Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (2 Viewers)

[Ookie Pringle]

- eta - however the focus on Hillary should not be surprising considering that she is the only one who actually withheld documents from the committee to begin with. If you don't want to be suspected of nefarious activity don't go around hiding or throwing away evidence.

Were not the request for documents made of the State Department and not Hillary personally?

Yes and no. Yes the requests were made to State but then Congress did not know Hillary had a personal email from which she did all of her work. And State was complicit but it was Hillary holding the documents while she personally knew she was appearing without State or Congress having all of her documentation.

So Hillary did not withhold a single document that was requested of her. But you are correct it is no surprise since all of these Benghazi hearing have mostly investigated figments of the committee GOP'ers imagination.

No, she most definitely did. She appeared before a committee knowing full well that the committee had asked documents from State but that State did not have all her documents and therefore Congress did not have all her documents when conducting its investigation. She concealed the existence of her email server and thus her documents could not be requested of her personally. Hiding information and then casting blaming others for not asking for what they could not have known existed is the height of cynical deception.

Her usage of a personal account may have caused the State Department to not know how to retrieve her forwarded e-mails, but the testimony under oath from Thursday was that almost all of these e-mails were already held by the State Department. Until asked, why should have "known full well" that the State Department was having issues? And until she is asked, how can she withhold anything?

And assuming her repeated testimony on this matter was more or less factual she also complied with the "archival requirement" of having the e-mails in the possession of the government. Her usage of a private account slowed down the process and go ahead and believe that was by design, but those e-mails generated how many actual questions about what we could do to prevent the next Benghazi? Zero! Those e-mails and her testimony on Thursday added what to our knowledge? Nothing!

Almost all. Not all.

Congress - just like any party to a negotiation or in a lawsuit or even a city council hearing on bus fares - has a right to have all the documentation it requests. You can't say 'oh I had it on a separate server, whoops, sorry.'

That gets anyone sanctioned in court on even minor matters, do it to the FBI or the police when people have lost their lives it gets you in jail, do it to a legislative body and both can happen. The documents that were discussed at the hearing were not previously known, pretty much defeats the purpose of your argument as a practical matter as well

Hillary withheld zero documents requested of her. Congress had all of the documents that could be provided prior to Thursday's hearing. Other than a hope and a prayer that they could smear Hillary those documents contained nothing new of any substance to talk about. And thus the absolutely disgraceful showing we had. But keep believing that it was necessary.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/records-show-clinton-withheld-emails-about-oil-terrorism/article/2567169http://www.wsj.com/articles/state-department-says-hillary-clintons-email-disclosure-is-incomplete-1435280138

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

- eta - however the focus on Hillary should not be surprising considering that she is the only one who actually withheld documents from the committee to begin with. If you don't want to be suspected of nefarious activity don't go around hiding or throwing away evidence.

Were not the request for documents made of the State Department and not Hillary personally?

Yes and no. Yes the requests were made to State but then Congress did not know Hillary had a personal email from which she did all of her work. And State was complicit but it was Hillary holding the documents while she personally knew she was appearing without State or Congress having all of her documentation.

So Hillary did not withhold a single document that was requested of her. But you are correct it is no surprise since all of these Benghazi hearing have mostly investigated figments of the committee GOP'ers imagination.

No, she most definitely did. She appeared before a committee knowing full well that the committee had asked documents from State but that State did not have all her documents and therefore Congress did not have all her documents when conducting its investigation. She concealed the existence of her email server and thus her documents could not be requested of her personally. Hiding information and then casting blaming others for not asking for what they could not have known existed is the height of cynical deception.

Her usage of a personal account may have caused the State Department to not know how to retrieve her forwarded e-mails, but the testimony under oath from Thursday was that almost all of these e-mails were already held by the State Department. Until asked, why should have "known full well" that the State Department was having issues? And until she is asked, how can she withhold anything?

And assuming her repeated testimony on this matter was more or less factual she also complied with the "archival requirement" of having the e-mails in the possession of the government. Her usage of a private account slowed down the process and go ahead and believe that was by design, but those e-mails generated how many actual questions about what we could do to prevent the next Benghazi? Zero! Those e-mails and her testimony on Thursday added what to our knowledge? Nothing!

Almost all. Not all.

Congress - just like any party to a negotiation or in a lawsuit or even a city council hearing on bus fares - has a right to have all the documentation it requests. You can't say 'oh I had it on a separate server, whoops, sorry.'

That gets anyone sanctioned in court on even minor matters, do it to the FBI or the police when people have lost their lives it gets you in jail, do it to a legislative body and both can happen. The documents that were discussed at the hearing were not previously known, pretty much defeats the purpose of your argument as a practical matter as well

Hillary withheld zero documents requested of her. Congress had all of the documents that could be provided prior to Thursday's hearing. Other than a hope and a prayer that they could smear Hillary those documents contained nothing new of any substance to talk about. And thus the absolutely disgraceful showing we had. But keep believing that it was necessary.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/records-show-clinton-withheld-emails-about-oil-terrorism/article/2567169http://www.wsj.com/articles/state-department-says-hillary-clintons-email-disclosure-is-incomplete-1435280138

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

- eta - however the focus on Hillary should not be surprising considering that she is the only one who actually withheld documents from the committee to begin with. If you don't want to be suspected of nefarious activity don't go around hiding or throwing away evidence.

Were not the request for documents made of the State Department and not Hillary personally?

Yes and no. Yes the requests were made to State but then Congress did not know Hillary had a personal email from which she did all of her work. And State was complicit but it was Hillary holding the documents while she personally knew she was appearing without State or Congress having all of her documentation.

So Hillary did not withhold a single document that was requested of her. But you are correct it is no surprise since all of these Benghazi hearing have mostly investigated figments of the committee GOP'ers imagination.

No, she most definitely did. She appeared before a committee knowing full well that the committee had asked documents from State but that State did not have all her documents and therefore Congress did not have all her documents when conducting its investigation. She concealed the existence of her email server and thus her documents could not be requested of her personally. Hiding information and then casting blaming others for not asking for what they could not have known existed is the height of cynical deception.

Her usage of a personal account may have caused the State Department to not know how to retrieve her forwarded e-mails, but the testimony under oath from Thursday was that almost all of these e-mails were already held by the State Department. Until asked, why should have "known full well" that the State Department was having issues? And until she is asked, how can she withhold anything?

And assuming her repeated testimony on this matter was more or less factual she also complied with the "archival requirement" of having the e-mails in the possession of the government. Her usage of a private account slowed down the process and go ahead and believe that was by design, but those e-mails generated how many actual questions about what we could do to prevent the next Benghazi? Zero! Those e-mails and her testimony on Thursday added what to our knowledge? Nothing!

Almost all. Not all.

Congress - just like any party to a negotiation or in a lawsuit or even a city council hearing on bus fares - has a right to have all the documentation it requests. You can't say 'oh I had it on a separate server, whoops, sorry.'

That gets anyone sanctioned in court on even minor matters, do it to the FBI or the police when people have lost their lives it gets you in jail, do it to a legislative body and both can happen. The documents that were discussed at the hearing were not previously known, pretty much defeats the purpose of your argument as a practical matter as well

Hillary withheld zero documents requested of her. Congress had all of the documents that could be provided prior to Thursday's hearing. Other than a hope and a prayer that they could smear Hillary those documents contained nothing new of any substance to talk about. And thus the absolutely disgraceful showing we had. But keep believing that it was necessary.

Prior to Thursday's hearing?

Thursday's hearing? What about all the work that was done by both parties without the benefit of knowing that they did not have all the documentation before the prior hearing in January 2013? IIRC that was the date, that was the hearing she withheld documents from.

There are 35 lawsuits right now just on FOIA requests from 2010, it's not just Congress. How long was Hillary going to wait before she decided to tell the public that she was holding all of her public records and classified information on her own server stuck in her basement or the Foundation offices or wherever? Forever?

 

[Jamesbrownkid]

http://comicincorrect.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Cover-Vid-600-LI.jpg

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I will leave it up to you if you believe this:

In August 2014, the State Department produced to the Select Committee on Benghazi approximately 15,000 pages of documents relating to the events before, during, and after the terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya on September 11-12, 2012. Included among those 15,000 pages—which had never before been shared with Congress—were eight emails to or from former Secretary Clinton, ranging in date from September 11, 2012, to September 27, 2012. This also marked the first time any communications to or from Secretary Clinton had been produced to Congress.

- 3/19/15 letter from Gowdy to Kendall.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

- eta - however the focus on Hillary should not be surprising considering that she is the only one who actually withheld documents from the committee to begin with. If you don't want to be suspected of nefarious activity don't go around hiding or throwing away evidence.

Were not the request for documents made of the State Department and not Hillary personally?

Yes and no. Yes the requests were made to State but then Congress did not know Hillary had a personal email from which she did all of her work. And State was complicit but it was Hillary holding the documents while she personally knew she was appearing without State or Congress having all of her documentation.

So Hillary did not withhold a single document that was requested of her. But you are correct it is no surprise since all of these Benghazi hearing have mostly investigated figments of the committee GOP'ers imagination.

No, she most definitely did. She appeared before a committee knowing full well that the committee had asked documents from State but that State did not have all her documents and therefore Congress did not have all her documents when conducting its investigation. She concealed the existence of her email server and thus her documents could not be requested of her personally. Hiding information and then casting blaming others for not asking for what they could not have known existed is the height of cynical deception.

Her usage of a personal account may have caused the State Department to not know how to retrieve her forwarded e-mails, but the testimony under oath from Thursday was that almost all of these e-mails were already held by the State Department. Until asked, why should have "known full well" that the State Department was having issues? And until she is asked, how can she withhold anything?

And assuming her repeated testimony on this matter was more or less factual she also complied with the "archival requirement" of having the e-mails in the possession of the government. Her usage of a private account slowed down the process and go ahead and believe that was by design, but those e-mails generated how many actual questions about what we could do to prevent the next Benghazi? Zero! Those e-mails and her testimony on Thursday added what to our knowledge? Nothing!

Almost all. Not all.

Congress - just like any party to a negotiation or in a lawsuit or even a city council hearing on bus fares - has a right to have all the documentation it requests. You can't say 'oh I had it on a separate server, whoops, sorry.'

That gets anyone sanctioned in court on even minor matters, do it to the FBI or the police when people have lost their lives it gets you in jail, do it to a legislative body and both can happen. The documents that were discussed at the hearing were not previously known, pretty much defeats the purpose of your argument as a practical matter as well

Hillary withheld zero documents requested of her. Congress had all of the documents that could be provided prior to Thursday's hearing. Other than a hope and a prayer that they could smear Hillary those documents contained nothing new of any substance to talk about. And thus the absolutely disgraceful showing we had. But keep believing that it was necessary.

Prior to Thursday's hearing?

Thursday's hearing? What about all the work that was done by both parties without the benefit of knowing that they did not have all the documentation before the prior hearing in January 2013? IIRC thati was the date, that was the hearing she withheld documents from.

There are 35 lawsuits right now just on FOIA requests from 2010, it's not just Congress. How long was Hillary going to wait before she decided to tell the public that she was holding all of her public records and classified information on her own server stuck in her basement or the Foundation offices or wherever? Forever?

None of the prior work was invalidated by new information from the e-mails because the information within the e-mails changed nothing! If it had there would have been legitimate questions about this new information asked of Hillary. Now the work of this committee was invalidated by the pointless nature of the partisan witch hunt entire it has always been.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I will leave it up to you if you believe this:

In August 2014, the State Department produced to the Select Committee on Benghazi approximately 15,000 pages of documents relating to the events before, during, and after the terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya on September 11-12, 2012. Included among those 15,000 pages—which had never before been shared with Congress—were eight emails to or from former Secretary Clinton, ranging in date from September 11, 2012, to September 27, 2012. This also marked the first time any communications to or from Secretary Clinton had been produced to Congress.

- 3/19/15 letter from Gowdy to Kendall.

So nothing was being withheld during this pointless fishing expedition.

 

[RCon]

I will leave it up to you if you believe this:

In August 2014, the State Department produced to the Select Committee on Benghazi approximately 15,000 pages of documents relating to the events before, during, and after the terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya on September 11-12, 2012. Included among those 15,000 pages—which had never before been shared with Congress—were eight emails to or from former Secretary Clinton, ranging in date from September 11, 2012, to September 27, 2012. This also marked the first time any communications to or from Secretary Clinton had been produced to Congress.

- 3/19/15 letter from Gowdy to Kendall.

So nothing was being withheld during this pointless fishing expedition.

Whether the committee made good use of their time is completely separate from whether all content requested was produced. It wasn't. This is not debatable.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I will leave it up to you if you believe this:

In August 2014, the State Department produced to the Select Committee on Benghazi approximately 15,000 pages of documents relating to the events before, during, and after the terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya on September 11-12, 2012. Included among those 15,000 pages—which had never before been shared with Congress—were eight emails to or from former Secretary Clinton, ranging in date from September 11, 2012, to September 27, 2012. This also marked the first time any communications to or from Secretary Clinton had been produced to Congress.

- 3/19/15 letter from Gowdy to Kendall.

So nothing was being withheld during this pointless fishing expedition.

Actually you and I were both wrong - everything from Hillary was being withheld.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I will leave it up to you if you believe this:

In August 2014, the State Department produced to the Select Committee on Benghazi approximately 15,000 pages of documents relating to the events before, during, and after the terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya on September 11-12, 2012. Included among those 15,000 pages—which had never before been shared with Congress—were eight emails to or from former Secretary Clinton, ranging in date from September 11, 2012, to September 27, 2012. This also marked the first time any communications to or from Secretary Clinton had been produced to Congress.

- 3/19/15 letter from Gowdy to Kendall.

So nothing was being withheld during this pointless fishing expedition.

Whether the committee made good use of their time is completely separate from whether all content requested was produced. It wasn't. This is not debatable.

What wasn't produced by Hillary once asked? A few personal e-mails from Sidney?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I will leave it up to you if you believe this:

In August 2014, the State Department produced to the Select Committee on Benghazi approximately 15,000 pages of documents relating to the events before, during, and after the terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya on September 11-12, 2012. Included among those 15,000 pages—which had never before been shared with Congress—were eight emails to or from former Secretary Clinton, ranging in date from September 11, 2012, to September 27, 2012. This also marked the first time any communications to or from Secretary Clinton had been produced to Congress.

- 3/19/15 letter from Gowdy to Kendall.

So nothing was being withheld during this pointless fishing expedition.

Actually you and I were both wrong - everything from Hillary was being withheld.

No just you!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I will leave it up to you if you believe this:

In August 2014, the State Department produced to the Select Committee on Benghazi approximately 15,000 pages of documents relating to the events before, during, and after the terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya on September 11-12, 2012. Included among those 15,000 pages—which had never before been shared with Congress—were eight emails to or from former Secretary Clinton, ranging in date from September 11, 2012, to September 27, 2012. This also marked the first time any communications to or from Secretary Clinton had been produced to Congress.

- 3/19/15 letter from Gowdy to Kendall.

So nothing was being withheld during this pointless fishing expedition.

Actually you and I were both wrong - everything from Hillary was being withheld.

No just you!

Well that's your water's edge, right there, once you enter into . It's patently absurd to hold an investigation without getting documents from the SOS in an investigation of actions by the State Department.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I will leave it up to you if you believe this:

In August 2014, the State Department produced to the Select Committee on Benghazi approximately 15,000 pages of documents relating to the events before, during, and after the terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya on September 11-12, 2012. Included among those 15,000 pages—which had never before been shared with Congress—were eight emails to or from former Secretary Clinton, ranging in date from September 11, 2012, to September 27, 2012. This also marked the first time any communications to or from Secretary Clinton had been produced to Congress.

- 3/19/15 letter from Gowdy to Kendall.

So nothing was being withheld during this pointless fishing expedition.

Whether the committee made good use of their time is completely separate from whether all content requested was produced. It wasn't. This is not debatable.

What wasn't produced by Hillary once asked? A few personal e-mails from Sidney?

This is getting absurd. Blumenthal sent intelligence reports from an ex-CIA agent who was the basis for exposing Curveball in Iraq. There was also the communication to the PM of Egypt.

I am happy to agree and shake hands on the lousiness of the committee but chasing your tail on this is senseless.

 

[timschochet]

It will be very interesting to see how the Republicans in the upcoming debate this week will respond to Hillary's testimony- they're sure to be asked about it. A few of them already have: Carly Fiorina, for instance, is buying into the hardline conservative argument and saying that she "proved herself a liar to the American public", etc. A few others have done the same.

The point is this: I think in terms of the general election, it would be much wiser for the eventual GOP nominee to attack Hillary on policy and to avoid talking about scandal. But right now these candidates have to compete for the base, so I expect most of them to be shouting "Benghazi!" at the top of their lungs. If they shout too loudly, it could hurt them later on.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

It will be very interesting to see how the Republicans in the upcoming debate this week will respond to Hillary's testimony- they're sure to be asked about it. A few of them already have: Carly Fiorina, for instance, is buying into the hardline conservative argument and saying that she "proved herself a liar to the American public", etc. A few others have done the same.

The point is this: I think in terms of the general election, it would be much wiser for the eventual GOP nominee to attack Hillary on policy and to avoid talking about scandal. But right now these candidates have to compete for the base, so I expect most of them to be shouting "Benghazi!" at the top of their lungs. If they shout too loudly, it could hurt them later on.

I expect you to be wrong that they will be shouting "Benghazi" during the debate.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Blumenthal

You lost.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

This is getting absurd... but chasing your tail on this is senseless.

Then stop!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Blumenthal

You lost.

Ha, ok, I was responding to ...

...

Sidney?

... but ok.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

... but chasing your tail on this is senseless.

Then stop!

Hey you're right. Let's and watch the game. Lovely idea.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I will leave it up to you if you believe this:

In August 2014, the State Department produced to the Select Committee on Benghazi approximately 15,000 pages of documents relating to the events before, during, and after the terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya on September 11-12, 2012. Included among those 15,000 pages—which had never before been shared with Congress—were eight emails to or from former Secretary Clinton, ranging in date from September 11, 2012, to September 27, 2012. This also marked the first time any communications to or from Secretary Clinton had been produced to Congress.

- 3/19/15 letter from Gowdy to Kendall.

So nothing was being withheld during this pointless fishing expedition.

Actually you and I were both wrong - everything from Hillary was being withheld.

No just you!

Well that's your water's edge, right there, once you enter into . It's patently absurd to hold an investigation without getting documents from the SOS in an investigation of actions by the State Department.

Wasn't this the seventh investigation?

... but chasing your tail on this is senseless.

Then stop!

Hey you're right. Let's and watch the game. Lovely idea.

Yes I am!

 

[Ookie Pringle]

I will leave it up to you if you believe this:

In August 2014, the State Department produced to the Select Committee on Benghazi approximately 15,000 pages of documents relating to the events before, during, and after the terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya on September 11-12, 2012. Included among those 15,000 pages—which had never before been shared with Congress—were eight emails to or from former Secretary Clinton, ranging in date from September 11, 2012, to September 27, 2012. This also marked the first time any communications to or from Secretary Clinton had been produced to Congress.

- 3/19/15 letter from Gowdy to Kendall.

So nothing was being withheld during this pointless fishing expedition.

Actually you and I were both wrong - everything from Hillary was being withheld.

No just you!

Well that's your water's edge, right there, once you enter into . It's patently absurd to hold an investigation without getting documents from the SOS in an investigation of actions by the State Department.

Wasn't this the seventh investigation?

... but chasing your tail on this is senseless.

Then stop!

Hey you're right. Let's and watch the game. Lovely idea.

Yes I am!

 

[timschochet]

Hillary does not have this thing locked up by any means. She had a good week. But we've still got about 3 months between now and Iowa. Many progressives are more committed to Bernie Sanders than ever. To them will be added any Democrats that just don't like Hillary and are looking for somebody else- he's the only one left. Add in the media, which would like to see a race here, and this ain't over at all.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Hillary does not have this thing locked up by any means. She had a good week. But we've still got about 3 months between now and Iowa. Many progressives are more committed to Bernie Sanders than ever. To them will be added any Democrats that just don't like Hillary and are looking for somebody else- he's the only one left. Add in the media, which would like to see a race here, and this ain't over at all.

Stop teasing me!

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Hillary does not have this thing locked up by any means. She had a good week. But we've still got about 3 months between now and Iowa. Many progressives are more committed to Bernie Sanders than ever. To them will be added any Democrats that just don't like Hillary and are looking for somebody else- he's the only one left. Add in the media, which would like to see a race here, and this ain't over at all.

Why do you do this? Do you realize how many times in this thread and forum you have said she will win. Over and over and often in a condescending tone to anyone that disagrees with you.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

So who will run against her? Bernie Sanders apparently will run, but he's not a Democrat so he won't be in any debates.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary does not have this thing locked up by any means. She had a good week. But we've still got about 3 months between now and Iowa. Many progressives are more committed to Bernie Sanders than ever. To them will be added any Democrats that just don't like Hillary and are looking for somebody else- he's the only one left. Add in the media, which would like to see a race here, and this ain't over at all.

Congratulations.

She's "inevitable" again.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

It's Hillary's birthday. She's still enjoying the gift she got from the Benghazi committee.

 

[Jamesbrownkid]

So who will run against her? Bernie Sanders apparently will run, but he's not a Democrat so he won't be in any debates.

Tim was half right, Sanders isn't a Democrat.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's Hillary's birthday. She's still enjoying the gift she got from the Benghazi committee.

"Oh thanks, Trey! Put them down over there by the gifts from Bernie and Joe. How nice of you, Have some punch!"

- Hillary, overheard at her birthday party.

 

[timschochet]

Hillary does not have this thing locked up by any means. She had a good week. But we've still got about 3 months between now and Iowa. Many progressives are more committed to Bernie Sanders than ever. To them will be added any Democrats that just don't like Hillary and are looking for somebody else- he's the only one left. Add in the media, which would like to see a race here, and this ain't over at all.

Why do you do this? Do you realize how many times in this thread and forum you have said she will win. Over and over and often in a condescending tone to anyone that disagrees with you.

I think she will win. But I've never thought it would be easy, and I've always made that point. It's going to be difficult, and right now a lot of people are taking her victory for granted and I don't believe they should.

As for condescending, that's your opinion. It wasn't intentional.

 

[timschochet]

So who will run against her? Bernie Sanders apparently will run, but he's not a Democrat so he won't be in any debates.

That's what I thought at the time. Frankly I'm still a little mystified by this. He has never been a member of the Democratic party. I figured therefore that when he ran it would be as an independent. Obviously I was wrong, but I'm not sure why.

 

[Zegras11]

So who will run against her? Bernie Sanders apparently will run, but he's not a Democrat so he won't be in any debates.

That's what I thought at the time. Frankly I'm still a little mystified by this. He has never been a member of the Democratic party. I figured therefore that when he ran it would be as an independent. Obviously I was wrong, but I'm not sure why.

Independent could never win. This gives him a chance and a lot more coverage. Probably the same for Trump also choosing R.

She won last week. BFD. Who didn't think she would win? You're the one always bringing up how quickly everyone forgets things. This is no different.

So much is going to change in the next year. Everyone forgets that most debates last time saw some pretty decent swings on who won them.

I'm expecting Sanders to be much different next time and start attacking the cackling, wind bag.

 

[squistion]

So who will run against her? Bernie Sanders apparently will run, but he's not a Democrat so he won't be in any debates.

That's what I thought at the time. Frankly I'm still a little mystified by this. He has never been a member of the Democratic party. I figured therefore that when he ran it would be as an independent. Obviously I was wrong, but I'm not sure why.

Independent could never win. This gives him a chance and a lot more coverage. Probably the same for Trump also choosing R.

She won last week. BFD. Who didn't think she would win? You're the one always bringing up how quickly everyone forgets things. This is no different.

So much is going to change in the next year. Everyone forgets that most debates last time saw some pretty decent swings on who won them.

I'm expecting Sanders to be much different next time and start attacking the cackling, wind bag.

Um, about 90% of the people in this thread. It seemed like for months it was just Tim and I predicting she would give a good account of herself (probably because we both clearly remembered the 2008 debates, where she was pretty solid for the most part, despite a couple missteps).

 

[jon_mx]

So who will run against her? Bernie Sanders apparently will run, but he's not a Democrat so he won't be in any debates.

That's what I thought at the time. Frankly I'm still a little mystified by this. He has never been a member of the Democratic party. I figured therefore that when he ran it would be as an independent. Obviously I was wrong, but I'm not sure why.

Independent could never win. This gives him a chance and a lot more coverage. Probably the same for Trump also choosing R.

She won last week. BFD. Who didn't think she would win? You're the one always bringing up how quickly everyone forgets things. This is no different.

So much is going to change in the next year. Everyone forgets that most debates last time saw some pretty decent swings on who won them.

I'm expecting Sanders to be much different next time and start attacking the cackling, wind bag.

Um, about 90% of the people in this thread. It seemed like for months it was just Tim and I predicting she would give a good account of herself (probably because we both clearly remembered the 2008 debates, where she was pretty solid for the most part, despite a couple missteps).

I never thought a Congressional hearing was the proper forum. Congressmen tend to be complete buffoons. I never posted in the Benghazi thread. I was never expecting anything other than thinking it would be a cluster ####. Hillary was well coached on keeping her temper in check. All she has to do was let the idiots hang themselves, which they did.

 

[The Commish]

squishy has such the revisionist history already....bagging on Hillary as the choice <> thinking she'll lose. Mocking her for missing the layup <> thinking she'll lose. Pointing out her establishment roots and not being ok with them <> thinking she'll lose. Pointing out here incredible lack of judgment <> thinking she'll lose.

Yes, there's a few here who have said she'll lose, but it's certainly not 90%

 

[Todd Andrews]

Fascinating that the KooKs are back to government by prosecution, just like they did in the 90's so successfully.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Fascinating that the KooKs are back to government by prosecution, just like they did in the 90's so successfully.

Ah yes, the 90s, when conservatives ran wild with crazy conspiracy theories and held endless hearings years after the fact.... dark times.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Why is it that we have primary elections spread out? Why not have them nationally? Just to allow candidates to recover?

 

[Sinn Fein]

Mika Brzezinski calls Clinton "pathetic" for sexism charge against Sanders

 

[The Commish]

oh god....seriously??

She has to have this in the mud. She knows it, everyone knows it. Stay the course Bernie....don't get sucked into the quicksand!!!!!

 

[timschochet]

Hillary's right about this, IMO. I don't think Bernie meant to be sexist. But there's a lot of sexism out there and Hillary is treated differently in language used by her opponents. It happens all the time.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Hillary's right about this, IMO. I don't think Bernie meant to be sexist. But there's a lot of sexism out there and Hillary is treated differently in language used by her opponents. It happens all the time.

Please.

I am sure there is lots of sexism out there - but this was not an example of sexism. So she was not "right" about this.

Mika:

“I know sexism. Hillary Clinton knows sexism,” Brzezinski said. “She should know better than to let her staff make her do that. it needs to be her. She needs to get out there and talk. Everyone stop writing lines for her. They’re bad. Really bad. When we talk about sexism, when we talk about women and equal pay and all these things that are important, let’s not denigrate it with that stupidity, because we embarrass ourselves.”

 

[timschochet]

OK. I get your point, I kind of disagree. But I don't want to belabor it; it's too minor an issue.

 

[The Commish]

Hillary's right about this, IMO. I don't think Bernie meant to be sexist. But there's a lot of sexism out there and Hillary is treated differently in language used by her opponents. It happens all the time.

oh bull####

 

[The Commish]

Now if he'd gone all in with a cackling remark, then I'd be on board...though I'm not sure that's so much sexism as it is hillaryism

 

[timschochet]

Even I can't stand the cackling.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary's right about this, IMO. I don't think Bernie meant to be sexist. But there's a lot of sexism out there and Hillary is treated differently in language used by her opponents. It happens all the time.

Wow. From David Brock to Tim's ears.

Yes folks Sanders is a gun lovin', sexist commie. I hope it slowly dawns on Bernie where playing nice with Hillary gets him.

 

[pantagrapher]

Hillary's right about this, IMO. I don't think Bernie meant to be sexist. But there's a lot of sexism out there and Hillary is treated differently in language used by her opponents. It happens all the time.

Please.

I am sure there is lots of sexism out there - but this was not an example of sexism. So she was not "right" about this.

Mika:

“I know sexism. Hillary Clinton knows sexism,” Brzezinski said. “She should know better than to let her staff make her do that. it needs to be her. She needs to get out there and talk. Everyone stop writing lines for her. They’re bad. Really bad. When we talk about sexism, when we talk about women and equal pay and all these things that are important, let’s not denigrate it with that stupidity, because we embarrass ourselves.”

That is some premium fake outrage.

 

[pantagrapher]

I’ve been told to stop shouting about ending gun violence. Well, I haven’t been shouting, but sometimes when a woman speaks out some people think it’s shouting.

That's your BOMBSHELL SEXISM CHARGE.