Rove!
Footballguy
The funny thing is that early in his Presidency, many were giving Obama credit for the Arab spring because of a speech he made
so when it's good it's despite the predecessor, and when it's bad blame the predecessor....
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
so when it's good it's despite the predecessor, and when it's bad blame the predecessor....
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm convinced she is the best of our current candidates and I've tried to make reasonable arguments as to why. When she deserves criticism I have criticized her. If that makes me a shill, so be it.
timschochet
Footballguy
I don't think Obama deserves credit for the Arab Spring itself. I think he deserves a great deal of credit for how he handled the Arab Spring.
The American people did not drum up the Iraqi war. The same clowns that have run US foreign policy for decades started building the case to do so well before 9/11. Any type of real leadership would have focused on defeating Al-Qaeda, not invading a non-related country for various preexisting goals.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Excellent analysis of Hillary's campaign thus far, by Peter Beinart of the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/hillary-clintons-2016-campaign/393872/
Hillary Clinton has been an official candidate for president for five weeks, and she still hasn’t done the thing most candidates do on day one: given a speech laying out her vision for America. Nor is she planning on doing so anytime soon. Politico reports that Hillary’s “why I’m running for president,” speech, initially scheduled for May, has now been delayed until June, or even later.
There’s a reason for that: The speech is unlikely to be very good. Soaring rhetoric and grand themes have never been Hillary’s strengths. That’s one reason so many liberals found her so much less inspirational than Barack Obama in 2008. And it’s a problem with deep roots. In his biography, A Woman in Charge, Carl Bernstein describes Hillary, then in law school, struggling to articulate her generation’s perspective in an address to the League of Women Voters. “If she was speaking about a clearly defined subject,” Bernstein writes, “her thoughts would be well organized, finely articulated, and delivered in almost perfect outline form. But before the League audience, she again and again lapsed into sweeping abstractions.”
Team Clinton appears to understand this. And so it has done something shrewd. Instead of talking vision, Hillary is talking policy, which she does really well.
If Hillary’s struggles with vision go back a long time, so does her passion for wonkery. As a student government leader at Wellesley, Bernstein notes, Hillary developed “a better system for the return of library books” and “studied every aspect of the Wellesley curriculum in developing a successful plan to reduce the number of required courses.” In 1993, she took time off from a vacation in Hawaii to grill local officials about the state’s healthcare system. In his excellent book on Hillary’s 2000 Senate race, Michael Tomasky observes that, “In the entire campaign, she had exactly one truly inspiring moment” but that, “over time it became evident to all but the most cynical that she actually cared about utility rates.”
Hillary’s handlers have played to this strength. On April 29, she devoted the first major speech of her campaign not to her vision for America, but to something more specific: race and crime. She began with a graphic and harrowing description of the young black men recently killed by police:
Walter Scott shot in the back in Charleston, South Carolina. Unarmed. In debt. And terrified of spending more time in jail for child support payments he couldn’t afford. Tamir Rice shot in a park in Cleveland, Ohio. Unarmed and just 12 years old. Eric Garner choked to death after being stopped for selling cigarettes on the streets of this city. And now Freddie Gray. His spine nearly severed while in police custody.
She recounted advocating for prisoners while director the University of Arkansas’ legal-aid clinic. She noted the parallels between race and class, observing that life expectancy is declining not only for many African Americans, but also for white women without high-school degrees. And she made the crucial point that because government currently treats drug addiction and psychiatric disorders primarily as criminal rather than public-health problems, “our prisons and our jails are now our mental health institutions.”
The speech was not merely substantive. It was authentic. It showcased the real Hillary Clinton: A woman who, whatever her faults, hates injustice and knows what she’s talking about when it comes to government.
A week later in Las Vegas, Hillary gave another impressive speech, this one on immigration. In a media environment where “pro” and “anti” immigration often refers merely to how many people America lets in, Hillary turned the conversation to how America treats immigrants once we do. First, she talked movingly about her childhood memories of the migrant farm workers who worked in the fields around Chicago. Then she attacked the idea, common in “pro-immigration” Republican circles, that America should legalize undocumented immigrants without allowing them citizenship. “Today not a single Republican candidate, announced or potential, is clearly and consistently supporting a path to citizenship,” she declared. “Not one. When they talk about “legal status,” that’s code for “second-class status.” America, Hillary insisted, must see the undocumented not merely as workers, but as human beings.
Sooner or later, Hillary will have to move from policy to philosophy. It may be a rocky transition. And if the Republicans nominate Marco Rubio (which at this point looks like a decent bet), she will face a candidate who interweaves personal biography and national aspiration better than she does. But if Hillary stumbles, these opening weeks of her campaign may offer a template for how she regains her footing. She’s at her best talking about America not abstractly, but concretely. She’s most inspiring when talking not about what she believes, but about what she wants to do. And she most effectively humanizes herself by being true to who she is: knowledgeable, passionate, and vaguely obsessive about making government work. Against Rubio, or any other likely Republican challenger, that identity should provide an excellent contrast.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/hillary-clintons-2016-campaign/393872/
Hillary Clinton has been an official candidate for president for five weeks, and she still hasn’t done the thing most candidates do on day one: given a speech laying out her vision for America. Nor is she planning on doing so anytime soon. Politico reports that Hillary’s “why I’m running for president,” speech, initially scheduled for May, has now been delayed until June, or even later.
There’s a reason for that: The speech is unlikely to be very good. Soaring rhetoric and grand themes have never been Hillary’s strengths. That’s one reason so many liberals found her so much less inspirational than Barack Obama in 2008. And it’s a problem with deep roots. In his biography, A Woman in Charge, Carl Bernstein describes Hillary, then in law school, struggling to articulate her generation’s perspective in an address to the League of Women Voters. “If she was speaking about a clearly defined subject,” Bernstein writes, “her thoughts would be well organized, finely articulated, and delivered in almost perfect outline form. But before the League audience, she again and again lapsed into sweeping abstractions.”
Team Clinton appears to understand this. And so it has done something shrewd. Instead of talking vision, Hillary is talking policy, which she does really well.
If Hillary’s struggles with vision go back a long time, so does her passion for wonkery. As a student government leader at Wellesley, Bernstein notes, Hillary developed “a better system for the return of library books” and “studied every aspect of the Wellesley curriculum in developing a successful plan to reduce the number of required courses.” In 1993, she took time off from a vacation in Hawaii to grill local officials about the state’s healthcare system. In his excellent book on Hillary’s 2000 Senate race, Michael Tomasky observes that, “In the entire campaign, she had exactly one truly inspiring moment” but that, “over time it became evident to all but the most cynical that she actually cared about utility rates.”
Hillary’s handlers have played to this strength. On April 29, she devoted the first major speech of her campaign not to her vision for America, but to something more specific: race and crime. She began with a graphic and harrowing description of the young black men recently killed by police:
Walter Scott shot in the back in Charleston, South Carolina. Unarmed. In debt. And terrified of spending more time in jail for child support payments he couldn’t afford. Tamir Rice shot in a park in Cleveland, Ohio. Unarmed and just 12 years old. Eric Garner choked to death after being stopped for selling cigarettes on the streets of this city. And now Freddie Gray. His spine nearly severed while in police custody.
She recounted advocating for prisoners while director the University of Arkansas’ legal-aid clinic. She noted the parallels between race and class, observing that life expectancy is declining not only for many African Americans, but also for white women without high-school degrees. And she made the crucial point that because government currently treats drug addiction and psychiatric disorders primarily as criminal rather than public-health problems, “our prisons and our jails are now our mental health institutions.”
The speech was not merely substantive. It was authentic. It showcased the real Hillary Clinton: A woman who, whatever her faults, hates injustice and knows what she’s talking about when it comes to government.
A week later in Las Vegas, Hillary gave another impressive speech, this one on immigration. In a media environment where “pro” and “anti” immigration often refers merely to how many people America lets in, Hillary turned the conversation to how America treats immigrants once we do. First, she talked movingly about her childhood memories of the migrant farm workers who worked in the fields around Chicago. Then she attacked the idea, common in “pro-immigration” Republican circles, that America should legalize undocumented immigrants without allowing them citizenship. “Today not a single Republican candidate, announced or potential, is clearly and consistently supporting a path to citizenship,” she declared. “Not one. When they talk about “legal status,” that’s code for “second-class status.” America, Hillary insisted, must see the undocumented not merely as workers, but as human beings.
Sooner or later, Hillary will have to move from policy to philosophy. It may be a rocky transition. And if the Republicans nominate Marco Rubio (which at this point looks like a decent bet), she will face a candidate who interweaves personal biography and national aspiration better than she does. But if Hillary stumbles, these opening weeks of her campaign may offer a template for how she regains her footing. She’s at her best talking about America not abstractly, but concretely. She’s most inspiring when talking not about what she believes, but about what she wants to do. And she most effectively humanizes herself by being true to who she is: knowledgeable, passionate, and vaguely obsessive about making government work. Against Rubio, or any other likely Republican challenger, that identity should provide an excellent contrast.
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu
Footballguy
I think it's because Hillary doesn't really have a 'vision' of America. She's not out to upset the apple cart but tweak it along the way. This isn't a horrible thing once she's in office because like Obama found out there aren't a lot of big changes you can single-handedly make as President.
Hillary isn't going to fire voters up but she'll get the votes and do a decent job as President. It'll be boring but she's unlikely to #### anything up (like her husband she'll let the polling data make her decisions). Republicans are going to hate her no matter what but she's about as Republican as she can get without putting a 'R' next to her name.
timschochet
Footballguy
I don't know about the last part- there are several things she will do that Republicans would never do. But your overall point is correct. Hillary is a policy wonk. She's not going to offer soaring rhetoric ala JFK, Reagan, and Obama. She will be quietly efficient like Truman and Eisenhower. She will make a very good Presidrnt IMO.
Rove!
Footballguy
unless it goes badly, then it'll be Bush's fault...50 years from now when some of those countries are functioning democracies that Nobel Peace Prize is going to look very prescient.Slapdash said:He got a damn Nobel Peace Prize for this #### tooRove! said:
Rove!
Footballguy
Everything she has tried her hand at has been a dismal failure. I just hope we can limit the damage somehow...
Why wait 50 years? How is conducting a terror campaign with drones in several regions of the Middle East supportive of peace?50 years from now when some of those countries are functioning democracies that Nobel Peace Prize is going to look very prescient.Slapdash said:He got a damn Nobel Peace Prize for this #### tooRove! said:
We need a visionary leader. We don't need another person that is just going to put a slightly less conservative spin on the status quo. Our government is completely bought and sold by the wealthy and large special interests. Someone needs to come buck the trend, and it will never be Hillary.
timschochet
Footballguy
Here is a legitimate critique of Hillary's immigration policies by pro-immigration writer Ruben Navarrette:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/may/24/ruben-navarrette-on-immigration-hillary-vs-hillary/
On immigration, Hillary Clinton is a work in progress – and has been since she entered politics more than a dozen years ago. Depending on which audience she is trying to please, she assumes one of two conflicting personas: Restrictionist Hillary or Reform Hillary.
In 2003, Restrictionist Hillary told conservative radio host John Grambling that she was “adamantly against illegal immigrants” and that “we’ve got to do more at our borders.”
In 2006, while serving in the Senate, Restrictionist Hillary told the New York Daily News that she supported more fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border because “a country that cannot control its borders is failing at one of its fundamental obligations.” That same year, she voted for the Secure Fence Act, which directed the Department of Homeland Security to construct 700 miles of double border fencing.
In 2008, during a presidential debate with Barack Obama, Restrictionist Hillary tried to woo organized labor by blaming lost jobs on “employers who exploit undocumented workers and drive down wages.She mentioned an African-American man who had told her: “I used to have a lot of construction jobs, and now it just seems like the only people who get them anymore are people who are here without documentation.”
During that debate, Clinton also said that she didn’t agree with “deporting people, rounding them up.” Yet, while serving as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, Restrictionist Hillary was part of an administration that turned that into an art form.
And in 2014, as more than 60,000 refugees from Central America – most of them unaccompanied children – crossed the U.S.-Mexico border, Restrictionist Hillary said coldly during a CNN town hall that the kids “should be sent back” because “we have to send a clear message: Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay.”
Then there is Reform Hillary, who has emerged recently now that Clinton is once again running for president and needs the support of Latino voters who favor a more honest and more common-sense approach to the problem.
Last month, during a speech to the annual “Women in the World” summit in New York, Reform Hillary seemed to take a swipe at Republicans – but then again could have been talking about some Democrats – when she criticized those who “would deport mothers working to give their children a better life rather than risk the ire of talk radio.”
The following week, Reform Hillary celebrated Cinco de Mayo by speaking at a mostly Latino high school in Las Vegas, where she called for illegal immigrants to be given “a path to full and equal citizenship.” She also accused Republicans who support legal status for the undocumented but not citizenship of pushing “second-class status.”
But what was Clinton pushing? A poison pill. “Full and equal citizenship” will never get through Congress. So by setting the bar impossibly high, Reform Hillary all but ensures nothing will be done. This suits her fine because she doesn’t want to be known as a pro-amnesty Democrat any more than Obama did, and she’d rather have a wedge issue than a workable solution.
Finally, Reform Hillary – who, during a visit to Iowa in September, sprinted away from a group of undocumented young people who asked if she would continue Obama’s “deferred action” – has chosen an ex-Dreamer as her campaign’s Latino outreach director. Peruvian-born Lorella Praeli, who was undocumented for more than a decade before obtaining a green card, will also deal with the media on Latino issues, including immigration.
Praeli – who worked for the undocumented youth organization “United We Dream” – has previously been critical of Clinton. Last year, Praeli blasted the candidate’s double talk and told CNN: “If you want Latinos to stand with you. If you want the immigrant community to see you as a champion on this issue, you’re going to have to make some difficult choices. And you’re going to have to take a firm position.”
What position will the likely Democratic nominee ultimately take on immigration? I don’t think even she knows. What she says today could change tomorrow.
And like Obama – once the heat is turned up and divisions appear between various Democratic constituencies – she’ll find it difficult to tell the truth, keep promises, remain consistent, and not betray supporters.
That is where character comes in. Does anyone know where Clinton can get some?
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/may/24/ruben-navarrette-on-immigration-hillary-vs-hillary/
On immigration, Hillary Clinton is a work in progress – and has been since she entered politics more than a dozen years ago. Depending on which audience she is trying to please, she assumes one of two conflicting personas: Restrictionist Hillary or Reform Hillary.
In 2003, Restrictionist Hillary told conservative radio host John Grambling that she was “adamantly against illegal immigrants” and that “we’ve got to do more at our borders.”
In 2006, while serving in the Senate, Restrictionist Hillary told the New York Daily News that she supported more fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border because “a country that cannot control its borders is failing at one of its fundamental obligations.” That same year, she voted for the Secure Fence Act, which directed the Department of Homeland Security to construct 700 miles of double border fencing.
In 2008, during a presidential debate with Barack Obama, Restrictionist Hillary tried to woo organized labor by blaming lost jobs on “employers who exploit undocumented workers and drive down wages.She mentioned an African-American man who had told her: “I used to have a lot of construction jobs, and now it just seems like the only people who get them anymore are people who are here without documentation.”
During that debate, Clinton also said that she didn’t agree with “deporting people, rounding them up.” Yet, while serving as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, Restrictionist Hillary was part of an administration that turned that into an art form.
And in 2014, as more than 60,000 refugees from Central America – most of them unaccompanied children – crossed the U.S.-Mexico border, Restrictionist Hillary said coldly during a CNN town hall that the kids “should be sent back” because “we have to send a clear message: Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay.”
Then there is Reform Hillary, who has emerged recently now that Clinton is once again running for president and needs the support of Latino voters who favor a more honest and more common-sense approach to the problem.
Last month, during a speech to the annual “Women in the World” summit in New York, Reform Hillary seemed to take a swipe at Republicans – but then again could have been talking about some Democrats – when she criticized those who “would deport mothers working to give their children a better life rather than risk the ire of talk radio.”
The following week, Reform Hillary celebrated Cinco de Mayo by speaking at a mostly Latino high school in Las Vegas, where she called for illegal immigrants to be given “a path to full and equal citizenship.” She also accused Republicans who support legal status for the undocumented but not citizenship of pushing “second-class status.”
But what was Clinton pushing? A poison pill. “Full and equal citizenship” will never get through Congress. So by setting the bar impossibly high, Reform Hillary all but ensures nothing will be done. This suits her fine because she doesn’t want to be known as a pro-amnesty Democrat any more than Obama did, and she’d rather have a wedge issue than a workable solution.
Finally, Reform Hillary – who, during a visit to Iowa in September, sprinted away from a group of undocumented young people who asked if she would continue Obama’s “deferred action” – has chosen an ex-Dreamer as her campaign’s Latino outreach director. Peruvian-born Lorella Praeli, who was undocumented for more than a decade before obtaining a green card, will also deal with the media on Latino issues, including immigration.
Praeli – who worked for the undocumented youth organization “United We Dream” – has previously been critical of Clinton. Last year, Praeli blasted the candidate’s double talk and told CNN: “If you want Latinos to stand with you. If you want the immigrant community to see you as a champion on this issue, you’re going to have to make some difficult choices. And you’re going to have to take a firm position.”
What position will the likely Democratic nominee ultimately take on immigration? I don’t think even she knows. What she says today could change tomorrow.
And like Obama – once the heat is turned up and divisions appear between various Democratic constituencies – she’ll find it difficult to tell the truth, keep promises, remain consistent, and not betray supporters.
That is where character comes in. Does anyone know where Clinton can get some?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Yaknow, not making a call on this one, but when the ME is viewed as a disaster it's written as Bush's fault, but when democracy arises 5 decades later it will be Obama's grand plan?50 years from now when some of those countries are functioning democracies that Nobel Peace Prize is going to look very prescient.Slapdash said:He got a damn Nobel Peace Prize for this #### tooRove! said:
I think we have to pick our poison here no matter what.
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
JFC. Are you serious?50 years from now when some of those countries are functioning democracies that Nobel Peace Prize is going to look very prescient.Slapdash said:He got a damn Nobel Peace Prize for this #### tooRove! said:
Anybody with a D next to their name gets the jizz flowing.JFC. Are you serious?50 years from now when some of those countries are functioning democracies that Nobel Peace Prize is going to look very prescient.Slapdash said:He got a damn Nobel Peace Prize for this #### tooRove! said:
timschochet
Footballguy
Obama was given the Peace Prize well before Arab Spring. He certainly didn't cause Arab Spring (any more than Reagan caused the downfall of the Soviet Union, btw).
Obama didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. It was given to him as a repudiation of Bush's foreign policy, and also because he was the first black President. Those are silly reasons to give the Peace Prize, IMO, but it's never been a particularly respectable award IMO. Some of the winners, among them Arafat, were especially embarrassing. Adolf Hitler and Neville Chamberlain would have won it together for their Munich Pact had not World War II broken out too soon for them to get the award.
It's too bad because the Nobel Prizes in the sciences, and for literature, really are very important and worthy in most instances.
Obama didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. It was given to him as a repudiation of Bush's foreign policy, and also because he was the first black President. Those are silly reasons to give the Peace Prize, IMO, but it's never been a particularly respectable award IMO. Some of the winners, among them Arafat, were especially embarrassing. Adolf Hitler and Neville Chamberlain would have won it together for their Munich Pact had not World War II broken out too soon for them to get the award.
It's too bad because the Nobel Prizes in the sciences, and for literature, really are very important and worthy in most instances.
timschochet
Footballguy
On this particular issue, much like Obama on gay marriage, Hillary likely concealed her true position for many years due to political expediency. Not particularly admirable, and certainly worthy of criticism, but far better (at least for me) than those who to this day are still wrong on both issues.
timschochet
Footballguy
Not bait. I think it's actually a pretty good analogy.you are horrible with the stinky bait tossing.
You are comparing a slam dunk fact to a hotly debated issue with scholarly opinion clearly divided. It was a stupid analogy which added zero to your point.Not bait. I think it's actually a pretty good analogy.
timschochet
Footballguy
You are comparing a slam dunk fact to a hotly debated issue with scholarly opinion clearly divided. It was a stupid analogy which added zero to your point.Not bait. I think it's actually a pretty good analogy.
wait- which is which?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The search function here is the pit of tech hell.timschochet said:
I do remember it though (wherever it is), but I am guessing you saw the RCP focus group of Democrats who were asked to name Hillary's accomplishments?
Let's just say there's one you would pick as her biggest, the one thing she could hang her hat on, what would it be?
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This happened.irishidiot said:
timschochet
Footballguy
There is no really big thing Saints. She's not a "big thing" person. She gets lots of little stuff done.
But the key is she will get it done. She is LBJ to Obama's Kennedy. (And no, before you jump on that analogy, she's not gonna get us in a war in Indochina). Obama talks about a pathway to citizenship for illegals. Hillary won't talk about it nearly as eloquently as Obama; but she'll make it happen.
But the key is she will get it done. She is LBJ to Obama's Kennedy. (And no, before you jump on that analogy, she's not gonna get us in a war in Indochina). Obama talks about a pathway to citizenship for illegals. Hillary won't talk about it nearly as eloquently as Obama; but she'll make it happen.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
You sound a lot like that Iowa Demo focus group. - There is no single accomplishment of hers you can point to, and yet cite accomplishments as SOS as a reason to vote for her.
timschochet
Footballguy
But I can list you lots of accomplishments as S oS: her negotiations with Pakistan, Afghanistan, South Africa, Venezuela, the G8, India, just to name a few that are described in her book. The trade agreements with Vietnam and South America. And of course, as I already noted, wading through the Middle East troubles.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
A negotiation is not accomplishment.
The trade agreement in "South America" was a deal in Colombia that Obama - and she - had said they would not agree to during the 2008 campaign. This is also a group that Bill Clinton arranged some speeches (ie $$$$) and Foundation donations with, despite well publicized labor and human rights violations down there, and then presto trade deal, so that's not a great example.
The ME situation is a disaster right now, it's hard to tell if it's a continuation of the Bush policy disaster or a whole new one, but the whole thing is a liability right now.
That leaves the trade deal with Vietnam as her biggest "accomplishment."
Last edited by a moderator:
She seemed to accomplish a lot in Benghazi too.
Did a good job with health care reform in the 90s.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Guess who said this?
Linking Hussein to Al Qaeda is a nice little Easter egg in there for this "successful" Senator....
Guess who said this?
Linking Hussein to Al Qaeda is a nice little Easter egg in there for this "successful" Senator....
squistion
Footballguy
Someone who was giving false intelligence about WMD's that they couldn't verify themselves?
She admitted in her book and also last week, that it was a mistake. Didn't stutter and stammer and dance around it trying to come up the right answer like Jeb and Rubio.
She was wrong. She has admitted it. Let's see the GOP candidates step up to the plate and unequivocally say the same thing.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
- Christopher Hitchens
It's really hard to say it better than that, can't really.
I will add that Hillary did the same twists as Jeb in 2008, and she even used the same (maybe true, maybe not) explanation that she did not want to offend the troops who had given up so much for that effort. I agree otherwise on the point about just plain saying it was a "mistake" now, at this point though. But again she did add more to the effort than the average Senator, maybe almost any other Senator, to bring that final tally to fruition.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Hillary is now at a net unfavorable, per the HuffPo Pollster summary of multiple polls.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
The Commish
Footballguy
You shouldn't be looking at THOSE polls....hth
squistion
Footballguy
Mister CIA
Footballguy
Yeah I was trying to find her position on the legalization of marijuana and I hit a dry well. Surprise!
timschochet
Footballguy
Hillary discusses her deep Christian faith:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/27/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-election-faith/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/27/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-election-faith/index.html
timschochet
Footballguy
In South Carolina:
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/27/hillary-clinton-calls-for-civil-campaign-south-carolina/?_r=0
“I do know how hard this job I’m seeking is,” Mrs. Clinton said, her voice picking up a slight Southern twang.“I have seen it up close and personal. You’re not going to catch me wondering what it’s like.
“Instead, I’m spending my time” planning what to do “for you once I get there,” she said.
Smiling, Mrs. Clinton observed that the men who have occupied the White House all come in “looking so vigorous, and then we watch them. They go grayer and grayer, and by the time they leave, they’re as white as the building they live in.”
Mrs. Clinton joked that she wouldn’t have that problem: “I may not be the youngest candidate in this race, but I have one big advantage — I’ve been coloring my hair for years.”
But then she added a line that was surprising, given the subtext of racial politics: “You are not going to see me turn white in the White House.”
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/27/hillary-clinton-calls-for-civil-campaign-south-carolina/?_r=0
“I do know how hard this job I’m seeking is,” Mrs. Clinton said, her voice picking up a slight Southern twang.“I have seen it up close and personal. You’re not going to catch me wondering what it’s like.
“Instead, I’m spending my time” planning what to do “for you once I get there,” she said.
Smiling, Mrs. Clinton observed that the men who have occupied the White House all come in “looking so vigorous, and then we watch them. They go grayer and grayer, and by the time they leave, they’re as white as the building they live in.”
Mrs. Clinton joked that she wouldn’t have that problem: “I may not be the youngest candidate in this race, but I have one big advantage — I’ve been coloring my hair for years.”
But then she added a line that was surprising, given the subtext of racial politics: “You are not going to see me turn white in the White House.”
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Hillary is vile
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMWZeLqwllY
With a very friendly Thomas Friedman, 2+ minutes, no accomplishments.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-eve-of-book-tour-hillary-clinton-causes-flap-by-saying-she-struggled-with-money/2014/06/09/0a21bcce-efe7-11e3-9ebc-2ee6f81ed217_story.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidadesnik/2014/06/10/hillary-cant-name-top-accomplishment-as-secretary-of-state/
Here is Hillary herself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWzcIiRQ-SQ
timschochet
Footballguy
Saints please list the marquee accomplishments of the last 5 Secretaries of State. Actually you can just choose one and list his or her major accomplishment.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
First of all, it's Hillary being asked, and failing, not me, 2-3 times, at least, but I will see what I can do.
First guy I thought of was George Schulz, he oversaw the end of the Cold War, that's a biggee:
Here is his full bio, blows Hillary's away:
http://www.hoover.org/profiles/george-p-shultz
Here's Madeleine Albright:
- Politico
I think if you're going to put up Albright's most important accomplishments or doctrines it was self-determination (independence) and weapons inspections in Bosnia and Iraq, respectively, and probably the US policy towards the Chinese integration of Hong Kong.
Actually looking at these two's bios it's pretty clear Hillary was underqualified to be SOS in the first place.
Warren Christopher - Dayton Peace Accords, normalized relations with Vietnam.
I'm not going to get into Rice and Powell, and anyway the reply is too long already, the above should suffice.
ETA - as noted below, none of these three are running for president, but that is probably an example of "accomplishments." I tell you one thing, all 5 would not hem and haw and change the subject when asked to list their accomplishments (even if some to many would disagree as to the value or harm of what was accomplished).
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
