Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (11 Viewers)

[SaintsInDome2006]

Robby Mook was just on CBS Face the Nation. When/if Hillary is in the WH he will be the Rove/Axelrod. He's much younger than those guys. He flat out denied that any polls show Hillary has a trust problem with the voters and he also said Hillary does not have a position on TPP. He said 'fight' and 'tough' like 20 times and he reiterated she will be the 'youngest woman president in history' when asked if Hillary will release her medical records.

 

[jon_mx]

I am the most sincere Independent Anti-KooK Advocate.

Why do you hate yourself?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

She's not a good speech maker. She's a good talker and debater, but she lacks that ability to give soaring speeches that move people.

That's OK. I turn 50 this month, and I've lived through 9 Presidents, starting with LBJ. How many of them were gifted speech makers?

Reagan

Bill Clinton

Obama

That's 3 out of 9. The other 6 weren't any better or worse than Hillary.

What occurs to me about this are the Democrats who you are saying weren't great orators.... Gore, Kerry, Mondale, McGovern, Dukakis, all lost. You also might be underrating McGovern and Carter. LBJ lost to JFK in the primary, then won in the sympathy for Kennedy, then quasi-resigned, LBJ should get some credit for the Great Society concept though, it's not all oratorical style.

 

[timschochet]

She's not a good speech maker. She's a good talker and debater, but she lacks that ability to give soaring speeches that move people.

That's OK. I turn 50 this month, and I've lived through 9 Presidents, starting with LBJ. How many of them were gifted speech makers?

Reagan

Bill Clinton

Obama

That's 3 out of 9. The other 6 weren't any better or worse than Hillary.

What occurs to me about this are the Democrats who you are saying weren't great orators.... Gore, Kerry, Mondale, McGovern, Dukakis, all lost. You also might be underrating McGovern and Carter. LBJ lost to JFK in the primary, then won in the sympathy for Kennedy, then quasi-resigned, LBJ should get some credit for the Great Society concept though, it's not all oratorical style.

I don't think Carter was very good and he won. both Bushes were awful and they won 3 elections. Are there any great speech makers on the GOP side this time around? I don't think so. The best of them, Huckabee, is very good, not great, but he's not going to win the nomination. Rubio is good, probably a little better than Hillary, but nothing spectacular enough where it's going to make a difference. The other two most likely, Jeb and Walker, are pretty damn dull speakers.

So I don't think gifted oratory is going to be much of a factor in 2016.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Gore is probably the best comparison to Hillary out of all the ones listed.

I think Rubio is the candidate the Clinton's fear the most, he is from Florida, has a great personal story, is non-white and youthful. His speaking skills are better than Hillary even though they are not great but some of that is probably due to his overall lack of time on the national stage. If he emerged from a tough primary, my sense is his stump speeches would be much improved. He also takes away Hillary's first women President and the historic nature of that since Rubio would be a historic President as well.

 

[Slapdash]

She's not a good speech maker. She's a good talker and debater, but she lacks that ability to give soaring speeches that move people.

That's OK. I turn 50 this month, and I've lived through 9 Presidents, starting with LBJ. How many of them were gifted speech makers?

Reagan

Bill Clinton

Obama

That's 3 out of 9. The other 6 weren't any better or worse than Hillary.

What occurs to me about this are the Democrats who you are saying weren't great orators.... Gore, Kerry, Mondale, McGovern, Dukakis, all lost. You also might be underrating McGovern and Carter. LBJ lost to JFK in the primary, then won in the sympathy for Kennedy, then quasi-resigned, LBJ should get some credit for the Great Society concept though, it's not all oratorical style.

I don't think Carter was very good and he won. both Bushes were awful and they won 3 elections.Are there any great speech makers on the GOP side this time around? I don't think so. The best of them, Huckabee, is very good, not great, but he's not going to win the nomination. Rubio is good, probably a little better than Hillary, but nothing spectacular enough where it's going to make a difference. The other two most likely, Jeb and Walker, are pretty damn dull speakers.

So I don't think gifted oratory is going to be much of a factor in 2016.

Rubio is an excellent speaker. He is VERY conservative, but he makes a persuasive, intellectual argument on behalf of his ideas, totally opposite the simplistic sound byte crap we're getting from most politicians on both sides these days. I love this sort of thoughtful oratory.

 

[timschochet]

Gore is probably the best comparison to Hillary out of all the ones listed.

I think Rubio is the candidate the Clinton's fear the most, he is from Florida, has a great personal story, is non-white and youthful. His speaking skills are better than Hillary even though they are not great but some of that is probably due to his overall lack of time on the national stage. If he emerged from a tough primary, my sense is his stump speeches would be much improved. He also takes away Hillary's first women President and the historic nature of that since Rubio would be a historic President as well.

I agree with all of this. Rubio has the best shot to beat her.

 

[timschochet]

She's not a good speech maker. She's a good talker and debater, but she lacks that ability to give soaring speeches that move people.

That's OK. I turn 50 this month, and I've lived through 9 Presidents, starting with LBJ. How many of them were gifted speech makers?

Reagan

Bill Clinton

Obama

That's 3 out of 9. The other 6 weren't any better or worse than Hillary.

What occurs to me about this are the Democrats who you are saying weren't great orators.... Gore, Kerry, Mondale, McGovern, Dukakis, all lost. You also might be underrating McGovern and Carter. LBJ lost to JFK in the primary, then won in the sympathy for Kennedy, then quasi-resigned, LBJ should get some credit for the Great Society concept though, it's not all oratorical style.

I don't think Carter was very good and he won. both Bushes were awful and they won 3 elections.Are there any great speech makers on the GOP side this time around? I don't think so. The best of them, Huckabee, is very good, not great, but he's not going to win the nomination. Rubio is good, probably a little better than Hillary, but nothing spectacular enough where it's going to make a difference. The other two most likely, Jeb and Walker, are pretty damn dull speakers.

So I don't think gifted oratory is going to be much of a factor in 2016.

Rubio is an excellent speaker. He is VERY conservative, but he makes a persuasive, intellectual argument on behalf of his ideas, totally opposite the simplistic sound byte crap we're getting from most politicians on both sides these days. I love this sort of thoughtful oratory.

The first time I ever heard Rubio speak was his Reagan Library speech a few years back and I thought it was incredibly good, and full of the thoughtful oratory you mentioned. I even started a thread about it here. Since then however I've heard other speeches and been less impressed. But we'll see if he returns to his previous form; if so then it WILL be a factor.

 

[Slapdash]

She's not a good speech maker. She's a good talker and debater, but she lacks that ability to give soaring speeches that move people.

That's OK. I turn 50 this month, and I've lived through 9 Presidents, starting with LBJ. How many of them were gifted speech makers?

Reagan

Bill Clinton

Obama

That's 3 out of 9. The other 6 weren't any better or worse than Hillary.

What occurs to me about this are the Democrats who you are saying weren't great orators.... Gore, Kerry, Mondale, McGovern, Dukakis, all lost. You also might be underrating McGovern and Carter. LBJ lost to JFK in the primary, then won in the sympathy for Kennedy, then quasi-resigned, LBJ should get some credit for the Great Society concept though, it's not all oratorical style.

I don't think Carter was very good and he won. both Bushes were awful and they won 3 elections.Are there any great speech makers on the GOP side this time around? I don't think so. The best of them, Huckabee, is very good, not great, but he's not going to win the nomination. Rubio is good, probably a little better than Hillary, but nothing spectacular enough where it's going to make a difference. The other two most likely, Jeb and Walker, are pretty damn dull speakers.

So I don't think gifted oratory is going to be much of a factor in 2016.

Rubio is an excellent speaker. He is VERY conservative, but he makes a persuasive, intellectual argument on behalf of his ideas, totally opposite the simplistic sound byte crap we're getting from most politicians on both sides these days. I love this sort of thoughtful oratory.

The first time I ever heard Rubio speak was his Reagan Library speech a few years back and I thought it was incredibly good, and full of the thoughtful oratory you mentioned. I even started a thread about it here.Since then however I've heard other speeches and been less impressed. But we'll see if he returns to his previous form; if so then it WILL be a factor.

Yes, I know. That is a direct quote from you. https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?/topic/606829-marco-rubios-speech-at-the-reagan-library/

 

[Stinger Ray]

She's not a good speech maker. She's a good talker and debater, but she lacks that ability to give soaring speeches that move people.

That's OK. I turn 50 this month, and I've lived through 9 Presidents, starting with LBJ. How many of them were gifted speech makers?

Reagan

Bill Clinton

Obama

That's 3 out of 9. The other 6 weren't any better or worse than Hillary.

What occurs to me about this are the Democrats who you are saying weren't great orators.... Gore, Kerry, Mondale, McGovern, Dukakis, all lost. You also might be underrating McGovern and Carter. LBJ lost to JFK in the primary, then won in the sympathy for Kennedy, then quasi-resigned, LBJ should get some credit for the Great Society concept though, it's not all oratorical style.

I don't think Carter was very good and he won. both Bushes were awful and they won 3 elections.Are there any great speech makers on the GOP side this time around? I don't think so. The best of them, Huckabee, is very good, not great, but he's not going to win the nomination. Rubio is good, probably a little better than Hillary, but nothing spectacular enough where it's going to make a difference. The other two most likely, Jeb and Walker, are pretty damn dull speakers.

So I don't think gifted oratory is going to be much of a factor in 2016.

Rubio is an excellent speaker. He is VERY conservative, but he makes a persuasive, intellectual argument on behalf of his ideas, totally opposite the simplistic sound byte crap we're getting from most politicians on both sides these days. I love this sort of thoughtful oratory.

The first time I ever heard Rubio speak was his Reagan Library speech a few years back and I thought it was incredibly good, and full of the thoughtful oratory you mentioned. I even started a thread about it here.Since then however I've heard other speeches and been less impressed. But we'll see if he returns to his previous form; if so then it WILL be a factor.

Yes, I know. That is a direct quote from you. https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?/topic/606829-marco-rubios-speech-at-the-reagan-library/

 

[Slapdash]

That aside, I do think he will pick up that type of polish as we role through the campaign season. Much like Obama during the 04 DNC, he'll probably never hit the stylistic highs of that speech. It does help offset some very conservative views.

Rubio certainly has what it takes to win this if he makes it through the primaries. He could really cause trouble for the Dems in the electoral college. He is the Republican that worries me the most. Most of these other GOP candidates don't seem too strong Have to see a lot more from Walker. Jeb can't get out of his own way. I think a guy like Kaisch could do really well.

 

[timschochet]

She's not a good speech maker. She's a good talker and debater, but she lacks that ability to give soaring speeches that move people.

That's OK. I turn 50 this month, and I've lived through 9 Presidents, starting with LBJ. How many of them were gifted speech makers?

Reagan

Bill Clinton

Obama

That's 3 out of 9. The other 6 weren't any better or worse than Hillary.

What occurs to me about this are the Democrats who you are saying weren't great orators.... Gore, Kerry, Mondale, McGovern, Dukakis, all lost. You also might be underrating McGovern and Carter. LBJ lost to JFK in the primary, then won in the sympathy for Kennedy, then quasi-resigned, LBJ should get some credit for the Great Society concept though, it's not all oratorical style.

I don't think Carter was very good and he won. both Bushes were awful and they won 3 elections.Are there any great speech makers on the GOP side this time around? I don't think so. The best of them, Huckabee, is very good, not great, but he's not going to win the nomination. Rubio is good, probably a little better than Hillary, but nothing spectacular enough where it's going to make a difference. The other two most likely, Jeb and Walker, are pretty damn dull speakers.

So I don't think gifted oratory is going to be much of a factor in 2016.

Rubio is an excellent speaker. He is VERY conservative, but he makes a persuasive, intellectual argument on behalf of his ideas, totally opposite the simplistic sound byte crap we're getting from most politicians on both sides these days. I love this sort of thoughtful oratory.

The first time I ever heard Rubio speak was his Reagan Library speech a few years back and I thought it was incredibly good, and full of the thoughtful oratory you mentioned. I even started a thread about it here.Since then however I've heard other speeches and been less impressed. But we'll see if he returns to his previous form; if so then it WILL be a factor.

Yes, I know. That is a direct quote from you. https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?/topic/606829-marco-rubios-speech-at-the-reagan-library/

Ha! touché! Well as i wrote I've changed my mind lately. But who knows?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim - this may be one place the GOP and Demos play by different rules. People seem to want a a Republican to be conservative and even boring in speech and demeanor as well as policy. One thing that was special about Reagan (not talking policies here, just his skill or talent) was that he appealed to Democrats. Maybe his ability to rouse crowds and move people had something to do with that.

Great Democrats are more known for movements and for electoral shifts. I think the oratorical skill comes more into play with them.

I agree with the post above about Rubio. His story us great and if any one has the chance in the GOP to shift or grab Democrats, ie especially Hispanics, blacks and maybe some blue collar or middle class folks who can relate to his background, it's him. I guess Rand Paul might be that too. I think the Gore comp for Hillary is good, I see the dry policy orientation (her relaunch speech is typically being called like a SOTU) and the fact he was kind of hemmed in between running as a third term from a popular presidency and being his own man.

I also saw on CBS this morning an author of a current Nixon biography who compared her to him. Not in any other way except in the way Nixon had to keep reintroducing himself to the American people. Of course that ended really well for him too with two landslides even though he had been a disliked, unpopular pol for much of his career.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Another thing that the Nixon author said they had in common was the relationship with the press and the sense or belief that everyone was out to get them. He also was clear in saying they're not the same, I'm not saying that either, these were just similarities he pointed out.

 

[squistion]

I agree with the post above about Rubio. His story us great and if any one has the chance in the GOP to shift or grab Democrats, ie especially Hispanics, blacks and maybe some blue collar or middle class folks who can relate to his background, it's him. I guess Rand Paul might be that too. I think the Gore comp for Hillary is good, I see the dry policy orientation (her relaunch speech is typically being called like a SOTU) and the fact he was kind of hemmed in between running as a third term from a popular presidency and being his own man.

People keep saying that here, but Latinos are not going to vote for him just because he is Hispanic. They are aware of his positions on immigration and Obamacare and as a consequence he is not doing well in polling (below from April)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/12/marco-rubio-unlikely-to-earn-gop-new-hispanic-fans/?page=all

New poll shows Marco Rubio wont win the GOP Hispanic voters in 2016

As Sen. Marco Rubio prepares his presidential campaign, a pollster who specializes in surveying Latinos cast doubt on whether the Florida Republican will help the GOP make inroads with Hispanics.

Latino Decisions, founded by professors Gary M. Segura and Matt A. Barreto, said Mr. Rubio carries a negative rating among Hispanics into a presidential campaign, and said he also will suffer because of his opposition to Obamacare and to President Obamas executive actions granting a deportation amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

"We find no evidence that Rubios candidacy will draw significant Latino support for his candidacy or for his party more generally," the pollsters wrote Friday.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I agree with the post above about Rubio. His story us great and if any one has the chance in the GOP to shift or grab Democrats, ie especially Hispanics, blacks and maybe some blue collar or middle class folks who can relate to his background, it's him. I guess Rand Paul might be that too. I think the Gore comp for Hillary is good, I see the dry policy orientation (her relaunch speech is typically being called like a SOTU) and the fact he was kind of hemmed in between running as a third term from a popular presidency and being his own man.

People keep saying that here, but Latinos are not going to vote for him just because he is Hispanic. They are aware of his positions on immigration and Obamacare and as a consequence he is not doing well in polling (below from April)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/12/marco-rubio-unlikely-to-earn-gop-new-hispanic-fans/?page=all

New poll shows Marco Rubio wont win the GOP Hispanic voters in 2016

As Sen. Marco Rubio prepares his presidential campaign, a pollster who specializes in surveying Latinos cast doubt on whether the Florida Republican will help the GOP make inroads with Hispanics.

Latino Decisions, founded by professors Gary M. Segura and Matt A. Barreto, said Mr. Rubio carries a negative rating among Hispanics into a presidential campaign, and said he also will suffer because of his opposition to Obamacare and to President Obamas executive actions granting a deportation amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

"We find no evidence that Rubios candidacy will draw significant Latino support for his candidacy or for his party more generally," the pollsters wrote Friday.

That's a good point, some Republicans are seeing Rubio as some sort of cure-all or secret weapon and it's no sure thing.

however if you look at that article it points out Romney got under 25%, McCain got 31, Bush Jr. got 40, and Rubio is at 31% nationally and and 39% in FL. You could also look at Cruz in TX where IIRC he got like 40%. Even a 10% swing back to 35% would be a big deal I think. And there's also Florida.

There's also the historic legacy thing (First!Hispanic! etc.) and also Obama started out behind Hillary with almost these same numbers among blacks and then did very well once he showed he was a legitimate candidate.

But I agree you're right it's not definite he does that well among Latins. I did say "if any Republican can ... it's him", I think that's still true, he has the best shot with those groups I mentioned.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

She's not a good speech maker. She's a good talker and debater, but she lacks that ability to give soaring speeches that move people.

That's OK. I turn 50 this month, and I've lived through 9 Presidents, starting with LBJ. How many of them were gifted speech makers?

Reagan

Bill Clinton

Obama

That's 3 out of 9. The other 6 weren't any better or worse than Hillary.

What occurs to me about this are the Democrats who you are saying weren't great orators.... Gore, Kerry, Mondale, McGovern, Dukakis, all lost. You also might be underrating McGovern and Carter. LBJ lost to JFK in the primary, then won in the sympathy for Kennedy, then quasi-resigned, LBJ should get some credit for the Great Society concept though, it's not all oratorical style.

Yeah, but let's be honest: picking Presidents based on who's the better public speaker or who can best work their talking points into a contrived "debate" is a really stupid way of doing it. We'd be better off having them play cribbage against each other instead. Or have them as contestants on The Price is Right. That would be less dumb than what we do now.

 

[The Commish]

Gore is probably the best comparison to Hillary out of all the ones listed.

I think Rubio is the candidate the Clinton's fear the most, he is from Florida, has a great personal story, is non-white and youthful. His speaking skills are better than Hillary even though they are not great but some of that is probably due to his overall lack of time on the national stage. If he emerged from a tough primary, my sense is his stump speeches would be much improved. He also takes away Hillary's first women President and the historic nature of that since Rubio would be a historic President as well.

I'm not sure this is true. While I don't agree a ton with what he says, his ability to get things across is better than most (everyone?) running thus far and it's not really close. He's very articulate and specific (for a politician). Does speaking ability matter a ton? Doesn't for the dems...probably not.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Chuck Todd ‏@chucktodd Jun 13

Clinton has referenced her time in the Senate more than she has her time as Sec/State.

Chuck Todd ‏@chucktodd Jun 13

So who do you think spent the most time on foreign affairs in their presidential announcement? It's NOT who you think http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/presidential-announcement-speech-guide-n374901 …

Hillary spent 3% of her relaunch speech on foreign affairs.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/presidential-announcement-speech-guide-n374901

 

[The Commish]

Shouldn't she be focused on her time as a Senator? It's where she has done the most work and accumulated the most results. I'd be trying to distance myself from America's position globally as well

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Shouldn't she be focused on her time as a Senator? It's where she has done the most work and accumulated the most results. I'd be trying to distance myself from America's position globally as well

Ha yeah, well some would say that (I would)..... and some would not. I think this just validates that the Clinton campaign agrees with you.

 

[FlapJacks]

Official spotify playlist

https://open.spotify.com/user/hillaryclinton/playlist/43JJ50RsHoyUXj8eI8FaPQ?ref=wp

Tim and Sqiz -

 

[The Commish]

Official spotify playlist

https://open.spotify.com/user/hillaryclinton/playlist/43JJ50RsHoyUXj8eI8FaPQ?ref=wp

Tim and Sqiz -

"say what you want to say"

Seriously....o/u on how many of those artists she's even heard of is set at 3.

 

[The_Man]

Shouldn't she be focused on her time as a Senator? It's where she has done the most work and accumulated the most results. I'd be trying to distance myself from America's position globally as well

People vote on domestic issues, no matter how much they claim otherwise. it's smart politics to talk about the things voters want to hear about.

 

[The Commish]

Shouldn't she be focused on her time as a Senator? It's where she has done the most work and accumulated the most results. I'd be trying to distance myself from America's position globally as well

People vote on domestic issues, no matter how much they claim otherwise. it's smart politics to talk about the things voters want to hear about.

This is true as well. It's why I am interested in her "National Security" pillar and what her vision is on that front. Will be interesting to see all the dancing that goes with that topic.

 

[Slapdash]

Shouldn't she be focused on her time as a Senator? It's where she has done the most work and accumulated the most results. I'd be trying to distance myself from America's position globally as well

People vote on domestic issues, no matter how much they claim otherwise. it's smart politics to talk about the things voters want to hear about.

Mostly because there is really no difference between either party on foreign policy.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Shouldn't she be focused on her time as a Senator? It's where she has done the most work and accumulated the most results. I'd be trying to distance myself from America's position globally as well

People vote on domestic issues, no matter how much they claim otherwise. it's smart politics to talk about the things voters want to hear about.

I'll just point out one other thing about this - trade is part of foreign policy, but it also affects people domestically, and Hillary had zip to say on the number one trade issue before politicians and the people today - the TPP.

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

(Btw - that's John Podesta who is talking on this, even while his brother's consulting group has Japan as a client and has been advising them on the TPP).

 

[timschochet]

Shouldn't she be focused on her time as a Senator? It's where she has done the most work and accumulated the most results. I'd be trying to distance myself from America's position globally as well

People vote on domestic issues, no matter how much they claim otherwise. it's smart politics to talk about the things voters want to hear about.

Mostly because there is really no difference between either party on foreign policy.

historically this has been true and it's a good thing. But unfortunately times are changing...

 

[timschochet]

She's not going to talk about foreign policy a lot because the perception is out there that she and Obama have done a poor job. I obviously disagree with this estimate and I'm sure she does as well, but in terms of politics, it would put her on defense to focus on it. Talking about the economy puts her on offense.

The Republicans' best chance is for the economy to take a nose dive sometime next year...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

She's not going to talk about foreign policy a lot because the perception is out there that she and Obama have done a poor job. I obviously disagree with this estimate and I'm sure she does as well, but in terms of politics, it would put her on defense to focus on it. Talking about the economy puts her on offense.

The Republicans' best chance is for the economy to take a nose dive sometime next year...

Well that pretty much undercuts the notion that her record as SOS is a major reason to vote for her.

Also about the economy, how does she "go on offense" without criticizing what Obama's policies have been? If they are joined in foreign policy why would they not be joined in domestic policy? Or is her argument that we're doing great so let's continue what's been working? I'm not sure if that's offense because she is calling for status quo there.

 

[timschochet]

The "offense" is: Obama did as best he could but was stymied by conservatives. Vote for me and I'll double down on what Obama did (Hint: im tougher than Obama so I'll get more done).

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I can't link it right now but I saw some polling results earlier that had Hillary up 54% to 12% in Iowa over Bernie but only up 44% to 32% on him in New Hampshire. Warren must be wearing out a pair of moccasins kicking herself in the butt over not running.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I can't link it right now but I saw some polling results earlier that had Hillary up 54% to 12% in Iowa over Bernie but only up 44% to 32% on him in New Hampshire. Warren must be wearing out a pair of moccasins kicking herself in the butt over not running.

http://morningconsult.com/2015/06/clinton-leads-in-early-states-but-sanders-popular-in-new-hampshire/

The crosstabs are embedded.

In Iowa, 32% continue to say that Hillary is still neither their first nor second choice as Democratic nominee.

This poll continues to include Biden though.

 

[timschochet]

Bernie Sanders is like the latest Floyd Mayweather opponent: between now and January there's going to be a lot of buildup and hype, but it's all designed to get you to shell out money for the Pay Per View.

 

[squistion]

I can't link it right now but I saw some polling results earlier that had Hillary up 54% to 12% in Iowa over Bernie but only up 44% to 32% on him in New Hampshire. Warren must be wearing out a pair of moccasins kicking herself in the butt over not running.

No she isn't because the polling never showed her better than about 12% against Hillary nationally. Bernie may do well in New Hampshire as New England area voters are familiar with him, but as I have stated previously, there is no way the Democrats will ever nominate a 74 year old avowed Socialist. Not gonna happen.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/index.html

After not mentioning the TPP in her relaunch speech Hillary has now come out and said she doesn't know what's in it so she can't say she's for it. She also won't say she's against it, exactly, but she opposes it now because she can't say she knows what's in it. Though she used to put it out there as one of her accomplishments. But she's also not calling for it be to published, oh no.

No, she's waited until after the vote, and after her speech, and after Finney, Mook and Podesta all got grilled on Sunday for basically saying they had no idea where their candidate stood on it. Presto, Hillary.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I can't link it right now but I saw some polling results earlier that had Hillary up 54% to 12% in

Iowa over Bernie but only up 44% to 32% on him in New Hampshire. Warren must be wearing out a pair of moccasins kicking herself in the butt over not running.

No she isn't because the polling never showed her better than about 12% against Hillary nationally. Bernie may do well in New

Hampshire as New England area voters are familiar with him, but as I have stated previously, there is no way the Democrats will ever nominate a 74 year old avowed Socialist. Not

gonna happen.

I agree that a 74 year old Socialist isn't going to win the nomination but that is my point. A 74 year old Socialist with almost no money and no name recognition is polling well against Hillary and drawing crowds. If he can do this just imagine how well Warren could have done. She has much better name recognition and could have tapped into some deep pockets. There certainly seems to be a large and enthusiastic populist segment of Democratric primary voters that want no part of Hillary. I think Warren would have formidable.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Bernie Sanders is like the latest Floyd Mayweather opponent: between now and January there's going to be a lot of buildup and hype, but it's all designed to get you to shell out money for the Pay Per View.

You should check the records. Mayweather has 48 fights on his record.

Hillary is 2-1. She has beat two tomato cans in her home ring, and lost to an eventual world champ in a match for a chance at the title. She was caught trying to hit below the belt in a desperate attempt to win.

Sanders is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-5. He's knocked out incumbents or flipped seats three times in his career IIRC. He's known as a clean fighter, good fundamentals and footwork.

 

[timschochet]

45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/index.html

After not mentioning the TPP in her relaunch speech Hillary has now come out and said she doesn't know what's in it so she can't say she's for it. She also won't say she's against it, exactly, but she opposes it now because she can't say she knows what's in it. Though she used to put it out there as one of her accomplishments. But she's also not calling for it be to published, oh no.

No, she's waited until after the vote, and after her speech, and after Finney, Mook and Podesta all got grilled on Sunday for basically saying they had no idea where their candidate stood on it. Presto, Hillary.

In her book she wrote that she was in favor of the general idea, but couldn't say whether she would be ultimately for the final deal until she read all of the details for herself.

Is this an unreasonable position?

 

[timschochet]

Bernie Sanders is like the latest Floyd Mayweather opponent: between now and January there's going to be a lot of buildup and hype, but it's all designed to get you to shell out money for the Pay Per View.

You should check the records. Mayweather has 48 fights on his record.

Hillary is 2-1. She has beat two tomato cans in her home ring, and lost to an eventual world champ in a match for a chance at the title. She was caught trying to hit below the belt in a desperate attempt to win.

Sanders is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-5. He's knocked out incumbents or flipped seats three times in his career IIRC. He's known as a clean fighter, good fundamentals and footwork.

OK. Sounds like you're ready to pay for the fight.

If you want to pay for it, I'll come over and watch. But I'm not paying for it myself. (This is my approach with all Mayweather fights.)

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/index.html

After not mentioning the TPP in her relaunch speech Hillary has now come out and said she doesn't know what's in it so she can't say she's for it. She also won't say she's against it, exactly, but she opposes it now because she can't say she knows what's in it. Though she used to put it out there as one of her accomplishments. But she's also not calling for it be to published, oh no.

No, she's waited until after the vote, and after her speech, and after Finney, Mook and Podesta all got grilled on Sunday for basically saying they had no idea where their candidate stood on it. Presto, Hillary.

In her book she wrote that she was in favor of the general idea, but couldn't say whether she would be ultimately for the final deal until she read all of the details for herself.

Is this an unreasonable position?

Yes, yes, it is. Do you really think there is anything in it that the WH won't tell her? She helped write it, she has seen most of it, she knows what's in it better than most, or should. She certainly felt strongly enough about its text and goals to speak in favor of it starting in 2010 and continuing for four years. Please.

 

[squistion]

I can't link it right now but I saw some polling results earlier that had Hillary up 54% to 12% in

Iowa over Bernie but only up 44% to 32% on him in New Hampshire. Warren must be wearing out a pair of moccasins kicking herself in the butt over not running.

No she isn't because the polling never showed her better than about 12% against Hillary nationally. Bernie may do well in New

Hampshire as New England area voters are familiar with him, but as I have stated previously, there is no way the Democrats will ever nominate a 74 year old avowed Socialist. Not

gonna happen.

I agree that a 74 year old Socialist isn't going to win the nomination but that is my point. A 74 year old Socialist with almost no money and no name recognition is polling well against Hillary and drawing crowds. If he can do this just imagine how well Warren could have done. She has much better name recognition and could have tapped into some deep pockets. There certainly seems to be a large and enthusiastic populist segment of Democratric primary voters that want no part of Hillary. I think Warren would have formidable.

OK, I think you made some good points here, but Elizabeth Warren would never run even knowing what you think she knows now. I don't feel like finding the Kos link for the 10th time, but Kos knows Warren personally and has said that she had to be dragged kicking and screaming to run for the Senate in small state like Massachusetts where she could campaign anywhere and be in her own bed at night. Insiders say that she simply does not have the stomach to run for national office, so this has always pretty much been a non-starter.

 

[timschochet]

45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/index.html

After not mentioning the TPP in her relaunch speech Hillary has now come out and said she doesn't know what's in it so she can't say she's for it. She also won't say she's against it, exactly, but she opposes it now because she can't say she knows what's in it. Though she used to put it out there as one of her accomplishments. But she's also not calling for it be to published, oh no.

No, she's waited until after the vote, and after her speech, and after Finney, Mook and Podesta all got grilled on Sunday for basically saying they had no idea where their candidate stood on it. Presto, Hillary.

In her book she wrote that she was in favor of the general idea, but couldn't say whether she would be ultimately for the final deal until she read all of the details for herself.

Is this an unreasonable position?

Yes, yes, it is. Do you really think there is anything in it that the WH won't tell her? She helped write it, she has seen most of it, she knows what's in it better than most, or should. She certainly felt strongly enough about its text and goals to speak in favor of it starting in 2010 and continuing for four years. Please.

Well, I agree with you.



She's being ridiculous.

 

[The Commish]

45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/index.html

After not mentioning the TPP in her relaunch speech Hillary has now come out and said she doesn't know what's in it so she can't say she's for it. She also won't say she's against it, exactly, but she opposes it now because she can't say she knows what's in it. Though she used to put it out there as one of her accomplishments. But she's also not calling for it be to published, oh no.

No, she's waited until after the vote, and after her speech, and after Finney, Mook and Podesta all got grilled on Sunday for basically saying they had no idea where their candidate stood on it. Presto, Hillary.

In her book she wrote that she was in favor of the general idea, but couldn't say whether she would be ultimately for the final deal until she read all of the details for herself.

Is this an unreasonable position?

We must keep in mind the loosest definitions of "position" when speaking of Hillary. Again....the positions are fine. The problem is holding multiple positions at various different times depending on the audience. That's always been her problem. Since it's in her book are we suppose to believe that's her actual position, triple stamp, no take backs? You're naive if you go down that rabbit hole. Almost as naive as those who believe she doesn't know what's in it. This thing started under her watch didn't it? She probably knows better than a lot what's in it. If she doesn't what does that say about her?

 

[RCon]

Bernie Sanders is like the latest Floyd Mayweather opponent: between now and January there's going to be a lot of buildup and hype, but it's all designed to get you to shell out money for the Pay Per View.

Like this? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116448/

 

[RCon]

Bernie Sanders is like the latest Floyd Mayweather opponent: between now and January there's going to be a lot of buildup and hype, but it's all designed to get you to shell out money for the Pay Per View.

You should check the records. Mayweather has 48 fights on his record.

Hillary is 2-1. She has beat two tomato cans in her home ring, and lost to an eventual world champ in a match for a chance at the title. She was caught trying to hit below the belt in a desperate attempt to win.

Sanders is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-5. He's knocked out incumbents or flipped seats three times in his career IIRC. He's known as a clean fighter, good fundamentals and footwork.

OK. Sounds like you're ready to pay for the fight.

If you want to pay for it, I'll come over and watch. But I'm not paying for it myself. (This is my approach with all Mayweather fights.)

My approach is to bet on Mayweather to win a unanimous decision. Better odds than a straight up victory, and usually works out. Somehow, Mayweather was -200 against Pac, but +140 to win a unanimous decision...

I think Hilary will win a big decision as well.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Bernie Sanders is like the latest Floyd Mayweather opponent: between now and January there's going to be a lot of buildup and hype, but it's all designed to get you to shell out money for the Pay Per View.

You should check the records. Mayweather has 48 fights on his record.

Hillary is 2-1. She has beat two tomato cans in her home ring, and lost to an eventual world champ in a match for a chance at the title. She was caught trying to hit below the belt in a desperate attempt to win.

Sanders is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-5. He's knocked out incumbents or flipped seats three times in his career IIRC. He's known as a clean fighter, good fundamentals and footwork.

OK. Sounds like you're ready to pay for the fight.

If you want to pay for it, I'll come over and watch. But I'm not paying for it myself. (This is my approach with all Mayweather fights.)

I'm going to pay for a fight where a 2-1 boxer is promoted as Floyd Mayweather? Where do I file my petition for consumer fraud?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Bernie Sanders is like the latest Floyd Mayweather opponent: between now and January there's going to be a lot of buildup and hype, but it's all designed to get you to shell out money for the Pay Per View.

Like this? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116448/

Sounds like Gerrie Coetzee.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary's Uninspiring AgendaThe Democratic frontrunner launches her candidacy with a speech that’s long on proposals, short on enthusiasm.

...The occasion itself was a strange one. Saturday's speech was, according to Clinton's campaign, a “launch,” yet Clinton announced her candidacy two months ago. Was she hoping to start over? Certainly not, her staff insisted—everything, they say, is going just fine, terrifically even. The chairman of Clinton's campaign, John Podesta, resorted to a baseball metaphor to explain the double beginning: “We've had spring training,” he said. “Now it's opening day.”

...

Since declaring herself a candidate in April, Clinton has puttered along—making discreet forays into Iowa and New Hampshire, appearing at a smattering of fundraisers. She has taken stands, selectively, on hot-button issues, notably immigration, criminal justice, and voting rights—in all three cases, articulating meaty, liberal policy stances—while avoiding wading into issues that have badly divided her party, like free trade or the prospect of escalating intervention in the Middle East. She has studiously ignored or waved off the swirling controversies about her use of email and the finances of the Clinton Foundation. She has listened.

In keeping with the campaign so far, Saturday's speech was quite substantive and quite liberal. It was also quite flat. Clinton read it slowly off the teleprompter, articulating every word, sometimes with odd emphasis, in a near-monotone. Clinton spoke in Four Freedoms Park, a locale chosen for its symbolic freight. It was a surprisingly small venue that did not quite fill up; an area set up for overflow with a large TV screen remained vacant.

...For the most part, Clinton’s was a speech that could have been given, with very little modification, by almost any Democratic Senate candidate. There was the hard-luck story by proxy, in this case her mother's abandonment at the hands of Clinton's grandparents. There was the invocation of the American spirit (resilience, determination). There were paeans to small businesses and the importance of family. An accusation that Republicans belong to the past, delivered as an excruciatingly corny riff on the Beatles (“They believe in yesterday!”). “It's America's basic bargain: If you do your part, you ought to be able to get ahead,” said Clinton and seemingly every other candidate you've ever heard give a speech.

...

Clinton’s advisers worry about the lack of passion the candidate elicits, but Saturday's speech was so non-rousing as to make one wonder whether that wasn't intentional—was it an attempt to bring Clinton down to earth, to make her ordinary? To deflate the aura of fame that clings to her and turn her into just another candidate, one who is solid and sensible and not too flashy, with lots of concrete plans?

Clinton tried this tack before, in 2008, when she tried in vain to convince Democratic voters that Barack Obama was all style and no substance. But this time, she is hoping she won't have that kind of competition. On my way into Saturday's rally, I ran into Charlie Rangel, the scandal-ridden Harlem representative, still going strong at 85. I asked him how he thought Hillary's campaign was going, and he laughed.

“Well, who's she competing against?” he said. Technically, there are three other declared Democratic candidates, but Clinton leads them in the polls by an average of 48 percentage points. Rangel said he did not know anyone who regarded them as real competition to Clinton. “She's doing exceptionally well,” Rangel said, “in a one-man race.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/hillary-clinton-speech/395813/

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Maybe she's Apollo Creed.

A second poll, Suffolk, shows Bernie within 10 points in NH now, which is +2 from the last poll. It's really early for him to be that close and he has moved fast.

Hillary is actually ***trailing among Demo men 35-32.