Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (5 Viewers)

[rct]

Damn...I gotta brush the rust off. Been a while since I've been in a political thread. When did stock market performance become analogous to "the economy" as a whole? How'd I miss that one?

It became that way when Obama took office. Prior to the crash when the stock market was recovering from the 9/11 attacks, those very same people that embrace now it as THE indicator of Obama's success were the same ones that wouldn't give credit to Bush.

I believe their reasoning back then was "The president has very little affect on the stock market". Funny how that's now changed.

Yes, there is absolutely no connection between the economy and the stock market. Studies have shown this since 1929...oh, wait...

 

[Fennis]

I think she embraces, but she doesn't have to. All she has to do is respond- every Republican candidate has promised to repeal Obamacare. Even the threat of that will help to solidify Hillary's support among Latinos, whom polls show are very happy with ACA.

All Hillary has to say is: "We've been fighting over healthcare for the last 8 years. Do you really want to go back to that? If I'm elected I might try to tweak Obamacare a little and make it better. But if my opponent wins he'll try to repeal it and then the whole fight starts all over again. Is that what you want? Or can we move forward rather than backwards?" Etc.

Gop has embraced both sides as well. The basic message from them is I want to repeal Obamacare, but my plan will include every benefit Obamacare has

 

[timschochet]

I think she embraces, but she doesn't have to. All she has to do is respond- every Republican candidate has promised to repeal Obamacare. Even the threat of that will help to solidify Hillary's support among Latinos, whom polls show are very happy with ACA.

All Hillary has to say is: "We've been fighting over healthcare for the last 8 years. Do you really want to go back to that? If I'm elected I might try to tweak Obamacare a little and make it better. But if my opponent wins he'll try to repeal it and then the whole fight starts all over again. Is that what you want? Or can we move forward rather than backwards?" Etc.

Gop has embraced both sides as well. The basic message from them is I want to repeal Obamacare, but my plan will include every benefit Obamacare has

not really. There is no coherent Republican "plan" but the closest ones I've seen all involve giving tax credits to people with pre-existing conditions. If the SC rules against ACA this summer it's going to be a mess, but politically it will hurt Republicans far worse than Democrats.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Damn...I gotta brush the rust off. Been a while since I've been in a political thread. When did stock market performance become analogous to "the economy" as a whole? How'd I miss that one?

It became that way when Obama took office. Prior to the crash when the stock market was recovering from the 9/11 attacks, those very same people that embrace now it as THE indicator of Obama's success were the same ones that wouldn't give credit to Bush.

I believe their reasoning back then was "The president has very little affect on the stock market". Funny how that's now changed.

Yes, there is absolutely no connection between the economy and the stock market. Studies have shown this since 1929...oh, wait...

Whether it IS or ISN'T is irrelevant. It's not being applied evenly by the left. If you say the Stock Market is an indicator of success and you're going to give a Democrat credit then when it improves under a Republican you MUST give him credit as well.

 

[rct]

Damn...I gotta brush the rust off. Been a while since I've been in a political thread. When did stock market performance become analogous to "the economy" as a whole? How'd I miss that one?

It became that way when Obama took office. Prior to the crash when the stock market was recovering from the 9/11 attacks, those very same people that embrace now it as THE indicator of Obama's success were the same ones that wouldn't give credit to Bush.

I believe their reasoning back then was "The president has very little affect on the stock market". Funny how that's now changed.

Yes, there is absolutely no connection between the economy and the stock market. Studies have shown this since 1929...oh, wait...

Whether it IS or ISN'T is irrelevant. It's not being applied evenly by the left. If you say the Stock Market is an indicator of success and you're going to give a Democrat credit then when it improves under a Republican you MUST give him credit as well.

And who can forget that booming stock market under George Bush?

 

[Fennis]

I think she embraces, but she doesn't have to. All she has to do is respond- every Republican candidate has promised to repeal Obamacare. Even the threat of that will help to solidify Hillary's support among Latinos, whom polls show are very happy with ACA.

All Hillary has to say is: "We've been fighting over healthcare for the last 8 years. Do you really want to go back to that? If I'm elected I might try to tweak Obamacare a little and make it better. But if my opponent wins he'll try to repeal it and then the whole fight starts all over again. Is that what you want? Or can we move forward rather than backwards?" Etc.

Gop has embraced both sides as well. The basic message from them is I want to repeal Obamacare, but my plan will include every benefit Obamacare has

not really. There is no coherent Republican "plan" but the closest ones I've seen all involve giving tax credits to people with pre-existing conditions.If the SC rules against ACA this summer it's going to be a mess, but politically it will hurt Republicans far worse than Democrats.

coherent plans are not how people get elected president

 

[timschochet]

Max you worry too much about quid pro quo. Why not just begin with accepting that both sides are equally hypocritical in that they will praise their own side and ignore when the other side does something good, and they will criticize the other side and ignore when their own side does something bad. If everyone would just admit this was true it would save us all a lot of time.

 

[The Commish]

Damn...I gotta brush the rust off. Been a while since I've been in a political thread. When did stock market performance become analogous to "the economy" as a whole? How'd I miss that one?

It became that way when Obama took office. Prior to the crash when the stock market was recovering from the 9/11 attacks, those very same people that embrace now it as THE indicator of Obama's success were the same ones that wouldn't give credit to Bush.

I believe their reasoning back then was "The president has very little affect on the stock market". Funny how that's now changed.

Yes, there is absolutely no connection between the economy and the stock market. Studies have shown this since 1929...oh, wait...

Don't be such a donkey. Though I'd get why you want to build the strawman in lieu of answering the question. What I don't get is why you'd rush to defend comments not your own. Just let those individuals answer. You're really not helping with this kind of crap.

 

[The Commish]

I think she embraces, but she doesn't have to. All she has to do is respond- every Republican candidate has promised to repeal Obamacare. Even the threat of that will help to solidify Hillary's support among Latinos, whom polls show are very happy with ACA.

All Hillary has to say is: "We've been fighting over healthcare for the last 8 years. Do you really want to go back to that? If I'm elected I might try to tweak Obamacare a little and make it better. But if my opponent wins he'll try to repeal it and then the whole fight starts all over again. Is that what you want? Or can we move forward rather than backwards?" Etc.

Gop has embraced both sides as well. The basic message from them is I want to repeal Obamacare, but my plan will include every benefit Obamacare has

I'd really like to see the plans of the guys on the right. In reality, the significant differences in plans up to obamacare were around funding. There's no need for them to repeal obamacare. Changing the funding mechanism would be my focus if I were them.

 

[The Commish]

Max you worry too much about quid pro quo. Why not just begin with accepting that both sides are equally hypocritical in that they will praise their own side and ignore when the other side does something good, and they will criticize the other side and ignore when their own side does something bad. If everyone would just admit this was true it would save us all a lot of time.

OR, we could not ignore it and change this via the voting booth. I've never understood the "just accept this bad behavior as it's how politics go in this country" shtick. Taking this approach puts us in the position we're in right now and it's really not ideal.

 

[rct]

Damn...I gotta brush the rust off. Been a while since I've been in a political thread. When did stock market performance become analogous to "the economy" as a whole? How'd I miss that one?

It became that way when Obama took office. Prior to the crash when the stock market was recovering from the 9/11 attacks, those very same people that embrace now it as THE indicator of Obama's success were the same ones that wouldn't give credit to Bush.

I believe their reasoning back then was "The president has very little affect on the stock market". Funny how that's now changed.

Yes, there is absolutely no connection between the economy and the stock market. Studies have shown this since 1929...oh, wait...

Don't be such a donkey. Though I'd get why you want to build the strawman in lieu of answering the question. What I don't get is why you'd rush to defend comments not your own. Just let those individuals answer. You're really not helping with this kind of crap.

Just pointing out the obvious.

 

[The Commish]

Damn...I gotta brush the rust off. Been a while since I've been in a political thread. When did stock market performance become analogous to "the economy" as a whole? How'd I miss that one?

It became that way when Obama took office. Prior to the crash when the stock market was recovering from the 9/11 attacks, those very same people that embrace now it as THE indicator of Obama's success were the same ones that wouldn't give credit to Bush.

I believe their reasoning back then was "The president has very little affect on the stock market". Funny how that's now changed.

Yes, there is absolutely no connection between the economy and the stock market. Studies have shown this since 1929...oh, wait...

Don't be such a donkey. Though I'd get why you want to build the strawman in lieu of answering the question. What I don't get is why you'd rush to defend comments not your own. Just let those individuals answer. You're really not helping with this kind of crap.

Just pointing out the obvious.

We really don't need any more "obvious" strawmen....tia.

 

[rct]

Damn...I gotta brush the rust off. Been a while since I've been in a political thread. When did stock market performance become analogous to "the economy" as a whole? How'd I miss that one?

It became that way when Obama took office. Prior to the crash when the stock market was recovering from the 9/11 attacks, those very same people that embrace now it as THE indicator of Obama's success were the same ones that wouldn't give credit to Bush.

I believe their reasoning back then was "The president has very little affect on the stock market". Funny how that's now changed.

Yes, there is absolutely no connection between the economy and the stock market. Studies have shown this since 1929...oh, wait...

Don't be such a donkey. Though I'd get why you want to build the strawman in lieu of answering the question. What I don't get is why you'd rush to defend comments not your own. Just let those individuals answer. You're really not helping with this kind of crap.

Just pointing out the obvious.

We really don't need any more "obvious" strawmen....tia.

When did you become one of the mods? TIA.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Max you worry too much about quid pro quo. Why not just begin with accepting that both sides are equally hypocritical in that they will praise their own side and ignore when the other side does something good, and they will criticize the other side and ignore when their own side does something bad. If everyone would just admit this was true it would save us all a lot of time.

Tim, you really don't care about political corruption, quid pro quo is the heart of what's wrong with our politics today, and no not all pols do it equally. The difference is in the willingness to prosecute and the availability of emails and other public records in order to do that.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Max you worry too much about quid pro quo. Why not just begin with accepting that both sides are equally hypocritical in that they will praise their own side and ignore when the other side does something good, and they will criticize the other side and ignore when their own side does something bad. If everyone would just admit this was true it would save us all a lot of time.

This simply isn't true though. A first term Congressman was just forced to resign because of corruption and he received zero support from Republicans. Republicans seem much more willing to bury their own when the corruption or wrongdoing is obvious than Democrats. How much support did Ted Stevens receive? And yet it turned out that he was actually found not guilty and the prosecutors were reprimanded for misconduct. Same thing with Tom Delay.

 

[The Commish]

When did you become one of the mods? TIA.

oooooo.....buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurn

So glad another big election cycle is rolling up. Brings them out of the woodwork AND provides some much needed entertainment until the football season starts. Keep up the good work!

 

[Rove!]

If not for a fawning press, she would be considered a joke candidate. Lightest of the light. No accomplishments to speak off, just failures and corruption. She's not even a good liar.

 

[rct]

When did you become one of the mods? TIA.

oooooo.....buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurn So glad another big election cycle is rolling up. Brings them out of the woodwork AND provides some much needed entertainment until the football season starts. Keep up the good work!

Nothing will be more entertaining than watching conservative heads explode after Hillary wins the nomination and polls show her leading her GOP challenger. And, of course, that will be topped by election night that November.

 

[The Commish]

When did you become one of the mods? TIA.

oooooo.....buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurn So glad another big election cycle is rolling up. Brings them out of the woodwork AND provides some much needed entertainment until the football season starts. Keep up the good work!

Nothing will be more entertaining than watching conservative heads explode after Hillary wins the nomination and polls show her leading all GOP challengers. And, of course, that will be topped by election night that November.

So you're gonna quit trying? Personally, this sort of entertainment has worn thin for me. It's gotten old quickly. It was awesome the first time around with Obama and McCain and lost a lot of it's luster with Romney. The two party system's played out and bordering on pathetic. If this one's close, the Dems should be ashamed.

 

[timschochet]

Max you worry too much about quid pro quo. Why not just begin with accepting that both sides are equally hypocritical in that they will praise their own side and ignore when the other side does something good, and they will criticize the other side and ignore when their own side does something bad. If everyone would just admit this was true it would save us all a lot of time.

Tim, you really don't care about political corruption, quid pro quo is the heart of what's wrong with our politics today, and no not all pols do it equally. The difference is in the willingness to prosecute and the availability of emails and other public records in order to do that.

I think you and the Commish missed my point here. I wasn't talking about corruption. If you catch somebody being corrupt, you investigate, and if it's proven, convict or kick them out or both. My comment was in reply to the accusation, made by Max and Grove Diesel, that liberals look the other way and conservatives don't, that conservatives are willing to attack their own and liberals aren't. My experience is both sides are equally guilty of this, despite Grove Diesel's anecdotes.

 

[timschochet]

And as far as your point about corruption, Saints, you'd have to agree that both sides will use the possible hint of corruption in order to pursue a political agenda. In fact, it's very hard for me (and I'm guessing, for a whole lot of people) to accept ANY charges of corruption against Hillary Clinton because there have been so many things in the past and they've all proven to be, over time, either completely false or highly exaggerated by her political enemies. There never seems to be anything there.

For example, you yourself pushed and pushed about Benghazi; you implied, you posted every charge made, you questioned every action, you called for investigations- and the government has spent untold millions and found nothing. She did nothing wrong. Yet there are still investigations going on. At this point, Benghazi isn't about political corruption or incompetence, it's about GETTING Hillary Clinton. And I think that sucks.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And as far as your point about corruption, Saints, you'd have to agree that both sides will use the possible hint of corruption in order to pursue a political agenda. In fact, it's very hard for me (and I'm guessing, for a whole lot of people) to accept ANY charges of corruption against Hillary Clinton because there have been so many things in the past and they've all proven to be, over time, either completely false or highly exaggerated by her political enemies. There never seems to be anything there.

For example, you yourself pushed and pushed about Benghazi; you implied, you posted every charge made, you questioned every action, you called for investigations- and the government has spent untold millions and found nothing. She did nothing wrong. Yet there are still investigations going on. At this point, Benghazi isn't about political corruption or incompetence, it's about GETTING Hillary Clinton. And I think that sucks.

Uh, glad to discuss the corruption issue - I was going to agree with you on libs/cons except that liberals (maybe understandably) view give/take (at least on an official level) part of the "political" process.

Not going to discuss the Libya issue here, there's a thread for that, and I'm glad to discuss there, but I think you would like to drag this somewhere which really doesn't represent my POV on it. If you're looking for that I would just sat that what happened in Libya is what we saw repeated in Sa'naa in Yemen under Kerry, the only difference being that in Yemen the militia "kindly" allowed our troops to leave in humiliating fashion and not kill everyone in the compound.

 

[The Commish]

Max you worry too much about quid pro quo. Why not just begin with accepting that both sides are equally hypocritical in that they will praise their own side and ignore when the other side does something good, and they will criticize the other side and ignore when their own side does something bad. If everyone would just admit this was true it would save us all a lot of time.

Tim, you really don't care about political corruption, quid pro quo is the heart of what's wrong with our politics today, and no not all pols do it equally. The difference is in the willingness to prosecute and the availability of emails and other public records in order to do that.

I think you and the Commish missed my point here. I wasn't talking about corruption. If you catch somebody being corrupt, you investigate, and if it's proven, convict or kick them out or both. My comment was in reply to the accusation, made by Max and Grove Diesel, that liberals look the other way and conservatives don't, that conservatives are willing to attack their own and liberals aren't. My experience is both sides are equally guilty of this, despite Grove Diesel's anecdotes.

I wasn't talking about corruption either. I was talking about this "well, both sides do it so I guess I should just accept it" attitude in your initial post. That attitude is a big part of the reason this country's in the situation it's in.

 

[Fennis]

Max you worry too much about quid pro quo. Why not just begin with accepting that both sides are equally hypocritical in that they will praise their own side and ignore when the other side does something good, and they will criticize the other side and ignore when their own side does something bad. If everyone would just admit this was true it would save us all a lot of time.

This simply isn't true though. A first term Congressman was just forced to resign because of corruption and he received zero support from Republicans. Republicans seem much more willing to bury their own when the corruption or wrongdoing is obvious than Democrats. How much support did Ted Stevens receive? And yet it turned out that he was actually found not guilty and the prosecutors were reprimanded for misconduct. Same thing with Tom Delay.

do you really think the treatment of a first term congressman vs a long time senator is a fair comparison? or does it just fit your narrative?

 

[GroveDiesel]

Max you worry too much about quid pro quo. Why not just begin with accepting that both sides are equally hypocritical in that they will praise their own side and ignore when the other side does something good, and they will criticize the other side and ignore when their own side does something bad. If everyone would just admit this was true it would save us all a lot of time.

This simply isn't true though. A first term Congressman was just forced to resign because of corruption and he received zero support from Republicans. Republicans seem much more willing to bury their own when the corruption or wrongdoing is obvious than Democrats. How much support did Ted Stevens receive? And yet it turned out that he was actually found not guilty and the prosecutors were reprimanded for misconduct. Same thing with Tom Delay.

do you really think the treatment of a first term congressman vs a long time senator is a fair comparison? or does it just fit your narrative?

Pretty sure Stevens and Delay were long time. Or is their inclusion in my post inconvenient enough for you that you chose to just ignore them?

 

[FlapJacks]

When did you become one of the mods? TIA.

oooooo.....buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurn So glad another big election cycle is rolling up. Brings them out of the woodwork AND provides some much needed entertainment until the football season starts. Keep up the good work!

Nothing will be more entertaining than watching conservative heads explode after Hillary wins the nomination and polls show her leading her GOP challenger. And, of course, that will be topped by election night that November.

It might be more entertaining watching her supporters contort all logic and reason defending their choice rather than coming out and admitting that she's just a total mess....

 

[Jim11]

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

https://vine.co/v/ezuQmYE3uiE

 

[shadrap]

pathetic, just pathetic. Reminds of Barack making everyone wear a white coat, insinuating they were all doctors.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040482/Campaign-staff-DROVE-ordinary-Iowans-Hillary-s-campaign-stop-including-health-care-lobbyist-training-Obama-campaign-intern-Biden-chauffeur.html

 

[shadrap]

still gagging, just so so phony.

 

[timschochet]

pathetic, just pathetic. Reminds of Barack making everyone wear a white coat, insinuating they were all doctors.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040482/Campaign-staff-DROVE-ordinary-Iowans-Hillary-s-campaign-stop-including-health-care-lobbyist-training-Obama-campaign-intern-Biden-chauffeur.html

Yesterday on the news I saw interviews with several Iowans who had met her or were about to meet her. Was it all fake?

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

If Jeb's brother was never President he would crush her in the general election.

 

[timschochet]

If Jeb's brother was never President he would crush her in the general election.

i doubt it.

 

[jon_mx]

Can we just annoint Hillar now? Why do we even bother with elections?

 

[skol asylum]

If Jeb's brother was never President he would crush her in the general election.

Why do you love corruption?

http://www.ibtimes.com/jeb-bushs-administration-steered-florida-pension-money-george-w-bushs-fundraisers-1880592

 

[shadrap]

pathetic, just pathetic. Reminds of Barack making everyone wear a white coat, insinuating they were all doctors.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040482/Campaign-staff-DROVE-ordinary-Iowans-Hillary-s-campaign-stop-including-health-care-lobbyist-training-Obama-campaign-intern-Biden-chauffeur.html

Yesterday on the news I saw interviews with several Iowans who had met her or were about to meet her. Was it all fake?

No, just enough to make me gag.

 

[timschochet]

Can we just annoint Hillar now? Why do we even bother with elections?

Anxious are we?

 

[Mister CIA]

Can we just annoint Hillar now? Why do we even bother with elections?

Come on, elections are really not about electing people. Let's complete transactions to the tune of many billions before Hillary loads up the truck and moves into the White House.

 

[avoiding injuries]

pathetic, just pathetic. Reminds of Barack making everyone wear a white coat, insinuating they were all doctors.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040482/Campaign-staff-DROVE-ordinary-Iowans-Hillary-s-campaign-stop-including-health-care-lobbyist-training-Obama-campaign-intern-Biden-chauffeur.html

Yesterday on the news I saw interviews with several Iowans who had met her or were about to meet her. Was it all fake?

I don't know. Was there proof that they were planted too? Your question in response to that post doesn't make sense.

 

[timschochet]

pathetic, just pathetic. Reminds of Barack making everyone wear a white coat, insinuating they were all doctors.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040482/Campaign-staff-DROVE-ordinary-Iowans-Hillary-s-campaign-stop-including-health-care-lobbyist-training-Obama-campaign-intern-Biden-chauffeur.html

Yesterday on the news I saw interviews with several Iowans who had met her or were about to meet her. Was it all fake?

I don't know. Was there proof that they were planted too? Your question in response to that post doesn't make sense.

She went to Iowa supposedly to talk to "regular folks" about what was important to them. Did that happen or not?

 

[avoiding injuries]

pathetic, just pathetic. Reminds of Barack making everyone wear a white coat, insinuating they were all doctors.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040482/Campaign-staff-DROVE-ordinary-Iowans-Hillary-s-campaign-stop-including-health-care-lobbyist-training-Obama-campaign-intern-Biden-chauffeur.html

Yesterday on the news I saw interviews with several Iowans who had met her or were about to meet her. Was it all fake?

I don't know. Was there proof that they were planted too? Your question in response to that post doesn't make sense.

She went to Iowa supposedly to talk to "regular folks" about what was important to them. Did that happen or not?

You read the link in irishidiot's post and this is your question?

 

[timschochet]

It's only been 2 days and the amount of scrutiny is off the charts. We know the nickname of Hillary's van. We know what's in the van (Sean Hannity had a long diatribe yesterday about all the luxuries in the van.) we know where she stopped for lunch and what she ate for lunch. Now there are articles about the people she met and accusations that some were planted. And we're 18 months away from the election and the woman has no real competition in her own party. Yet even FOX is spending twice as much time on Hillary than on all the GOP candidates combined.

What did that guy say about Duke and March Madness years ago? Hillary is Duke. She may not have the great charisma of her husband or Obama, she may not be as likable or as good a politician, but in terms of generating constant attention, I've never seen her equal.

 

[jon_mx]

If Jeb's brother was never President he would crush her in the general election.

Why do you love corruption?

http://www.ibtimes.com/jeb-bushs-administration-steered-florida-pension-money-george-w-bushs-fundraisers-1880592

This has to be one of the dumbest stories. New York just invested $2 billion in Goldman Sachs funds....and Goldman Sachs is one of the top doners to Hillary, Cuomo and Obama.....oooooooo, corruption!!!!!

 

[shadrap]

Anybody here really believe that Hillary cares about what a regular person thinks?

 

[timschochet]

Anybody here really believe that Hillary cares about what a regular person thinks?

yeah.

 

[mcintyre1]

pathetic, just pathetic. Reminds of Barack making everyone wear a white coat, insinuating they were all doctors.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040482/Campaign-staff-DROVE-ordinary-Iowans-Hillary-s-campaign-stop-including-health-care-lobbyist-training-Obama-campaign-intern-Biden-chauffeur.html

Yesterday on the news I saw interviews with several Iowans who had met her or were about to meet her. Was it all fake?

I don't know. Was there proof that they were planted too? Your question in response to that post doesn't make sense.

She went to Iowa supposedly to talk to "regular folks" about what was important to them. Did that happen or not?

Probably a pointless anecdote, but I was attending college in Iowa for the 2008 caucus and we were a fairly large campaign stop for all of the democratic candidates. I had the luck to listen to and shake hands with Obama, Bill Clinton, Edwards, and Bill Richardson. Now, you may ask "Why not Hillary?" Well, we had the 'misfortune' of having been the school whose student blabbed to the media about Hillary's campaign telling her what question to ask at an event. After that story broke, Hillary never once stepped on campus. Instead, she sent her husband Bill to pander to our young, liberal hearts. Unsurprisingly, when we caucused in January '08, she had almost zero support. Given that we were the single largest precinct sending delegates to the state convention, that was probably a bad move on her part.

 

[Hang 10]

Anybody here really believe that Hillary cares about what a regular person thinks?

yeah.

Then why stage this garbage? She's a phony.

 

[McGarnicle]

I guess the problem I have with Hillary is her face and her voice and everything she says and she's a phony liar. Are we really going to have her on TV every day for the next 19 months? No way America can stomach that, right? Please? It's almost surreal that this is coming to fruition right now. Can the email thing knock her out of the race?

 

[timschochet]

I guess the problem I have with Hillary is her face and her voice and everything she says and she's a phony liar. Are we really going to have her on TV every day for the next 19 months? No way America can stomach that, right? Please? It's almost surreal that this is coming to fruition right now. Can the email thing knock her out of the race?

1. yep. 2. They're goons have to.

3. Nope.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

pathetic, just pathetic. Reminds of Barack making everyone wear a white coat, insinuating they were all doctors.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040482/Campaign-staff-DROVE-ordinary-Iowans-Hillary-s-campaign-stop-including-health-care-lobbyist-training-Obama-campaign-intern-Biden-chauffeur.html

Yesterday on the news I saw interviews with several Iowans who had met her or were about to meet her. Was it all fake?

I don't know. Was there proof that they were planted too? Your question in response to that post doesn't make sense.

She went to Iowa supposedly to talk to "regular folks" about what was important to them. Did that happen or not?

Probably a pointless anecdote, but I was attending college in Iowa for the 2008 caucus and we were a fairly large campaign stop for all of the democratic candidates. I had the luck to listen to and shake hands with Obama, Bill Clinton, Edwards, and Bill Richardson. Now, you may ask "Why not Hillary?" Well, we had the 'misfortune' of having been the school whose student blabbed to the media about Hillary's campaign telling her what question to ask at an event. After that story broke, Hillary never once stepped on campus. Instead, she sent her husband Bill to pander to our young, liberal hearts. Unsurprisingly, when we caucused in January '08, she had almost zero support. Given that we were the single largest precinct sending delegates to the state convention, that was probably a bad move on her part.

You guys are the reason Obama is President.

 

[shadrap]

Anybody here really believe that Hillary cares about what a regular person thinks?

yeah.

A believer. Its cool, but in my jaded mind misguided.