Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (4 Viewers)

[dhockster]

I re-iterate: Whatever you think of Hillary's positions or what kind of job she will do if she were elected President, she is a terrible campaigner.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I re-iterate: Whatever you think of Hillary's positions or what kind of job she will do if she were elected President, she is a terrible campaigner.

Yep. Like the quote in the article, tone deaf.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Now, in Tone Deaf Theater Part II:

Clinton skipping progressive Netroots Nation gatheringHillary Rodham Clinton is skipping a gathering of politically active progressives next month that would have put her on the same stage with her Democratic challengers -- and likely set up unwelcome comparisons with liberal heroine Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

Clinton sent regrets for Netroots Nation, a three-day political conference that is a draw for some of the most ardent progressive activists, because she has previously scheduled speaking events in Iowa and Arkansas, her campaign said.

"Our campaign looks forward to earning the support of the Democrats participating in this conference but Hillary Clinton has scheduling conflicts which will prevent her from attending,” campaign spokesman Jesse Ferguson said. “She wishes them the best on their conference."

Clinton is far and away the Democratic front-runner, with 75 percent of Democratic support in a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll out this week. But she has struggled to gain the enthusiastic backing of the far left, despite running a very left-leaning campaign so far.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), whose strongly progressive campaign platform and straight-ahead style is drawing large crowds, will attend the conference in Phoenix. So will former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who has tried to capitalize on any far-left disaffection by campaigning as a progressive champion and calling Clinton late to the cause.

Sanders and O’Malley will participate in a candidate forum that Clinton was also invited to attend, Netroots spokeswoman Mary Rickles said. Sanders captured 15 percent support in the same WSJ/NBC poll, and O'Malley 2 percent. That suggests Sanders is heir to much of the progressive fervor for Warren, who disappointed some on the left by declining to challenge Clinton for the 2016 nomination.

Warren will also attend the conference. Her fire-breathing attacks on Wall Street made her one of the stars of last year’s Netroot Nations, and she draws large and enthusiastic crowds wherever she speaks. Although she has made no move to reconsider her decision to stay out of the race, Warren still poses a hazard for Clinton. The zeal of Warren's supporters points up the perception, still prevalent on the left, that Clinton is a privileged intimate of the very wealthy.

“I don’t know what her schedule planning is, but I certainly hoped that she would make it,” Rickles said, noting that both Sanders and O’Malley will attend the same Iowa Democratic Party event as Clinton on July 17.

Clinton, however, is committed to an Arkansas Democratic Party dinner on July 18, the day of the scheduled candidate panel.

Asked whether Clinton might be staying away at least in part because she may not feel welcome, Rickles said no. Attendees include some Democrats who support Clinton and some who do not, she said.

“Our people want to hear from her and ask her questions. I expect there will be some attendees who are disappointed she is not there,” Rickles said. “We would welcome her if she’s able to change her schedule.”

Clinton has attended a Netroots event once in 2007. She and then-Sen. Barack Obama were among the Democratic prospects who participated in a similar candidate forum ahead of the 2008 primaries, Rickles said.

About 3,000 activists are expected to attend the 2015 convention.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/24/clinton-skipping-progressive-netroots-nation-gathering/?tid=hpModule_ba0d4c2a-86a2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&wpisrc=nl_daily202&wpmm=1

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But a nagging truth about Clinton lingers. She can come off as tone deaf. It’s a sign of inauthenticity. And she needs to get a handle on it.

Hillary's latest numbers in Bloomberg's polling:

• Iowa: down -7 since May
• NH: down -6 since May

"Do you think the following ... describes Hillary Clinton...?":

• "Is authentic, what you see is what you get" - Iowa: 30%
• "Is authentic, what you see is what you get" - NH: 34%

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-25/bernie-sanders-gains-on-hillary-clinton-in-bloomberg-early-state-polling

 

[Trey]

So all lives don't matter? It's very difficult to keep up these days.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So all lives don't matter? It's very difficult to keep up these days.

Oh no they matter, you just can't say that. Simple.

 

[Trey]

So all lives don't matter? It's very difficult to keep up these days.

Oh no they matter, you just can't say that. Simple.

The world is really passing me by with the PC-ness of every statement.

It's why I find the far left just an unpalatable as the far right.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary Clinton's lead over N.H. Democrats shrinking, poll finds

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-martin-omalley-new-hampshire-poll/index.html

Now, the lead is just 8.

But let's just cut to the chase:

(DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS ONLY “Which Democratic candidate do you think is least honest?

Hillary = 28%

The next worst in the race after her? Lincoln Chafee at 3%.

(DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS ONLY “Which Democratic candidate do you think best represents the values of Democrats like yourself

Hillary = 30%

Bernie Sanders = 41%

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS ONLY Which Democratic candidate do you think cares the most about people like you?

Hillary = 24%

Bernie Sanders = 45%

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Things definitely trending against her in NH and I've heard of no indication that Biden is getting into the race (although he probably should) so his 8% of the vote is up for grabs.

 

[The_Man]

Still setting the over/under at 6 for number of times she will debate Bernie

 

[timschochet]

Still setting the over/under at 6 for number of times she will debate Bernie

All it will take is 1 for 99% of the people here to tell us that Hillary got her clock cleaned by Bernie. He was great, she was wooden. He was genuine, she was fake. He's a man of the people; she's a woman of Wall Street and corporations. It's all so predictable. You guys are begging for a fight, a contest. You repeat to each other how weak she is, how strong Bernie is. You make yourselves believe it. As I wrote before, it's like the hype before every Mayweathwr fight.

 

[timschochet]

Still setting the over/under at 6 for number of times she will debate Bernie

All it will take is 1 for 99% of the people here to tell us that Hillary got her clock cleaned by Bernie. He was great, she was wooden. He was genuine, she was fake. He's a man of the people; she's a woman of Wall Street and corporations.It's all so predictable. You guys are begging for a fight, a contest. You repeat to each other how weak she is, how strong Bernie is. You make yourselves believe it. As I wrote before, it's like the hype before every Mayweathwr fight.

Except Mayweather is undefeated.

If he had had to face Obama he wouldn't be. But there is no Obama on the horizon for Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders is not Obama.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim just a reminder - Obama lost a Congressional race once. The key was and is he is a real politician, he had run state senate races, a congressional race, and a US Senate race previously. Hillary was not that, she fought two tomato cans in a safe state, and she got clocked the first time she got in the ring with a grinder. She does have that experience now in her favor though so there is that.

 

[timschochet]

Tim just a reminder - Obama lost a Congressional race once. The key was and is he is a real politician, he had run state senate races, a congressional race, and a US Senate race previously. Hillary was not that, she fought two tomato cans in a safe state, and she got clocked the first time she got in the ring with a grinder. She does have that experience now in her favor though so there is that.

Obama was magic in 2008. The first black candidate ever who Dems thought had a real chance at winning. Phenomenal speech making ability, matched only by Reagan and Kennedy. Hillary would have beaten anyone else.

As for Bernie, we've seen this story before: Eugene McCarthy, Howard Dean. Intellectual leftist attracts the youth. Gets attention from the media because they want to see a good story. But when the voting actually starts, nowhere to be seen.

But he will continue to be talked up in this forum, because there are so many people here who really can't stand the establishment central candidate, and others who just can't stand Hillary in particular, and others who really want to see a race.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Look she is likely the next president but there is no need to overstate the case with the Mayweather business. She has a lot of advantages, some of them huge. Her skill in the field as a politician is not one of them.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Sanders is doing about 8 points better than Obama same point in 2008 btw.

 

[rockaction]

Or it's the Willy-Nilly Hilly Dilly.

 

[RCon]

Still setting the over/under at 6 for number of times she will debate Bernie

All it will take is 1 for 99% of the people here to tell us that Hillary got her clock cleaned by Bernie. He was great, she was wooden. He was genuine, she was fake. He's a man of the people; she's a woman of Wall Street and corporations.It's all so predictable. You guys are begging for a fight, a contest. You repeat to each other how weak she is, how strong Bernie is. You make yourselves believe it. As I wrote before, it's like the hype before every Mayweathwr fight.

The bolded will probably be entirely accurate. Hillary is wooden, Hillary is fake, and Hillary is a shill for Wall Street.

That said, it won't make a bit of difference in the final score.

 

[Rove!]

Still setting the over/under at 6 for number of times she will debate Bernie

All it will take is 1 for 99% of the people here to tell us that Hillary got her clock cleaned by Bernie. He was great, she was wooden. He was genuine, she was fake. He's a man of the people; she's a woman of Wall Street and corporations.It's all so predictable. You guys are begging for a fight, a contest. You repeat to each other how weak she is, how strong Bernie is. You make yourselves believe it. As I wrote before, it's like the hype before every Mayweathwr fight.

The bolded will probably be entirely accurate. Hillary is wooden, Hillary is fake, and Hillary is a shill for Wall Street.

That said, it won't make a bit of difference in the final score.

every time she opens her mouth, it's like nails on a blackboard.....the strategy to keep her out of the spotlight and run on name recognition and organization is the right strategic move

 

[Ghost Rider]

Look she is likely the next president but there is no need to overstate the case with the Mayweather business. She has a lot of advantages, some of them huge. Her skill in the field as a politician is not one of them.

Nah, it's funny to see him compare Hillary to a serial woman abuser.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

This thread keeps disappointing. I keep thinking you guys are going to discuss something relevant like Hillary v Jeb or Hillary v Rubio. You all suck.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Swing state polling is in from Q'pac:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2234&wpisrc=nl_daily202&wpmm=1

• FLORIDA: Clinton 47 - Rubio 44
• OHIO: Kasich 47 - Clinton 40, Clinton 43 - Paul 43
• PENNSYLVANIA: Rubio 44 - Clinton 43, Paul 45 - Clinton 44

Clinton still leads or is in a too-close-to-call matchup in every race in each state, except for Ohio, where native son Gov. John Kasich leads 47 - 40 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds. The Swing State Poll focuses on Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania because since 1960 no candidate has won the presidential race without taking at least two of these three states.Clinton's favorability ratings are 47 - 45 percent in Florida, negative 44 - 48 percent in Ohio and 46 - 48 percent in Pennsylvania.

She is not honest and trustworthy, Florida voters say 51 - 43 percent, Ohio voters say 53 - 40 percent and Pennsylvania voters say 54 - 40 percent.

"It's a long way until Election Day, but in the critical swing states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida has a tiny edge over the GOP field, "said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac Poll.

"Most of the eight GOP hopefuls are within striking distance of Secretary Hillary Clinton in at least one of the three states. In Ohio, Gov. Kasich leads."

"But perhaps more troubling for her than the continuing slide is how she is perceived by voters who continue to say she is not honest and trustworthy."

"But potentially more disturbing for her are low marks for caring about voter needs and problems. This is where Democrats almost always fare better than Republicans. Yet in this survey many Republican candidates do as well or better than does she," Brown added.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/sw/ps06172015_S63hvd.pdf

Rubio/Kasich will be the ticket

Kasich just came out ahead in that Q'pac poll in Ohio ahead of Hillary. It makes sense that if Bush or Rubio win the nomination they won't or can't get a VP from Florida, so looking to Ohio would make sense after that.

Yup, Kasich or Walker is a logical choice if it's Bush or Rubio, but that depends on just how ugly the debates and race gets.

So if it is a Rubio/Kasich ticket, wouldn't the Repuplicans be favored to take Ohio and Florida? And if they won both of those, election over, right?

If Clinton becomes the underdog, I don't see a whole lot she can do to swing votes her way. She is too bad of a campaigner to rally votes at the end.

Dates like NC Virginia Colorado, Iowa would carry more weight...there are other paths....

This thread keeps disappointing. I keep thinking you guys are going to discuss something relevant like Hillary v Jeb or Hillary v Rubio. You all suck.

 

[timschochet]

This thread keeps disappointing. I keep thinking you guys are going to discuss something relevant like Hillary v Jeb or Hillary v Rubio. You all suck.

We have, as Saints just pointed out. But it's a year away from the general election. She's got to win the nomination first. Sure, that seems like a slam dunk, but we might as well discuss her vs Bernie in the meantime. (or O'Malley or Chafee, but nobody seems to want to discuss them at all.)

 

[Todd Andrews]

Now Hillary can get married in all 50 states!!!

 

[larch]

Now Hillary can get married in all 50 states!!!

Hillary is a flip flopper:

https://youtu.be/9TyZBeGfeVM

About two minutes in Matthews asks:

“Should New York Recognize Same-Sex Marriage?” “No”. Hillary Today? “Proud To Celebrate Marriage Equality”

 

[squistion]

Now Hillary can get married in all 50 states!!!

Hillary is a flip flopper:

So is the American public:

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 ·

It's not often you see public opinion move as dramatically and steadily as this: http://53eig.ht/1fPM08q

 

[Leviathan]

Now Hillary can get married in all 50 states!!!

Hillary is a flip flopper:https://youtu.be/9TyZBeGfeVMAbout two minutes in Matthews asks:“Should New York Recognize Same-Sex Marriage?” “No”. Hillary Today? “Proud To Celebrate Marriage Equality”

Does this surprise you in any way? She, like our current president, "evolved".Nice...

It's all good though. I'm sure she'll be a decent president.

 

[larch]

Now Hillary can get married in all 50 states!!!

Hillary is a flip flopper:https://youtu.be/9TyZBeGfeVMAbout two minutes in Matthews asks:“Should New York Recognize Same-Sex Marriage?” “No”. Hillary Today? “Proud To Celebrate Marriage Equality”

Does this surprise you in any way? She, like our current president, "evolved".Nice...

It's all good though. I'm sure she'll be a decent president.

LOL @ "evolved". They changed to whatever would get them elected.

 

[cstu]

Now Hillary can get married in all 50 states!!!

Hillary is a flip flopper:https://youtu.be/9TyZBeGfeVMAbout two minutes in Matthews asks:“Should New York Recognize Same-Sex Marriage?” “No”. Hillary Today? “Proud To Celebrate Marriage Equality”

Does this surprise you in any way? She, like our current president, "evolved".Nice...

It's all good though. I'm sure she'll be a decent president.

LOL @ "evolved". They changed to whatever would get them elected.

Exactly. People have to be a bit naive to think liberals like Obama and Hillary haven't support gay marriage all along.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Now Hillary can get married in all 50 states!!!

Hillary is a flip flopper:https://youtu.be/9TyZBeGfeVMAbout two minutes in Matthews asks:“Should New York Recognize Same-Sex Marriage?” “No”. Hillary Today? “Proud To Celebrate Marriage Equality”

Does this surprise you in any way? She, like our current president, "evolved".

Like most of the country.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Supposedly Joe Biden is being urged by his family to jump in the race.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/beau-biden-push-joe-biden-running-2016-presidential-election-119524.html

IMO this would not be good for Hillary. The polls where she is running in the 40's include Joe, if he jumps in his numbers would probably immediately go up from the 8-10 range and probably draw from her support. A good third of all Democrats typically say they are not including Hillary as their first or second choices for president.

 

[DocHolliday]

I would love to see Joe run. It would be entertaining as hell.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Shakeup continues at pro-Clinton super PACGuy Cecil, the new head of Priorities USA, has replaced the group’s recently hired finance director and hired two major ad-firms – the latest moves in a major makeover of the underperforming pro-Clinton super PAC.

Kim Kauffman, a longtime Cecil associate, will take over as deputy executive director in charge of finance for Justin Brennan, who has been on the job since January; Brennan, according to a Democrat with knowledge of the situation, is leaving to take a senior fundraising role with Ted Strickland’s campaign for Senate in Ohio.


Cecil, former head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee – and a top official with Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign — has also tapped the group’s first-ever digital director, Tara McGowan, reflecting Priorities’ intention to invest significant resources in social media and online advertising. McGowan worked on the Obama campaign’s rapid-response team.

Priorities’ current director of research, Patrick McHugh, is being promoted to the title of deputy director.

“Priorities is building a top-notch team of the best strategists and tacticians in the country,” Cecil wrote in an email after POLITICO contacted him to confirm the moves. “Along with our new Executive Director Anne Caprara, Patrick, Kim, and Tara bring experience and passion to their work. We are lucky to have them.”

Priorities – which produced a series of much-lauded ads on behalf of President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012 – has re-signed Shorr Johnson Magnus, a Philadelphia firm, and added Ralston Lapp, a Washington-based firm run by veteran Democratic adman Jason Ralston.


...Cecil’s appointment was intended to bolster the group, which is expected to report anemic fundraising numbers later this month, a stumbling start for a group that hopes to raise as much as $300 million for the 2016 cycle to compete with juggernaut GOP super PACS.
Priorities eventually raised and spent about $79 million on behalf of Obama – but got off to a late start because Obama and his staff refused to endorse the concept of a super PAC – on good-government grounds – until January 2012. Hillary Clinton has no such qualms, and has appeared at several meet-and-greets for potential super-PAC donors during a recent campaign trip to California.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/priorities-usa-super-pac-hillary-clinton-staff-shakeup-changes-119337.html#ixzz3eagtIhg3


"Anemic" fundraising and Super-PAC shakeup is apparently the theme post relaunch for Hillary.

 

[shadrap]

I would love to see Joe run. It would be entertaining as hell.

Yep.

 

[Leviathan]

Now Hillary can get married in all 50 states!!!

Hillary is a flip flopper:https://youtu.be/9TyZBeGfeVMAbout two minutes in Matthews asks:“Should New York Recognize Same-Sex Marriage?” “No”. Hillary Today? “Proud To Celebrate Marriage Equality”

Does this surprise you in any way? She, like our current president, "evolved".Nice...

It's all good though. I'm sure she'll be a decent president.

LOL @ "evolved". They changed to whatever would get them elected.

Exactly. People have to be a bit naive to think liberals like Obama and Hillary haven't support gay marriage all along.

Yeah, right. **** Cheney was openly pro-gay marriage long before Obama and Clinton "evolved".**** freakin' Cheney!

 

[Mister CIA]

Supposedly Joe Biden is being urged by his family to jump in the race.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/beau-biden-push-joe-biden-running-2016-presidential-election-119524.html

IMO this would not be good for Hillary. The polls where she is running in the 40's include Joe, if he jumps in his numbers would probably immediately go up from the 8-10 range and probably draw from her support. A good third of all Democrats typically say they are not including Hillary as their first or second choices for president.

Mister CIA's Updated Rankings:

Jim Webb

John Huntsman

Bernie Sanders

Joe Biden

John Kasich - Don't know anything about him; giving him the benefit of the doubt

Rand Paul

Marco Rubio

... now say goodbye to sincerity and integrity

Jeb Bush

Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton

Chris Christie

 

[squistion]

Now Hillary can get married in all 50 states!!!

Hillary is a flip flopper:https://youtu.be/9TyZBeGfeVMAbout two minutes in Matthews asks:Should New York Recognize Same-Sex Marriage? No. Hillary Today? Proud To Celebrate Marriage Equality

Does this surprise you in any way? She, like our current president, "evolved".Nice...

It's all good though. I'm sure she'll be a decent president.

LOL @ "evolved". They changed to whatever would get them elected.

Exactly. People have to be a bit naive to think liberals like Obama and Hillary haven't support gay marriage all along.

Yeah, right. **** Cheney was openly pro-gay marriage long before Obama and Clinton "evolved".**** freakin' Cheney!

Yes, **** Cheney champion of gay rights! He was so vocal in his public support of gay marriage, he might as well have worn rainbow colors in the White House.

He waited until 2009 when he was out of politics, hardly a profile in courage and having an openly lesbian daughter probably had more to do with it than anything else.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/****-cheney-admits-politics-prevented-him-from-supporting-gay-marriage-79107/

**** Cheney Admits Politics Prevented Him From Supporting Gay Marriage

Former Vice President **** Cheney has revealed that although he has long been a supporter of same-sex marriage, he did not speak out in support of the issue during the 2000 presidential campaign because it could have harmed former President George W. Bush's chances of winning.

When asked why he did not make a case for same-sex marriage during an interview by ABC News, he said that "it wouldn't have done much good and probably would have sunk President George W. Bush's prospects for office," The Associated Press reported.

Cheney has been a supporter of same-sex marriage ever since it was revealed that his daughter, Mary, is a lesbian. She married her longtime partner last month.

"I'm sure it was fine. We wished them well. She wanted to avoid having it be a media circus or having it become part of the political debate. So Lynn and I were very proud and happy and congratulated them," Cheney remarked on the marriage.

The former vice president made his support of gay marriage quite clear in June 2009, where he said at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. that "freedom means freedom for everyone."

"As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled today, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that."

 

[Widbil83]

Now Hillary can get married in all 50 states!!!

Hillary is a flip flopper:https://youtu.be/9TyZBeGfeVMAbout two minutes in Matthews asks:Should New York Recognize Same-Sex Marriage? No. Hillary Today? Proud To Celebrate Marriage Equality

Does this surprise you in any way? She, like our current president, "evolved".Nice...It's all good though. I'm sure she'll be a decent president.

LOL @ "evolved". They changed to whatever would get them elected.

Exactly. People have to be a bit naive to think liberals like Obama and Hillary haven't support gay marriage all along.

Yeah, right. **** Cheney was openly pro-gay marriage long before Obama and Clinton "evolved".**** freakin' Cheney!

Yes, **** Cheney champion of gay rights! He was so vocal in his public support of gay marriage, he might as well have worn rainbow colors in the White House. He waited until 2009

So if Obama and Hillary flip flopped in 2012 and Cheney went pro gay marriage in 2009 that would be 3 years before right?

 

[squistion]

Now Hillary can get married in all 50 states!!!

Hillary is a flip flopper:https://youtu.be/9TyZBeGfeVMAbout two minutes in Matthews asks:Should New York Recognize Same-Sex Marriage? No. Hillary Today? Proud To Celebrate Marriage Equality

Does this surprise you in any way? She, like our current president, "evolved".Nice...It's all good though. I'm sure she'll be a decent president.

LOL @ "evolved". They changed to whatever would get them elected.

Exactly. People have to be a bit naive to think liberals like Obama and Hillary haven't support gay marriage all along.

Yeah, right. **** Cheney was openly pro-gay marriage long before Obama and Clinton "evolved".**** freakin' Cheney!

Yes, **** Cheney champion of gay rights! He was so vocal in his public support of gay marriage, he might as well have worn rainbow colors in the White House. He waited until 2009

So if Obama and Hillary flip flopped in 2012 and Cheney went pro gay marriage in 2009 that would be 3 years before right?

When he was out of politics and had absolutely nothing to lose. Yes.

 

[Leviathan]

Now Hillary can get married in all 50 states!!!

Hillary is a flip flopper:https://youtu.be/9TyZBeGfeVMAbout two minutes in Matthews asks:Should New York Recognize Same-Sex Marriage? No. Hillary Today? Proud To Celebrate Marriage Equality

Does this surprise you in any way? She, like our current president, "evolved".Nice...It's all good though. I'm sure she'll be a decent president.

LOL @ "evolved". They changed to whatever would get them elected.

Exactly. People have to be a bit naive to think liberals like Obama and Hillary haven't support gay marriage all along.

Yeah, right. **** Cheney was openly pro-gay marriage long before Obama and Clinton "evolved".**** freakin' Cheney!

Yes, **** Cheney champion of gay rights! He was so vocal in his public support of gay marriage, he might as well have worn rainbow colors in the White House.He waited until 2009 when he was out of politics, hardly a profile in courage and having an openly lesbian daughter probably had more to do with it than anything else.http://www.christianpost.com/news/****-cheney-admits-politics-prevented-him-from-supporting-gay-marriage-79107/**** Cheney Admits Politics Prevented Him From Supporting Gay MarriageFormer Vice President **** Cheney has revealed that although he has long been a supporter of same-sex marriage, he did not speak out in support of the issue during the 2000 presidential campaign because it could have harmed former President George W. Bush's chances of winning.When asked why he did not make a case for same-sex marriage during an interview by ABC News, he said that "it wouldn't have done much good and probably would have sunk President George W. Bush's prospects for office," The Associated Press reported.Cheney has been a supporter of same-sex marriage ever since it was revealed that his daughter, Mary, is a lesbian. She married her longtime partner last month."I'm sure it was fine. We wished them well. She wanted to avoid having it be a media circus or having it become part of the political debate. So Lynn and I were very proud and happy and congratulated them," Cheney remarked on the marriage.The former vice president made his support of gay marriage quite clear in June 2009, where he said at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. that "freedom means freedom for everyone.""As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled today, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that."

I concede that he waited to reveal his position until he left office. And I'm sure it was due to political reasons. My point is he made his personal opinion public much earlier than Clinton and Obama.Nevertheless, my post is accurate. Clinton and Obama licked their finger, held them up to the wind and made their "decision".

Full disclosure: I agree with the recent Supreme Court's decision regarding gay marriage.

 

[squistion]

Yes, **** Cheney champion of gay rights! He was so vocal in his public support of gay marriage, he might as well have worn rainbow colors in the White House.He waited until 2009 when he was out of politics, hardly a profile in courage and having an openly lesbian daughter probably had more to do with it than anything else.http://www.christianpost.com/news/****-cheney-admits-politics-prevented-him-from-supporting-gay-marriage-79107/**** Cheney Admits Politics Prevented Him From Supporting Gay MarriageFormer Vice President **** Cheney has revealed that although he has long been a supporter of same-sex marriage, he did not speak out in support of the issue during the 2000 presidential campaign because it could have harmed former President George W. Bush's chances of winning.When asked why he did not make a case for same-sex marriage during an interview by ABC News, he said that "it wouldn't have done much good and probably would have sunk President George W. Bush's prospects for office," The Associated Press reported.Cheney has been a supporter of same-sex marriage ever since it was revealed that his daughter, Mary, is a lesbian. She married her longtime partner last month."I'm sure it was fine. We wished them well. She wanted to avoid having it be a media circus or having it become part of the political debate. So Lynn and I were very proud and happy and congratulated them," Cheney remarked on the marriage.The former vice president made his support of gay marriage quite clear in June 2009, where he said at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. that "freedom means freedom for everyone.""As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled today, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that."

I concede that he waited to reveal his position until he left office. And I'm sure it was due to political reasons. My point is he made his personal opinion public much earlier than Clinton and Obama.Nevertheless, my post is accurate. Clinton and Obama licked their finger, held them up to the wind and made their "decision".

Full disclosure: I agree with the recent Supreme Court's decision regarding gay marriage.

And did the American public who made a 25% shift in opinion towards gay marriage in less than a decade also lick their finger when talking to pollsters, or did their opinion evolve/change?

And if this is just crass political expediency to get votes, how many of the GOP candidates for President have come out in favor of gay marriage even after the SCOTUS decision? None, to my count - best is Jeb and Rubio who have said, "The issue is settled, let's move on", but still not endorsing gay marriage.

 

[Leviathan]

Yes, **** Cheney champion of gay rights! He was so vocal in his public support of gay marriage, he might as well have worn rainbow colors in the White House.He waited until 2009 when he was out of politics, hardly a profile in courage and having an openly lesbian daughter probably had more to do with it than anything else.http://www.christianpost.com/news/****-cheney-admits-politics-prevented-him-from-supporting-gay-marriage-79107/**** Cheney Admits Politics Prevented Him From Supporting Gay MarriageFormer Vice President **** Cheney has revealed that although he has long been a supporter of same-sex marriage, he did not speak out in support of the issue during the 2000 presidential campaign because it could have harmed former President George W. Bush's chances of winning.When asked why he did not make a case for same-sex marriage during an interview by ABC News, he said that "it wouldn't have done much good and probably would have sunk President George W. Bush's prospects for office," The Associated Press reported.Cheney has been a supporter of same-sex marriage ever since it was revealed that his daughter, Mary, is a lesbian. She married her longtime partner last month."I'm sure it was fine. We wished them well. She wanted to avoid having it be a media circus or having it become part of the political debate. So Lynn and I were very proud and happy and congratulated them," Cheney remarked on the marriage.The former vice president made his support of gay marriage quite clear in June 2009, where he said at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. that "freedom means freedom for everyone.""As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled today, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that."

I concede that he waited to reveal his position until he left office. And I'm sure it was due to political reasons. My point is he made his personal opinion public much earlier than Clinton and Obama.Nevertheless, my post is accurate. Clinton and Obama licked their finger, held them up to the wind and made their "decision".Full disclosure: I agree with the recent Supreme Court's decision regarding gay marriage.

And did the American public who made a 25% shift in opinion towards gay marriage in less than a decade also lick their finger when talking to pollsters, or did their opinion evolve/change?And if this is just crass political expediency to get votes, how many of the GOP candidates for President have come out in favor of gay marriage even after the SCOTUS decision? None, to my count - best is Jeb and Rubio who have said, "The issue is settled, let's move on", but still not endorsing gay marriage.

No, I don't think the American people licked their fingers and held them up to the wind. They weren't running for office. Look at the current trend towards marijuana legalization.I'm pretty sure their minds were already made up.

 

[squistion]

Yes, **** Cheney champion of gay rights! He was so vocal in his public support of gay marriage, he might as well have worn rainbow colors in the White House.He waited until 2009 when he was out of politics, hardly a profile in courage and having an openly lesbian daughter probably had more to do with it than anything else.http://www.christianpost.com/news/****-cheney-admits-politics-prevented-him-from-supporting-gay-marriage-79107/**** Cheney Admits Politics Prevented Him From Supporting Gay MarriageFormer Vice President **** Cheney has revealed that although he has long been a supporter of same-sex marriage, he did not speak out in support of the issue during the 2000 presidential campaign because it could have harmed former President George W. Bush's chances of winning.When asked why he did not make a case for same-sex marriage during an interview by ABC News, he said that "it wouldn't have done much good and probably would have sunk President George W. Bush's prospects for office," The Associated Press reported.Cheney has been a supporter of same-sex marriage ever since it was revealed that his daughter, Mary, is a lesbian. She married her longtime partner last month."I'm sure it was fine. We wished them well. She wanted to avoid having it be a media circus or having it become part of the political debate. So Lynn and I were very proud and happy and congratulated them," Cheney remarked on the marriage.The former vice president made his support of gay marriage quite clear in June 2009, where he said at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. that "freedom means freedom for everyone.""As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled today, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that."

I concede that he waited to reveal his position until he left office. And I'm sure it was due to political reasons. My point is he made his personal opinion public much earlier than Clinton and Obama.Nevertheless, my post is accurate. Clinton and Obama licked their finger, held them up to the wind and made their "decision".Full disclosure: I agree with the recent Supreme Court's decision regarding gay marriage.

And did the American public who made a 25% shift in opinion towards gay marriage in less than a decade also lick their finger when talking to pollsters, or did their opinion evolve/change?And if this is just crass political expediency to get votes, how many of the GOP candidates for President have come out in favor of gay marriage even after the SCOTUS decision? None, to my count - best is Jeb and Rubio who have said, "The issue is settled, let's move on", but still not endorsing gay marriage.

No, I don't think the American people licked their fingers and held them up to the wind. They weren't running for office. Look at the current trend towards marijuana legalization.I'm pretty sure their minds were already made up.

So the American people can evolve on an issue like gay marriage, but a politician has to hold the same opinion forever or be deemed a hypocrite or a flip flopper. OK, we will have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[Leviathan]

Yes, **** Cheney champion of gay rights! He was so vocal in his public support of gay marriage, he might as well have worn rainbow colors in the White House.He waited until 2009 when he was out of politics, hardly a profile in courage and having an openly lesbian daughter probably had more to do with it than anything else.http://www.christianpost.com/news/****-cheney-admits-politics-prevented-him-from-supporting-gay-marriage-79107/**** Cheney Admits Politics Prevented Him From Supporting Gay MarriageFormer Vice President **** Cheney has revealed that although he has long been a supporter of same-sex marriage, he did not speak out in support of the issue during the 2000 presidential campaign because it could have harmed former President George W. Bush's chances of winning.When asked why he did not make a case for same-sex marriage during an interview by ABC News, he said that "it wouldn't have done much good and probably would have sunk President George W. Bush's prospects for office," The Associated Press reported.Cheney has been a supporter of same-sex marriage ever since it was revealed that his daughter, Mary, is a lesbian. She married her longtime partner last month."I'm sure it was fine. We wished them well. She wanted to avoid having it be a media circus or having it become part of the political debate. So Lynn and I were very proud and happy and congratulated them," Cheney remarked on the marriage.The former vice president made his support of gay marriage quite clear in June 2009, where he said at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. that "freedom means freedom for everyone.""As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled today, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that."

I concede that he waited to reveal his position until he left office. And I'm sure it was due to political reasons. My point is he made his personal opinion public much earlier than Clinton and Obama.Nevertheless, my post is accurate. Clinton and Obama licked their finger, held them up to the wind and made their "decision".Full disclosure: I agree with the recent Supreme Court's decision regarding gay marriage.

And did the American public who made a 25% shift in opinion towards gay marriage in less than a decade also lick their finger when talking to pollsters, or did their opinion evolve/change?And if this is just crass political expediency to get votes, how many of the GOP candidates for President have come out in favor of gay marriage even after the SCOTUS decision? None, to my count - best is Jeb and Rubio who have said, "The issue is settled, let's move on", but still not endorsing gay marriage.

No, I don't think the American people licked their fingers and held them up to the wind. They weren't running for office. Look at the current trend towards marijuana legalization.I'm pretty sure their minds were already made up.

So the American people can evolve on an issue like gay marriage, but a politician has to hold the same opinion forever or be deemed a hypocrite or a flip flopper. OK, we will have to agree to disagree on this.

Dude...we're on the same side here and you continue to argue with me. Why?

Apparently flip floppers are OK as long as they're on your political "side"?

 

[Mister CIA]

So the American people can evolve on an issue like gay marriage, but a politician has to hold the same opinion forever or be deemed a hypocrite or a flip flopper. OK, we will have to agree to disagree on this.

Hillary did not evolve, the polling results did.

"There is nothing to fear but fear itself ... and my own moral convictions." - Sincerely, you know who.

 

[larch]

Apparently flip floppers are OK as long as they're on your political "side"?

Nope, both sides suck when they do it. Stick to your guns.

When a Democrat flip flops, it is "evolving". When a Republican does it, it is "flip flopping".

 

[squistion]

Apparently flip floppers are OK as long as they're on your political "side"?

Nope, both sides suck when they do it. Stick to your guns.

When a Democrat flip flops, it is "evolving". When a Republican does it, it is "flip flopping".

Which means no Republican candidates for President have evolved or even flip flopped on the gay marriage issue. Smart move - as it is sure to lock up the Millennial vote for 2016 (watch out Hillary, they will use this against you!)

 

[Mister CIA]

Apparently flip floppers are OK as long as they're on your political "side"?

Nope, both sides suck when they do it. Stick to your guns.

When a Democrat flip flops, it is "evolving". When a Republican does it, it is "flip flopping".

Which means no Republican candidates for President have evolved or even flip flopped on the gay marriage issue. Smart move - as it is sure to lock up the Millennial vote for 2016 (watch out Hillary, they will use this against you!)

This is the official Hillary thread. Your interest in uninteresting Republican presidential candidates is uninteresting.

Then again, it's not as if you have a lot of material to work with.

 

[timschochet]

Hillary deserves to be criticized for switching positions on gay marriage, free trade and a few other issues. These are legitimate criticisms.

 

[squistion]

Hillary deserves to be criticized for switching positions on gay marriage, free trade and a few other issues. These are legitimate criticisms.

Never said they weren't. But it means nothing with all the GOP candidates still on the wrong side of history, which was my point. Democrats can live with this and Republicans can't exploit it without having to come out again against gay marriage which is not a winning issue with independents or young people in 2016.