connection. Clinton follows the same policies as her husband in protecting the wealth of the 1%, and she and Bill have been amply compensated for their efforts.

Did anyone see Megan Kelly get stuck into Debbie Wasserman Shultz last night? The emergence of strong female conservative commentators who are not afraid of asking the hard questions and thus being labeled a misogynist is going to be fun to watch.

Just watched Kelly behave herself when confronted with an articulate woman who responded politely to Kelly's rather jaded questions. I actually sensed a bit of mutual respect between these two women who harbor opposing political viewpoints.

Which is why Kelly waited until the next show to start sticking the knife in.

Coward.

[Publicus]

Maybe there's a formula being developed somewhere indicating when any politician's quantity and significance of fibs and white lies equal disqualification of a candidacy, to include any president or other incumbent elected official who ruminates publicly about what is is.

Nixon said for instance he knew nothing about the break in and Jerry Ford said his tricky pardon was to end our long national mightmare. Jimmy Carter said he would never tell a lie which was his first one and RR said he knew nothing about Iran-Contra which was a huge one.

The first Bush said no new taxes and the second Bush said Iraq had WMD so I along with most people will take the first over the second.

The sometimes blather of women in politics is no worse than the verbal embellishments of the testosterone driven men of Washington, which may exculpate each of 'em.

After all, the senator from Florida has already begun to remove all doubt that he will indeed be running for governor of his state in 2018 cause after next year he'll need yet another gig on the public payroll.

HRC meanwhile will be moving back into public housing in a notorious Washington ghetto while simultaneously denying Marco the big $400K annual public welfare check he no doubt has already spent.

[zydeco]

And one more thing, why take the chance on electing a 70 year old woman with a history of recent health issues? The Left mercilessly attacked Reagan for his age in 1980 and now they put up the aging crone as their answer to the 21st century? I doubt she has the stamina, energy, or good health to hold the job.

Oh my, yet another purely ad hominem attack against Hillary Clinton. May I remind you that a far more youthful and physically vigorous Bush the Younger was on watch when his administration brought the country to its knees both militarily and financially. It would appear that age and physical robustness are somewhat irrelevant factors. I am no fan of the Clintons, the faux Democrats who are as much in the lap of the corporations as the Bush family but without the direct Cheney the Dick connection. Clinton follows the same policies as her husband in protecting the wealth of the 1%, and she and Bill have been amply compensated for their efforts.

Did anyone see Megan Kelly get stuck into Debbie Wasserman Shultz last night? The emergence of strong female conservative commentators who are not afraid of asking the hard questions and thus being labeled a misogynist is going to be fun to watch.

Just watched Kelly behave herself when confronted with an articulate woman who responded politely to Kelly's rather jaded questions. I actually sensed a bit of mutual respect between these two women who harbor opposing political viewpoints.

Which is why Kelly waited until the next show to start sticking the knife in.

Coward.

You seem to watch a lot of Fox News.

[Publicus]

If you jump over to the Rubio thread, you will notice our liberal friends trashing Rubio big time. One ad hominem attack begets another.

Calling out incidents about his wife's driving abilities, his gulping of water and his seeming untruths about his family's heritage, to name only a few silly criticisms.

Well, guess what? He isn't the only one with problems mis-speaking about his family's heritage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hillary Clinton Wrong On Family’s Immigration History, Records Show

Speaking in Iowa Wednesday, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that all her grandparents had immigrated to the United States, a story that conflicts with public census and other records related to her maternal and paternal grandparents.

The story of her grandmother specifically immigrating is one Clinton has told before. Clinton’s sole foreign-born grandparent, Hugh Rodham Sr., immigrated as a child.

“Her grandparents always spoke about the immigrant experience and, as a result she has always thought of them as immigrants,” a Clinton spokesman told BuzzFeed News. “As has been correctly pointed out, while her grandfather was an immigrant, it appears that Hillary’s grandmother was born shortly after her parents and siblings arrived in the U.S. in the early 1880s.”

posted on April 16, 2015, at 8:34 a.m.

Andrew Kaczynski

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/hillary-clinton-wrong-on-familys-immigration-history-records#.fqnLEdYpb

Quoting someone named Kaczynski rather catches the eye to the point I've already forgotten about the story.

Yes it is the case Marco Rubio is getting demolished while he ego trips his way to nowhere, so it's a costly venture for the guy but that's politics aint it.

HRC and other candidates have and will continue to slip up here and there because it's a long and excessive campaign, but it isn't going to change anyone's vote to include present company.

[JakeSully]

People can call me idiot, retard, or just a plain kool aid junkie but the facts are the GOP only cares about the super ultra rich and try and steal votes by making people vote against their interests.

Just look at this:

House Votes To Repeal Tax On Richest 0.2 Percent Of Americans

Still think they care about people on this forum? But they'll still have defenders because Obama isn't the right skin color.

[Chicog]

And one more thing, why take the chance on electing a 70 year old woman with a history of recent health issues? The Left mercilessly attacked Reagan for his age in 1980 and now they put up the aging crone as their answer to the 21st century? I doubt she has the stamina, energy, or good health to hold the job.

Oh my, yet another purely ad hominem attack against Hillary Clinton. May I remind you that a far more youthful and physically vigorous Bush the Younger was on watch when his administration brought the country to its knees both militarily and financially. It would appear that age and physical robustness are somewhat irrelevant factors. I am no fan of the Clintons, the faux Democrats who are as much in the lap of the corporations as the Bush family but without the direct Cheney the Dick connection. Clinton follows the same policies as her husband in protecting the wealth of the 1%, and she and Bill have been amply compensated for their efforts.

Did anyone see Megan Kelly get stuck into Debbie Wasserman Shultz last night? The emergence of strong female conservative commentators who are not afraid of asking the hard questions and thus being labeled a misogynist is going to be fun to watch.

Just watched Kelly behave herself when confronted with an articulate woman who responded politely to Kelly's rather jaded questions. I actually sensed a bit of mutual respect between these two women who harbor opposing political viewpoints.

Which is why Kelly waited until the next show to start sticking the knife in.

Coward.

You seem to watch a lot of Fox News.

How can I comment on it if I don't?

[canman]

If you jump over to the Rubio thread, you will notice our liberal friends trashing Rubio big time. One ad hominem attack begets another.

Calling out incidents about his wife's driving abilities, his gulping of water and his seeming untruths about his family's heritage, to name only a few silly criticisms.

Well, guess what? He isn't the only one with problems mis-speaking about his family's heritage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hillary Clinton Wrong On Family’s Immigration History, Records Show

Speaking in Iowa Wednesday, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that all her grandparents had immigrated to the United States, a story that conflicts with public census and other records related to her maternal and paternal grandparents.

The story of her grandmother specifically immigrating is one Clinton has told before. Clinton’s sole foreign-born grandparent, Hugh Rodham Sr., immigrated as a child.

“Her grandparents always spoke about the immigrant experience and, as a result she has always thought of them as immigrants,” a Clinton spokesman told BuzzFeed News. “As has been correctly pointed out, while her grandfather was an immigrant, it appears that Hillary’s grandmother was born shortly after her parents and siblings arrived in the U.S. in the early 1880s.”

posted on April 16, 2015, at 8:34 a.m.

Andrew Kaczynski

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/hillary-clinton-wrong-on-familys-immigration-history-records#.fqnLEdYpb

She has in the past even lied about her first name, claiming that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary even though Sir Edumnd Hillary did not climb mount Everest until H was 6 years old.