For the love of God, do not elect Hilary Clinton next election. (3 Viewers)

[Slapdash]

Whether it's a legitimate issue or not, the majority of the public just don't seem to care. It would be a mistake to spend time bringing it up years later.

It is both legitimate and should be brought up.

 

[Scoresman]

My eyes focused, flipping between the bulge of Palin's hand under the sheets and her steadily scrunching face, I pretty much devolved into a hypnotic state watching it all unfold. It was clear from the determined efficiency she put into her efforts, Palin knew exactly how to make herself feel good. Watching the way her knees seized up a little higher into the air with each passing second, it wasn't long until the presumably high thread-count sheet covering her body morphed into a crude magic carpet dancing in waves above her.

 

[joffer]

Benghazi's in Iran right?

 

[tommyGunZ]

The only thing I know is that it doesn't matter. At all. It's a ridiculous "controversy" fabricated by people whose primary response to any tragedy is to figure out some way to point fingers their political enemies, and idiots like that shouldn't be indulged regardless of what side of the aisle they line up on. And I'm pretty sure most of the public sees it the same way, and that's why it's a political loser, as Maurile rightly points out.

if it's so "ridiculous" then the below three ares must have reasonable/justifiable answers. If you can clarify, it would help

1) The administration clearly lied about the attack. They knew the circumstances of the ambassador's death and chose to concoct a cover story. Why did they do this? We may never find out

2) The lack of security was appalling. In light of the recent strife in Libya, the fact that it was 9/11, the fact that there had been warnings from Libya's security, the fact that there had already been attacks, the fact that the UK had already evacuated their embassy...in light of all of these things, the US chose to reduce security. Why would they do this? It seems inexplicable. We may never find out.

3) What happened on the night of the attack? The attack last for several hours. Where were our armed forces? Why did we not attempt to help? Who was calling the shots while the President was flying to Las Vegas during the attack?

and a proper rebuttal to these point is not "...but but but oh it's not politically popular" because that doesn't address anything

This is perhaps my favorite part of the shtick. "What happened??? Also, I know what happened, stop lying about it!!!!" Priceless.

clearly you just want to play games with words w/o any real discussion

Wow - just wow.

 

[RCon]

The only thing I know is that it doesn't matter. At all. It's a ridiculous "controversy" fabricated by people whose primary response to any tragedy is to figure out some way to point fingers their political enemies, and idiots like that shouldn't be indulged regardless of what side of the aisle they line up on. And I'm pretty sure most of the public sees it the same way, and that's why it's a political loser, as Maurile rightly points out.

None of that has anything to do with whether any of the assorted criticism is warranted or not. The administration did a poor job of handling the immediate aftermath of this attack, but I also agree with you that that doesn't matter politically now. I didn't think it was a major issue in 2012, and it's definitely not a substantive issue for 2016.

If there was any criticizing to be done at all, it should have been measured and understated critiques, not outraged cries for justice On the scale of political scandals, improper initial characterization of the exact cause or nature of an attack is hardly Iran-Contra. But Obama/Clinton political opponents acted like this basically irrelevant error was the worst thing that's happened to the country since 9/11. That was the mistake, and if they bring it up again they'll be making it again.

Here's my issue. There have been measured and understated critiques, both in public and on this forum. Those critiques have been ignored by the administration and by posters on this forum. Instead, the administration and posters on this forum respond only to the, as you put it, outraged cries for justice. There's clearly fault on the part of the right-wing nutjobs for making stupid, outlandish, politically-motivated claims. However, there's also fault on the administration in responding only to those claims and ignoring the actual issues and critiques.

Something went horribly wrong here. Someone screwed up really badly. What went wrong? Who screwed up? The public does deserve answers to those questions, yet it appears that no one, neither Republican nor Democrat, is interested in finding the answers to those questions and/or making those answers public.

To a lesser extent, the public does deserve to know why the administration continued selling a story after it knew the story to be false, although I'm personally more interested in the answers to what went wrong, why, and who.

 

[Niles Standish]

I welcome the day the dems or repubs offer a better alternative....not holding my breath though. I suspect I'll be voting "anybody but...." again this election cycle. It's kinda pathetic if you think about it. We REALLY can't produce anyone better than what we have the last several election cycles? Really?

If you're voting in SC then vote a fringe party who produces someone you like. If enough people do that then the parties will actually change a bit. If you stick with your party through thick and thin they have no reason to listen to what you want.

I say SC because your vote really doesn't matter. They have voted Republican for President for 9 straight cycles. They will continue to do so in the future no matter who runs. You only have a voice if you vote 3rd party in many states.

 

[tommyGunZ]

The only thing I know is that it doesn't matter. At all. It's a ridiculous "controversy" fabricated by people whose primary response to any tragedy is to figure out some way to point fingers their political enemies, and idiots like that shouldn't be indulged regardless of what side of the aisle they line up on. And I'm pretty sure most of the public sees it the same way, and that's why it's a political loser, as Maurile rightly points out.

None of that has anything to do with whether any of the assorted criticism is warranted or not. The administration did a poor job of handling the immediate aftermath of this attack, but I also agree with you that that doesn't matter politically now. I didn't think it was a major issue in 2012, and it's definitely not a substantive issue for 2016.

If there was any criticizing to be done at all, it should have been measured and understated critiques, not outraged cries for justice On the scale of political scandals, improper initial characterization of the exact cause or nature of an attack is hardly Iran-Contra. But Obama/Clinton political opponents acted like this basically irrelevant error was the worst thing that's happened to the country since 9/11. That was the mistake, and if they bring it up again they'll be making it again.

Here's my issue. There have been measured and understated critiques, both in public and on this forum. Those critiques have been ignored by the administration and by posters on this forum. Instead, the administration and posters on this forum respond only to the, as you put it, outraged cries for justice. There's clearly fault on the part of the right-wing nutjobs for making stupid, outlandish, politically-motivated claims. However, there's also fault on the administration in responding only to those claims and ignoring the actual issues and critiques.

Something went horribly wrong here. Someone screwed up really badly. What went wrong? Who screwed up? The public does deserve answers to those questions, yet it appears that no one, neither Republican nor Democrat, is interested in finding the answers to those questions and/or making those answers public.

To a lesser extent, the public does deserve to know why the administration continued selling a story after it knew the story to be false, although I'm personally more interested in the answers to what went wrong, why, and who.

All of these questions have been answered. Unfortunately, FoxNews has no interest in informing its viewers of the results of the hearings and commission reports that clear up this conspiracy nonsense.

I work in a small group; the 7 of is can rarely agree on which restaurant to hold a lunch meeting. Yet we are to believe that the WHouse convinced all of the intelligence agencies to go along with its plan to whitewash the talking points so that Obama would look better? It's beyond silly.

 

[RCon]

The only thing I know is that it doesn't matter. At all. It's a ridiculous "controversy" fabricated by people whose primary response to any tragedy is to figure out some way to point fingers their political enemies, and idiots like that shouldn't be indulged regardless of what side of the aisle they line up on. And I'm pretty sure most of the public sees it the same way, and that's why it's a political loser, as Maurile rightly points out.

None of that has anything to do with whether any of the assorted criticism is warranted or not. The administration did a poor job of handling the immediate aftermath of this attack, but I also agree with you that that doesn't matter politically now. I didn't think it was a major issue in 2012, and it's definitely not a substantive issue for 2016.

If there was any criticizing to be done at all, it should have been measured and understated critiques, not outraged cries for justice On the scale of political scandals, improper initial characterization of the exact cause or nature of an attack is hardly Iran-Contra. But Obama/Clinton political opponents acted like this basically irrelevant error was the worst thing that's happened to the country since 9/11. That was the mistake, and if they bring it up again they'll be making it again.

Here's my issue. There have been measured and understated critiques, both in public and on this forum. Those critiques have been ignored by the administration and by posters on this forum. Instead, the administration and posters on this forum respond only to the, as you put it, outraged cries for justice. There's clearly fault on the part of the right-wing nutjobs for making stupid, outlandish, politically-motivated claims. However, there's also fault on the administration in responding only to those claims and ignoring the actual issues and critiques.

Something went horribly wrong here. Someone screwed up really badly. What went wrong? Who screwed up? The public does deserve answers to those questions, yet it appears that no one, neither Republican nor Democrat, is interested in finding the answers to those questions and/or making those answers public.

To a lesser extent, the public does deserve to know why the administration continued selling a story after it knew the story to be false, although I'm personally more interested in the answers to what went wrong, why, and who.

All of these questions have been answered. Unfortunately, FoxNews has no interest in informing its viewers of the results of the hearings and commission reports that clear up this conspiracy nonsense.

I work in a small group; the 7 of is can rarely agree on which restaurant to hold a lunch meeting. Yet we are to believe that the WHouse convinced all of the intelligence agencies to go along with its plan to whitewash the talking points so that Obama would look better? It's beyond silly.

1. Link?

2. This is exactly what I was referring to. You're not responding to my post, but instead you're responding to some other argument made by other people (either real or imagined). And sure, posters on both the left and right are guilty of this in general, and sure it's hard not to respond to the shrill posts of the Jim11's of the world/board, but doing so only accomplishes two things: 1) it encourages those posters, and 2) it drives away reasonable, rational posters. You and Tobias both have the intelligence to stick to the reasonable, rational discussions. If you did so, we'd all be better off for it.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

The only thing I know is that it doesn't matter. At all. It's a ridiculous "controversy" fabricated by people whose primary response to any tragedy is to figure out some way to point fingers their political enemies, and idiots like that shouldn't be indulged regardless of what side of the aisle they line up on. And I'm pretty sure most of the public sees it the same way, and that's why it's a political loser, as Maurile rightly points out.

None of that has anything to do with whether any of the assorted criticism is warranted or not. The administration did a poor job of handling the immediate aftermath of this attack, but I also agree with you that that doesn't matter politically now. I didn't think it was a major issue in 2012, and it's definitely not a substantive issue for 2016.

If there was any criticizing to be done at all, it should have been measured and understated critiques, not outraged cries for justice On the scale of political scandals, improper initial characterization of the exact cause or nature of an attack is hardly Iran-Contra. But Obama/Clinton political opponents acted like this basically irrelevant error was the worst thing that's happened to the country since 9/11. That was the mistake, and if they bring it up again they'll be making it again.

Here's my issue. There have been measured and understated critiques, both in public and on this forum. Those critiques have been ignored by the administration and by posters on this forum. Instead, the administration and posters on this forum respond only to the, as you put it, outraged cries for justice. There's clearly fault on the part of the right-wing nutjobs for making stupid, outlandish, politically-motivated claims. However, there's also fault on the administration in responding only to those claims and ignoring the actual issues and critiques.

Something went horribly wrong here. Someone screwed up really badly. What went wrong? Who screwed up? The public does deserve answers to those questions, yet it appears that no one, neither Republican nor Democrat, is interested in finding the answers to those questions and/or making those answers public.

To a lesser extent, the public does deserve to know why the administration continued selling a story after it knew the story to be false, although I'm personally more interested in the answers to what went wrong, why, and who.

All of these questions have been answered. Unfortunately, FoxNews has no interest in informing its viewers of the results of the hearings and commission reports that clear up this conspiracy nonsense.

I work in a small group; the 7 of is can rarely agree on which restaurant to hold a lunch meeting. Yet we are to believe that the WHouse convinced all of the intelligence agencies to go along with its plan to whitewash the talking points so that Obama would look better? It's beyond silly.

It isn't silly at all. It's politics and it happened.

 

[The Commish]

I welcome the day the dems or repubs offer a better alternative....not holding my breath though. I suspect I'll be voting "anybody but...." again this election cycle. It's kinda pathetic if you think about it. We REALLY can't produce anyone better than what we have the last several election cycles? Really?

If you're voting in SC then vote a fringe party who produces someone you like. If enough people do that then the parties will actually change a bit. If you stick with your party through thick and thin they have no reason to listen to what you want.

I say SC because your vote really doesn't matter. They have voted Republican for President for 9 straight cycles. They will continue to do so in the future no matter who runs. You only have a voice if you vote 3rd party in many states.

Lived and voted in NC/SC my whole life so I understand the narrative down here and I don't disagree. I pay little attention to the national elections anymore. I probably know more about our local guys than I do our national guys. I'm waiting for the day a local guy can make it "big", but all those who I see as worthy have no interest in going beyond where they are because they have no faith in anything above local government.

 

[Jackstraw]

There were more than a dozen attacks on embassies and such during the Bush years. Every single one of them was just unfortunate and a side effect of having diplomats in areas with bad actors? Oh well darn?

But somehow Benghazi is the mother of all attacks ever? Come on man.

I almost want a republican elected. Its time they got a taste of their own medicine. The act is tired.

 

[Todd Andrews]

BENGHAYZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!

(keep it please, guys, this is the best KooK stuff out there)

 

[timschochet]

The public is about to hand the Senate to the Republican Party. Why? Is it because people have given deep thought to the GOP platform, prefer it to the Democrat platform, and have decided that this is the direction they want the country to move in?

No. It's because people have been hearing anecdotes about how health insurance costs have been rising thanks to Obamacare, and so they are afraid their own insurance rates will go up (even though at this point they haven't for most of us) and so they're pissed at Obama, so they'll vote Republican. And next time when they get pissed at Republicans for some equally simplistic and immediate reason, they'll vote Democrat.

We are surrounded by Eminences.

 

[RCon]

There were more than a dozen attacks on embassies and such during the Bush years. Every single one of them was just unfortunate and a side effect of having diplomats in areas with bad actors? Oh well darn?

But somehow Benghazi is the mother of all attacks ever? Come on man.

I almost want a republican elected. Its time they got a taste of their own medicine. The act is tired.

That there was an attack isn't the issue. Of course there will be attacks in those areas. The issue is that the attack was successful. Ditto for every successful attack under any administration.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There were more than a dozen attacks on embassies and such during the Bush years. Every single one of them was just unfortunate and a side effect of having diplomats in areas with bad actors? Oh well darn?

But somehow Benghazi is the mother of all attacks ever? Come on man.

I almost want a republican elected. Its time they got a taste of their own medicine. The act is tired.

I think the act is tired. It's maybe not so much the act as the act is overused. Sometimes there are real issues to discuss, sometimes not, but the "cry wolf" adage applies.

Also I think America is media overloaded, overwhelmed, sensory deadened and often distracted. I sometimes wonder what it would take to get America to take notice to any (real) scandal, Republican or Democrat, to such an extent it would end a career. Anthony Weiner maybe was so, so bad but even he almost came back. Maybe if a politician gets convicted, like say Edwards, or if it happens to Christie, could, that would take him/her out, but the days of Hart, Rice and Monkey Shines are way over.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

The public is about to hand the Senate to the Republican Party. Why? Is it because people have given deep thought to the GOP platform, prefer it to the Democrat platform, and have decided that this is the direction they want the country to move in?

No. It's because people have been hearing anecdotes about how health insurance costs have been rising thanks to Obamacare, and so they are afraid their own insurance rates will go up (even though at this point they haven't for most of us) and so they're pissed at Obama, so they'll vote Republican. And next time when they get pissed at Republicans for some equally simplistic and immediate reason, they'll vote Democrat.

We are surrounded by Eminences.

There are actual people out there that have been negatively affected by Obamacare including those that voted for him.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Politically, I think the only thing effective about Libya that would could be used is the seemingly shrill and callous testimony of Mrs. Clinton in front of Congress, and the actual video of that could be used repeatedly. Her personality would be more on trial than her policy or leadership.

And generally speaking her personality is one major weakness, in my opinion. Obama destroyed her on that.

 

[RCon]

The public is about to hand the Senate to the Republican Party. Why? Is it because people have given deep thought to the GOP platform, prefer it to the Democrat platform, and have decided that this is the direction they want the country to move in?

No. It's because people have been hearing anecdotes about how health insurance costs have been rising thanks to Obamacare, and so they are afraid their own insurance rates will go up (even though at this point they haven't for most of us) and so they're pissed at Obama, so they'll vote Republican. And next time when they get pissed at Republicans for some equally simplistic and immediate reason, they'll vote Democrat.

We are surrounded by Eminences.

There are actual people out there that have been negatively affected by Obamacare including those that voted for him.

While that's true, it's also true that there are lots of people who will vote GOP based on their negative perception of Obamacare yet couldn't explain the difference between the employer mandate and the individual mandate.

 

[timschochet]

The public is about to hand the Senate to the Republican Party. Why? Is it because people have given deep thought to the GOP platform, prefer it to the Democrat platform, and have decided that this is the direction they want the country to move in?

No. It's because people have been hearing anecdotes about how health insurance costs have been rising thanks to Obamacare, and so they are afraid their own insurance rates will go up (even though at this point they haven't for most of us) and so they're pissed at Obama, so they'll vote Republican. And next time when they get pissed at Republicans for some equally simplistic and immediate reason, they'll vote Democrat.

We are surrounded by Eminences.

There are actual people out there that have been negatively affected by Obamacare including those that voted for him.

Of course there are. But not enough, at this juncture, to affect the election. The election willl be decided by people who fear it MIGHT negatively affect them at some point, but hasn't yet.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

The public is about to hand the Senate to the Republican Party. Why? Is it because people have given deep thought to the GOP platform, prefer it to the Democrat platform, and have decided that this is the direction they want the country to move in?

No. It's because people have been hearing anecdotes about how health insurance costs have been rising thanks to Obamacare, and so they are afraid their own insurance rates will go up (even though at this point they haven't for most of us) and so they're pissed at Obama, so they'll vote Republican. And next time when they get pissed at Republicans for some equally simplistic and immediate reason, they'll vote Democrat.

We are surrounded by Eminences.

There are actual people out there that have been negatively affected by Obamacare including those that voted for him.

Of course there are. But not enough, at this juncture, to affect the election. The election willl be decided by people who fear it MIGHT negatively affect them at some point, but hasn't yet.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I never understood why Benghazi became a political issue. I didn't follow it all that closely, but my understanding is that there was a terrorist attack by Muslims on the U.S. embassy (or something) in Libya. The next day, Obama called it an "act of terror," but he also said that it was a spontaneous attack that had something to do with an anti-Muslim movie. The reality is that it was a planned "act of terrorism" (not terror -- there's a huge difference) that didn't really have anything to do with the movie, and Obama wears mom jeans. Or whatever.

I'm sure I'm missing something. Can anyone else give a brief summary of why the Tea Partiers love Benghazi so much? Unless I'm missing something really big (which is perfectly plausible), I can't fathom how Benghazi will help the Republicans in an election any more than Obama's (alleged lack of) birth certificate did.

They thought Obama "lied" because somehow telling the truth about a coordinated Al Qaeda attack would have diminished his strong image against terrorism. With the election right around the corner. Fits their Obama is a "liar" characterization.

Think most feel it's a ridiculous claim because a cover up was not needed. This incident was not going to change Obama's resume on terrorism. It was just a cluster-eff and ##### happens. It got politicized immediately by Romney and the admin's response was clunky.

I agree with this summary. For the GOP, instead of pointing out that Obama was just plain wrong on terrorism policy and the bad effects of that they spent a great deal of time trying to prove he was a Nixonesque liar. Frankly there was a lot of incompetence, and I think oftentimes what we take for Obama's incompetence or outright lying has to do with the fact that his team seeks to make him appear all-omniscient, all-things-to-all, when in truth he is very disconnected and spends a lot of time, almost all of it, fundraising and doing pr. I think the guy is very much out of the loop on a good deal of his own policies and pronouncements, not all of it but a good deal of it. Much of his team's dissembling and covering-up has to do with not wanting to explain what he was doing when the #### was going down.

 

[lod01]

My eyes focused, flipping between the bulge of Palin's hand under the sheets and her steadily scrunching face, I pretty much devolved into a hypnotic state watching it all unfold. It was clear from the determined efficiency she put into her efforts, Palin knew exactly how to make herself feel good. Watching the way her knees seized up a little higher into the air with each passing second, it wasn't long until the presumably high thread-count sheet covering her body morphed into a crude magic carpet dancing in waves above her.

Not sure how this got into this thread but keep up the good work.

 

[matuski]

And this is why Clinton will walk in without a scratch to show for it.

The Right's leading argument... is Benghazi?

I'd have challenged to see her birth certificate before this loser of an effort.

 

[rct]

We are surrounded by Eminences.

A frightening possibility if true. And several people asked him to clarify or defend the points he raised in the OP and it appears he doesn't have the intellect to even do that.

 

[17seconds]

Whether you are an Obama supporter or not you have to agree his administration and surrounding agencies are managed poorly and/or have not been well coordinated. To me this is the primary issue with Benghazi, IRS, fast and furious, etc. Of course Republicans like to take it to the next level and act like Obama is involved with deliberate deception on all levels and our nation is in peril.

Obama has lost some of my support since ~2011 due to the mismanagement. He's still a brilliant guy and a much better president than GWB or any other candidate we've had in the last 2 cycles would have been.

I haven't been a huge Hillary fan, so going into 2016 I'd take a serious look at Christie and I'd also give Jeb a shot at my vote. There's nobody else though.

 

[Jim11]

Might as well be resigned to it. The tipping point has been reached. The GOP cannot win a national election anymore.

 

[Eminence]

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) asked Clinton why she didn't appear on the Sunday news shows following the attack. "Going on the Sunday shows is not my favorite thing to do," Clinton replied.

 

[General Malaise]

Might as well be resigned to it. The tipping point has been reached. The GOP cannot win a national election anymore.

Not when the current guy is kicking so much asssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss......................WINNING!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[General Malaise]

We are surrounded by Eminences.

A frightening possibility if true. And several people asked him to clarify or defend the points he raised in the OP and it appears he doesn't have the intellect to even do that.

well.....duh.

 

[joffer]

Whether you are an Obama supporter or not you have to agree his administration and surrounding agencies are managed poorly and/or have not been well coordinated. To me this is the primary issue with Benghazi, IRS, fast and furious, etc. Of course Republicans like to take it to the next level and act like Obama is involved with deliberate deception on all levels and our nation is in peril.

Obama has lost some of my support since ~2011 due to the mismanagement. He's still a brilliant guy and a much better president than GWB or any other candidate we've had in the last 2 cycles would have been.

I haven't been a huge Hillary fan, so going into 2016 I'd take a serious look at Christie and I'd also give Jeb a shot at my vote. There's nobody else though.

:cough: Gary Johnson :cough:

 

[Eminence]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFZytEUCXu4

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFZytEUCXu4

This is what I'm talking about, this video.

 

[Scoresman]

It was difficult to see Palin's face and get any sort of read on her mental state. Watching her chest rise and fall as she slowly regained her breath, I assumed she was just settling herself down before eventually switching off the light and going to sleep. When she rolled both her hands down the length of her belly and clamped them down over her still steaming crotch however, I sensed she wasn't done.

 

[MikeIke]

It was difficult to see Palin's face and get any sort of read on her mental state. Watching her chest rise and fall as she slowly regained her breath, I assumed she was just settling herself down before eventually switching off the light and going to sleep. When she rolled both her hands down the length of her belly and clamped them down over her still steaming crotch however, I sensed she wasn't done.

Go on....

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It was difficult to see Palin's face and get any sort of read on her mental state. Watching her chest rise and fall as she slowly regained her breath, I assumed she was just settling herself down before eventually switching off the light and going to sleep. When she rolled both her hands down the length of her belly and clamped them down over her still steaming crotch however, I sensed she wasn't done.

{Notice, no one, not even Bill, has ever fantasized about Hillary this way}

ETA: Well, Joe Biden probably has.

 

[timschochet]

That's not true. Back in 2008 I ran a poll here for Hillary fans to specify why they liked her, and I offered as an option "because I'm sexually interested in her". 17 people voted for this. In curiosity I asked them to identify themselves but no one ever did.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I almost want a republican elected. Its time they got a taste of their own medicine.

. . . and now we've officially come full circle.

 

[17seconds]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFZytEUCXu4

This is what I'm talking about, this video.

I don't see anything wrong with what she said.

The anger was unpresidential though

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFZytEUCXu4

This is what I'm talking about, this video.

I don't see anything wrong with what she said.

The anger was unpresidential though

Right, leaving the substance aside, I'm speaking of the tone and the way she came across.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm not a Hillary fan, and I'm not a fan of alleging sexism all over the place, but would the anger be considered unpresidential coming from a man? I don't think her tone was all that different from the tone occasionally taken by various Presidents.

 

[Rove!]

I'm not a Hillary fan, and I'm not a fan of alleging sexism all over the place, but would the anger be considered unpresidential coming from a man? I don't think her tone was all that different from the tone occasionally taken by various Presidents.

I'm OK with anger, but we disqualify candidates over stupid things (it's stupid, but it happens)

Howard Dean because of his scream, Bob Dole in '88 because of anger....

in light of what happened the whole "what difference...does it make" is off putting

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm not a Hillary fan, and I'm not a fan of alleging sexism all over the place, but would the anger be considered unpresidential coming from a man? I don't think her tone was all that different from the tone occasionally taken by various Presidents.

True. Inevitably the whole issue of how a woman being aggressive (or pick your adjective) is viewed/perceived nationally in an election will come up, it did before.

As I recall though as a practical matter this also worked the other way in 2008 because Hillary's most notable outburst was when she cried when her campaign was on the brink.

 

[17seconds]

I'm not a Hillary fan, and I'm not a fan of alleging sexism all over the place, but would the anger be considered unpresidential coming from a man? I don't think her tone was all that different from the tone occasionally taken by various Presidents.

I thought about that, but I still think anger like that is unpresidential for a man.

Presidents can also be unpresidential at times, and have been. Your link is an example. IMO, GWB was unpresidential nearly all the time because he wasn't intellectually on par with other world leaders. Obama's selfies are another (in the opinion of many people).

 

[Trey]

Still here boys. Clinton's biggest fan dating back to 2008.

Just waiting for her to get elected and put Obama's presidency to shame so I can drop a gigantic I TOLD YOU SO!

 

[matuski]

Might as well be resigned to it. The tipping point has been reached. The GOP cannot win a national election anymore.

Kick the extremist and religious nutcases off the wagon and you might surprise yourself at how many of us would be willing to hop on.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Might as well be resigned to it. The tipping point has been reached. The GOP cannot win a national election anymore.

Kick the extremist and religious nutcases off the wagon and you might surprise yourself at how many of us would be willing to hop on.

Kicking the extremists and religious nutcases off the wagon would render the GOP to green party status. The IK's and Y23's are the exception, not the rule.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Might as well be resigned to it. The tipping point has been reached. The GOP cannot win a national election anymore.

Kick the extremist and religious nutcases off the wagon and you might surprise yourself at how many of us would be willing to hop on.

Kicking the extremists and religious nutcases off the wagon would render the GOP to green party status. The IK's and Y23's are the exception, not the rule.

You know, it is interesting how many non-liberal themes Obama used to get elected. There's a lot of disaffection out there with the GOP maybe more than any transformation of the electorate.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Might as well be resigned to it. The tipping point has been reached. The GOP cannot win a national election anymore.

Kick the extremist and religious nutcases off the wagon and you might surprise yourself at how many of us would be willing to hop on.

Kicking the extremists and religious nutcases off the wagon would render the GOP to green party status. The IK's and Y23's are the exception, not the rule.

Says the extremist nut-case from the left.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm not a Hillary fan, and I'm not a fan of alleging sexism all over the place, but would the anger be considered unpresidential coming from a man? I don't think her tone was all that different from the tone occasionally taken by various Presidents.

Actually I've never seen that Bush/Lauer exchange, interesting stuff.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Still here boys. Clinton's biggest fan dating back to 2008.

Just waiting for her to get elected and put Obama's presidency to shame so I can drop a gigantic I TOLD YOU SO!

And then there's that.

I wonder how much of this ITYS stuff the Clintons engage in themselves...