Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)

[timschochet]

Since Commish and Wildbill asked the same question: at the time Obama called ISIS the JV team, they were. al-Qaeda was a much greater threat to our interests which was all he meant. That MAY have changed; I'm not sure. Still it was an unwise thing to say but it had nothing to do with his policy decisions and people make way too much of that.

I think that Obama's actions with regard to ISIS, and to Islamic terrorism in general, have been good ones. I approve of his decision to enter Pakistan to get Bin Laden, his use of drones, his continued use of the NSA. I like his reluctance to put ground troops back in Iraq.I like that he's pragmatic; his ideology going in was that we shouldn't have terrorists at Gitmo, yet when confronted with reality he kept them there (a full blown ideologue like Bernie Sanders would have shut Gitmo down regardless of the results). I ESPECIALLY like his agreement with Iran (which I think Hillary also deserves some credit for).

Obama has not been perfect. I would have reacted to Arab Soring much the way he did, but supporting the overthrow of Libya and Syria may both have been errors (though I am not sure one way or the other; these are complicated issues in which whatever we did may have been problematic). But what I like about him and Hillary is that, unlike most of the Republican candidates, they don't look for linear solutions to these problems. They get that the world is a complex nuanced place and that each situation that comes up requires thought before response.

What actions specifically? I don't know the JV comment, and don't really care (other than to point out they don't appear to be "JV" as I know the term) And why did you go into all these other foreign policy decisions when we (or me anyway) were asking about his handling of ISIS (nothing else)?

I believe you (and Wildbill and RBM) asked me why I felt comfortable with Obama in charge. So I tried to give as detailed an answer as I could. Specifically, I think the proper way to handle ISIS, so far, is to:

1. bomb them

2. Assassinate their leadership when we can find it.

3. Aid Iraqi and Kurds fighting them (and those Syrian rebels who we deem to be on "our side"

4. Avoid ground troops as much as possible (we may have to send some special ops in for training purposes.)

5. Attempt to isolate them on the world stage.

6. Use the NSA and informants to foil terrorism plots here and around the world.

It seems to me that Obama is doing every one of these things, so I have no reason not to be confident in him. Since you feel otherwise, what specifically would you like to see him doing that he is not?

Here you go. Points 1-6.

 

[HellToupee]

Since Commish and Wildbill asked the same question: at the time Obama called ISIS the JV team, they were. al-Qaeda was a much greater threat to our interests which was all he meant. That MAY have changed; I'm not sure. Still it was an unwise thing to say but it had nothing to do with his policy decisions and people make way too much of that.

I think that Obama's actions with regard to ISIS, and to Islamic terrorism in general, have been good ones. I approve of his decision to enter Pakistan to get Bin Laden, his use of drones, his continued use of the NSA. I like his reluctance to put ground troops back in Iraq.I like that he's pragmatic; his ideology going in was that we shouldn't have terrorists at Gitmo, yet when confronted with reality he kept them there (a full blown ideologue like Bernie Sanders would have shut Gitmo down regardless of the results). I ESPECIALLY like his agreement with Iran (which I think Hillary also deserves some credit for).

Obama has not been perfect. I would have reacted to Arab Soring much the way he did, but supporting the overthrow of Libya and Syria may both have been errors (though I am not sure one way or the other; these are complicated issues in which whatever we did may have been problematic). But what I like about him and Hillary is that, unlike most of the Republican candidates, they don't look for linear solutions to these problems. They get that the world is a complex nuanced place and that each situation that comes up requires thought before response.

What actions specifically? I don't know the JV comment, and don't really care (other than to point out they don't appear to be "JV" as I know the term) And why did you go into all these other foreign policy decisions when we (or me anyway) were asking about his handling of ISIS (nothing else)?

I believe you (and Wildbill and RBM) asked me why I felt comfortable with Obama in charge. So I tried to give as detailed an answer as I could. Specifically, I think the proper way to handle ISIS, so far, is to:

1. bomb them

2. Assassinate their leadership when we can find it.

3. Aid Iraqi and Kurds fighting them (and those Syrian rebels who we deem to be on "our side"

4. Avoid ground troops as much as possible (we may have to send some special ops in for training purposes.)

5. Attempt to isolate them on the world stage.

6. Use the NSA and informants to foil terrorism plots here and around the world.

It seems to me that Obama is doing every one of these things, so I have no reason not to be confident in him. Since you feel otherwise, what specifically would you like to see him doing that he is not?

Here you go. Points 1-6.

You also have to go after the money

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That's not it. It's not like he's that original (though I think that he does differ with Bush and the neocons). I just think he's Doug the right stuff as a general rule.

What's the "stuff" you're talking about? This isn't really all that complicated a question is it? I don't know why you're refusing to answer. Best I can tell, he's no different than any of the others who have tried to tackle this "problem". He's doing the same things as everyone else (sometimes a lot slower than his predecessors) before him. It hasn't worked yet, so I'm not sure what it is that he's doing that you're ok with....that's all I'm asking.

I've tried to answer your question several times now. When you say he's no different than any of the others, thats not accurate because the others didn't have Arab Spring to deal with and the problems with Libya and Syria. Whether or not you agree with Obama's actions in those countries, it's new. Dealing with Iran is also new and IMO, a very good thing for our long term prospects. Obama pulling our troops out of Iraq, agree with it or not, is also specific to him. Is this the answer you're looking for? If not, then I'm sorry, I just don't understand.

I'm asking about how he's handled ISIS. Period. I've told you that already. What has he done differently that warrants the "comfortable" label? From where I'm standing, the word "comfortable" and ISIS don't belong anywhere near each other. He doesn't appear to be doing things all that much differently than anyone else has so I'm asking you for the things you're seeing that he's done differently. I'm not asking how the situations outside of ISIS are different and how the other variables are different.

Well, since ISIS didn't exist before Obama, everything he does regarding it is new and unique. Previous Presidents had to deal with terrorists, but ISIS is something new. In a previous post I described in some detail what Obama was doing with regard to ISIS, and why I was comfortable with it.

Point of order - it did exist before Obama, it was AQ in Iraq.

 

[3C's]

Hillary taking a page from the Ben Carson book? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/12/hillary-clintons-claim-that-she-tried-to-join-the-marines/

 

[The Commish]

Since Commish and Wildbill asked the same question: at the time Obama called ISIS the JV team, they were. al-Qaeda was a much greater threat to our interests which was all he meant. That MAY have changed; I'm not sure. Still it was an unwise thing to say but it had nothing to do with his policy decisions and people make way too much of that.

I think that Obama's actions with regard to ISIS, and to Islamic terrorism in general, have been good ones. I approve of his decision to enter Pakistan to get Bin Laden, his use of drones, his continued use of the NSA. I like his reluctance to put ground troops back in Iraq.I like that he's pragmatic; his ideology going in was that we shouldn't have terrorists at Gitmo, yet when confronted with reality he kept them there (a full blown ideologue like Bernie Sanders would have shut Gitmo down regardless of the results). I ESPECIALLY like his agreement with Iran (which I think Hillary also deserves some credit for).

Obama has not been perfect. I would have reacted to Arab Soring much the way he did, but supporting the overthrow of Libya and Syria may both have been errors (though I am not sure one way or the other; these are complicated issues in which whatever we did may have been problematic). But what I like about him and Hillary is that, unlike most of the Republican candidates, they don't look for linear solutions to these problems. They get that the world is a complex nuanced place and that each situation that comes up requires thought before response.

What actions specifically? I don't know the JV comment, and don't really care (other than to point out they don't appear to be "JV" as I know the term) And why did you go into all these other foreign policy decisions when we (or me anyway) were asking about his handling of ISIS (nothing else)?

I believe you (and Wildbill and RBM) asked me why I felt comfortable with Obama in charge. So I tried to give as detailed an answer as I could. Specifically, I think the proper way to handle ISIS, so far, is to:

1. bomb them

2. Assassinate their leadership when we can find it.

3. Aid Iraqi and Kurds fighting them (and those Syrian rebels who we deem to be on "our side"

4. Avoid ground troops as much as possible (we may have to send some special ops in for training purposes.)

5. Attempt to isolate them on the world stage.

6. Use the NSA and informants to foil terrorism plots here and around the world.

It seems to me that Obama is doing every one of these things, so I have no reason not to be confident in him. Since you feel otherwise, what specifically would you like to see him doing that he is not?

Here you go. Points 1-6.

hmmmm....and you are ok with the decisions prior to this that make these necessary?

Do you think these sorts of steps are going to solve anything? If so, what do you believe is different about ISIS that will make this time different? We have a pretty good historical record telling us this sort of thing is ineffective. So now, we are back full circle to feeling comfortable with his actions I guess. Seems like we're in a loop here (the government included) where we "help" overthrow a radical group by putting a different group in power and then that group becomes radicalized, then we "help" overthrow that group.....

I'm not comfortable with that at all, but perhaps I am missing something. Most importantly, I'd like your thoughts on the very first question here in bold.

 

[tommyGunZ]

What's really a shame is how people believe debate sound ties are more important than specific and stated policy goals, of which Hillary has by far the most detailed plan to rein in Wall St. All the other candidates are nothing but soundbites.

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/8/9482521/hillary-clinton-financial-reform

 

[Sand]

Hillary Clinton Told Wall Street To ‘Cut It Out’—Not So Much, the Record Shows

It's really a shame that more people didn't see the last debate.

Debbie succeeded wonderfully, then, putting this on Sat. night. Staggering to think of the bias and corruption the DNC has exhibited in this election cycle.

 

[The Commish]

What's really a shame is how people believe debate sound ties are more important than specific and stated policy goals, of which Hillary has by far the most detailed plan to rein in Wall St. All the other candidates are nothing but soundbites.

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/8/9482521/hillary-clinton-financial-reform

It's funny that a post like this would be posted someone like you AND put her words over her actions......I think the internet is going to explode from all the irony wrapped into one little post But hey.....9/11 amirite?

ETA: Or is it "well what she was really saying was......" ?? I lose track of the talking points in this particular echo chamber.

 

[timschochet]

Good questions Commish.

1. Not 100%. I think he should have renegotiated the Iraqi withdrawal so as to force the Baghdad government to respect Sunni rights. That might have stopped the rise of ISIS. But it's easy for me (and every one else) to argue this in retrospect. With regard to Syria, I'm not sure his decisions were correct there after Arab Spring, but if they were not I'm not positive what we should have done.

2. Yes, I do think the steps he has taken will eventually solve the problem- but it's going to take a long time. Right now the emphasis is to contain the problem which is the best we can do. The analogy I would offer is Harry Truman adopting George Kennan's strategy of containment in order to fight the Cold War. Truman won the Cold War, but it took another 40 years for it to end.

3. Im not sure why ISIS is different from previous terrorist groups. I believe they ARE different though.

4. I disagree that this way of fighting terrorism has been ineffective. The problem with evaluating this is we never know how many more incidents we have avoided by fighting terrorism in this way, so we don't know how

successful we are.

5. I agree with your last point but I don't think that's what Obama is doing. He is trying to remove Assad, which may or may not be the best decision, but we need to look at each situation specifically- there are no general rules that should always be applied. And that leads me to the single biggest reason that, no matter what their mistakes, I am far more comfortable with Obama and Hillary's approach rather than any of the Republican candidates- because Obama and Hillary recognize that these are complicated, nuanced situations, subject to change, and there are no set rules that always apply. We have to be willing to constantly alter our strategy and tactics.

 

[Sinn Fein]

What's really a shame is how people believe debate sound ties are more important than specific and stated policy goals, of which Hillary has by far the most detailed plan to rein in Wall St. All the other candidates are nothing but soundbites.

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/8/9482521/hillary-clinton-financial-reform

Actions speak louder than words imo. Clinton has had chances to rein in Wall Street when she was a senator, but opted not to - no reason to think she has any willingnes to do so now - and the problem extends far beyond Wall Street. The issues extend to tax laws, and general economic policy that favors corporations over employees - such as supporting trade agreements that add wealth to shareholders, at the expense of american workers.

 

[timschochet]

This weekend several Republicans predictably attacked Obama and Hillary as weak against ISIS and called for a ground war. So that is a clear alternative we face between the two parties at this point.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary taking a page from the Ben Carson book? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/12/hillary-clintons-claim-that-she-tried-to-join-the-marines/

Completely. Throw that in with she tried to become an astronaut.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This weekend several Republicans predictably attacked Obama and Hillary as weak against ISIS and called for a ground war. So that is a clear alternative we face between the two parties at this point.

Hillary's foreign policy is not far from McCain's. They saw eye to eye on Iraq and Libya and I'm not sure they are far apart on Syria. The GOP is happy to ping her, they have to, but they couldn't ask for a better consolation prize from the Democrats on this issue. The clear alternative on this point is Sanders.

 

[The Commish]

Good questions Commish.

1. Not 100%. I think he should have renegotiated the Iraqi withdrawal so as to force the Baghdad government to respect Sunni rights. That might have stopped the rise of ISIS. But it's easy for me (and every one else) to argue this in retrospect. With regard to Syria, I'm not sure his decisions were correct there after Arab Spring, but if they were not I'm not positive what we should have done.

2. Yes, I do think the steps he has taken will eventually solve the problem- but it's going to take a long time. Right now the emphasis is to contain the problem which is the best we can do. The analogy I would offer is Harry Truman adopting George Kennan's strategy of containment in order to fight the Cold War. Truman won the Cold War, but it took another 40 years for it to end.

3. Im not sure why ISIS is different from previous terrorist groups. I believe they ARE different though.

4. I disagree that this way of fighting terrorism has been ineffective. The problem with evaluating this is we never know how many more incidents we have avoided by fighting terrorism in this way, so we don't know how

successful we are.

5. I agree with your last point but I don't think that's what Obama is doing. He is trying to remove Assad, which may or may not be the best decision, but we need to look at each situation specifically- there are no general rules that should always be applied. And that leads me to the single biggest reason that, no matter what their mistakes, I am far more comfortable with Obama and Hillary's approach rather than any of the Republican candidates- because Obama and Hillary recognize that these are complicated, nuanced situations, subject to change, and there are no set rules that always apply. We have to be willing to constantly alter our strategy and tactics.

To #4, isn't it probably more important to understand how many more militant groups we give fuel to by our overreach and the constant instability caused by that overreach? To #2, what sort of timeframe are you thinking we should give this methodology? We are a few decades in thus far and I'm not sure it's changing all that much. All we seem to be able to do is squash one bug and another one (or two) show up. To #1, I'd probably agree. The removal, by all appearances, was a political decision. This country is great at the "rah rah go get 'em" shtick until they see the realities of war, then we get a weak stomach and start whining about why it's taking so long. I said when they very first went to Iraq, there was no way we could ever remove our presence in full and I still believe that, but here we are.

 

[The Commish]

This weekend several Republicans predictably attacked Obama and Hillary as weak against ISIS and called for a ground war. So that is a clear alternative we face between the two parties at this point.

I'm not sure Hillary is on the correct side of this equation Tim. Of all the people labeled "Democrat", I think the GOP has to be pretty happy with Hillary for this particular issue if her words are what she's really about. She seems to be McCain 2.0 on this particular issue.

ETA: Nevermind....SID covered it

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This weekend several Republicans predictably attacked Obama and Hillary as weak against ISIS and called for a ground war. So that is a clear alternative we face between the two parties at this point.

I'm not sure Hillary is on the correct side of this equation Tim. Of all the people labeled "Democrat", I think the GOP has to be pretty happy with Hillary for this particular issue if her words are what she's really about. She seems to be McCain 2.0 on this particular issue.

ETA: Nevermind....SID covered it

Definitely worth reiteration.

 

[timschochet]

This weekend several Republicans predictably attacked Obama and Hillary as weak against ISIS and called for a ground war. So that is a clear alternative we face between the two parties at this point.

I'm not sure Hillary is on the correct side of this equation Tim. Of all the people labeled "Democrat", I think the GOP has to be pretty happy with Hillary for this particular issue if her words are what she's really about. She seems to be McCain 2.0 on this particular issue.ETA: Nevermind....SID covered it

Definitely worth reiteration.

As I pointed out Hillary is the sort of leader who doesn't dismiss ANY ideas based on ideology- she may reach the conclusion that more ground troops are needed. But as of now she is willing to pursue Obama's strategies and I think that's wise. I also think she learned from the mistake of invading Iraq. It's rare to have a leader who can learn from previous error- another one of the many reasons why Hillary is by far the best candidate to be our next President.

 

[The Commish]

This weekend several Republicans predictably attacked Obama and Hillary as weak against ISIS and called for a ground war. So that is a clear alternative we face between the two parties at this point.

I'm not sure Hillary is on the correct side of this equation Tim. Of all the people labeled "Democrat", I think the GOP has to be pretty happy with Hillary for this particular issue if her words are what she's really about. She seems to be McCain 2.0 on this particular issue.ETA: Nevermind....SID covered it

Definitely worth reiteration.

As I pointed out Hillary is the sort of leader who doesn't dismiss ANY ideas based on ideology- she may reach the conclusion that more ground troops are needed. But as of now she is willing to pursue Obama's strategies and I think that's wise. I also think she learned from the mistake of invading Iraq. It's rare to have a leader who can learn from previous error- another one of the many reasons why Hillary is by far the best candidate to be our next President.

No offense Tim, but Ideology and Hillary really have no place in the same paragraph much less the same sentence.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This weekend several Republicans predictably attacked Obama and Hillary as weak against ISIS and called for a ground war. So that is a clear alternative we face between the two parties at this point.

I'm not sure Hillary is on the correct side of this equation Tim. Of all the people labeled "Democrat", I think the GOP has to be pretty happy with Hillary for this particular issue if her words are what she's really about. She seems to be McCain 2.0 on this particular issue.ETA: Nevermind....SID covered it

Definitely worth reiteration.

As I pointed out Hillary is the sort of leader who doesn't dismiss ANY ideas based on ideology- she may reach the conclusion that more ground troops are needed. But as of now she is willing to pursue Obama's strategies and I think that's wise. I also think she learned from the mistake of invading Iraq. It's rare to have a leader who can learn from previous error- another one of the many reasons why Hillary is by far the best candidate to be our next President.

I agree with Commish's point above, but I want to point something out about Hillary and Iraq.

This is kind of like Office Space where the Bobs 'fix the glitch' but Melvin remains in his cubicle in the basement. Hillary fixed the glitch by saying she was fooled or tricked by the bad intel coming out of the WH (arguably if you believe her she got fooled again in Benghazi but anyway...). Hillary did not say that if there were WMD in Iraq as suggested that she would have acted differently. The same way she is making the same noise with regard to Iran, nothing has changed, we know they have had a WMD program, presumably nothing would change with regard to the situation where they restarted it, it would be just like Iraq. And we know Syria has had chemical weapons and, like Afghanistan and AQ which she has never gone back on, they host ISIS. Hillary's policy on Iraq has never changed.

 

[Tom Servo]

Comey can nail Hillary - but will he?

But let’s assume that Comey is a man of principle who is pursuing the case honestly, and that the leaks are an attempt to give the agency some breathing space. Then the broadening of the investigation is probably not only to firm up the evidence regarding Clinton’s already clear and existing violations of the law, but possibly to add a more devastating charge -- obstruction of justice.

Comey knows that referring the case with charges only alleging violations of document mishandling will get nowhere in Loretta Lynch’s Justice Department. Obama has publicly declared that he doesn’t believe that Hillary’s use of the email server impacted national security. Comey has likely received similar information through more discreet channels, and he knows that Obama has successfully used the Justice Department and his own agency to kill legitimate investigations of the ATF and IRS. And with Joe Biden out of the Democrat nominating race (with Obama’s blessing) the President is going to back and protect Clinton if he can do so without causing himself too much trouble.

Were Comey to refer charges of mishandling classified material to Justice, even if Lynch does nothing, it would hurt Hillary, but would probably not kill her campaign. Justice does have prosecutorial discretion. Lynch and her attorneys will be able to come up with sufficient excuses -- national security was not demonstrably impacted, Hillary was careless but not grossly negligent, she didn’t realize classified items were classified at the time, and so on -- that they will make the refusal to indict sound at least plausible. Yes, Hillary may have appeared to technically violate Section 1924, Justice will say, but that transgression did not rise to the level that a criminal indictment is warranted.

Lynch and Obama easily will be able to make that case with a straight face, not just because they are practiced liars, but because violations (under Sections 793[f] or 1924) don’t involve specific criminal intent. Hillary will shamelessly say it is all just politics, as she always does, and move on. Democrats and low information independents will take a breath and go along. Comey and the FBI will be more damaged than Clinton. And if Clinton wins the presidency despite an FBI referral, things will be grim for Comey and his agency.

If Comey demands that Justice grant Pagliano immunity for his testimony, or others potentially involved in removing evidence or obstructing the investigation, it will be hard for Lynch to refuse without appearing to be obstructing justice herself. And remember, Obama’s public pronouncement in defense of Hillary was only as to the national security element of the document handling, not to obstructing justice.

The issue will be if Comey is expanding the investigation to nail her on Obstruction charges. If that's the case, game over.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Martin O'Malley “I thought last night was a pretty disgraceful moment, when she tried to put out a smoke screen, invoking 9/11 to hide the fact that she’s taken millions in contributions from the big banks on Wall Street, not to mention all the hundreds of thousands in speaking fees”

Bernie Sanders “I have no idea what the connection is between Secretary Clinton’s efforts and all of our efforts to help rebuild New York City after that disaster, with the fact that Wall Street contributors over her lifetime have been the major source of her funding”

 

[The Commish]

Martin O'Malley “I thought last night was a pretty disgraceful moment, when she tried to put out a smoke screen, invoking 9/11 to hide the fact that she’s taken millions in contributions from the big banks on Wall Street, not to mention all the hundreds of thousands in speaking fees”

Bernie Sanders “I have no idea what the connection is between Secretary Clinton’s efforts and all of our efforts to help rebuild New York City after that disaster, with the fact that Wall Street contributors over her lifetime have been the major source of her funding”

the establishment doesn't care. it's her time in their minds.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Updated 2016 Odds (Bovada)

Hillary -125

Rubio +400

Trump +600

Bernie +1200

Cruz/Carson/Bush +1800

Christie +3300

Kasich +5000

Fiorina +7500

Has she been favored vs the field for a while? I don't remember seeing it before, seems like last time I checked it was even money

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Updated 2016 Odds (Bovada)

Hillary -125

Rubio +400

Trump +600

Bernie +1200

Cruz/Carson/Bush +1800

Christie +3300

Kasich +5000

Fiorina +7500

Has she been favored vs the field for a while? I don't remember seeing it before, seems like last time I checked it was even money

It's fascinating to me that the people who make the betting lines see Rubio as such a favorite for the GOP nom. Feels like a hot sleeper draft pick that progressively goes in the higher rounds ADP because ... well... because.

 

[Sand]

Updated 2016 Odds (Bovada)

Hillary -125

Rubio +400

Trump +600

Bernie +1200

Cruz/Carson/Bush +1800

Christie +3300

Kasich +5000

Fiorina +7500

Has she been favored vs the field for a while? I don't remember seeing it before, seems like last time I checked it was even money

It's fascinating to me that the people who make the betting lines see Rubio as such a favorite for the GOP nom. Feels like a hot sleeper draft pick that progressively goes in the higher rounds ADP because ... well... because.

Interesting as I see him as the current RNC leader (polls be damned) and really do expect to see him debating Hillary in a number of months.

 

[NutterButter]

Updated 2016 Odds (Bovada)

Hillary -125

Rubio +400

Trump +600

Bernie +1200

Cruz/Carson/Bush +1800

Christie +3300

Kasich +5000

Fiorina +7500

Has she been favored vs the field for a while? I don't remember seeing it before, seems like last time I checked it was even money

It's fascinating to me that the people who make the betting lines see Rubio as such a favorite for the GOP nom. Feels like a hot sleeper draft pick that progressively goes in the higher rounds ADP because ... well... because.

Interesting as I see him as the current RNC leader (polls be damned) and really do expect to see him debating Hillary in a number of months.

It has to be Rubio. It just has to be. I know this is the GOP we're talking about, but everyone else is such a flawed candidate.

 

[elbowrm]

He's about 65% as xenophobic as he would need to be to get the nomination.

 

[HellToupee]

He's about 65% as xenophobic as he would need to be to get the nomination.

not everyone is enlightened as you

 

[elbowrm]

Man was that a bad show on HBO

 

[Sinn Fein]

A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed June 5 by the government watchdog Judicial Watch has revealed an email by Huma Abedin saying the former U.S. secretary of state is easily disoriented. The new documents were provided by the State Department Oct. 30.

The nonprofit organization secured the following copy of a Jan. 26, 2013, email exchange between Abedin and Clinton aide Monica Hanley:

Abedin: Have you been going over her calls with her? So she knows Singh is at 8? [india Prime Minister Manmohan Singh]

Hanley: She was in bed for a nap by the time I heard that she had an 8am call. Will go over with her.

Abedin:Very imp [sic] to do that. She’s often confused.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Updated 2016 Odds (Bovada)

Hillary -125

Rubio +400

Trump +600

Bernie +1200

Cruz/Carson/Bush +1800

Christie +3300

Kasich +5000

Fiorina +7500

Has she been favored vs the field for a while? I don't remember seeing it before, seems like last time I checked it was even money

It's fascinating to me that the people who make the betting lines see Rubio as such a favorite for the GOP nom. Feels like a hot sleeper draft pick that progressively goes in the higher rounds ADP because ... well... because.

Interesting as I see him as the current RNC leader (polls be damned) and really do expect to see him debating Hillary in a number of months.

It has to be Rubio. It just has to be. I know this is the GOP we're talking about, but everyone else is such a flawed candidate.

I would say that too, and honestly for the country I think it would be the best thing, but do the polls show that? I was pointing to the bookmakers having him in the final (general election) while at the moment it's Trump and Carson around 25 each and Cruz down around 10... when and how do the numbers kick in gear to get him there?

 

[timschochet]

A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed June 5 by the government watchdog Judicial Watch has revealed an email by Huma Abedin saying the former U.S. secretary of state is easily disoriented. The new documents were provided by the State Department Oct. 30.

The nonprofit organization secured the following copy of a Jan. 26, 2013, email exchange between Abedin and Clinton aide Monica Hanley:

Abedin: Have you been going over her calls with her? So she knows Singh is at 8? [india Prime Minister Manmohan Singh]

Hanley: She was in bed for a nap by the time I heard that she had an 8am call. Will go over with her.

Abedin:Very imp [sic] to do that. Shes often confused.

What a scumbag group Judicial Watch is. Hillary is always so much easier to defend whenever Judicial Watch is involved.

 

[MaxThreshold]

A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed June 5 by the government watchdog Judicial Watch has revealed an email by Huma Abedin saying the former U.S. secretary of state is easily disoriented. The new documents were provided by the State Department Oct. 30.

The nonprofit organization secured the following copy of a Jan. 26, 2013, email exchange between Abedin and Clinton aide Monica Hanley:

Abedin: Have you been going over her calls with her? So she knows Singh is at 8? [india Prime Minister Manmohan Singh]

Hanley: She was in bed for a nap by the time I heard that she had an 8am call. Will go over with her.

Abedin:Very imp [sic] to do that. Shes often confused.

What a scumbag group Judicial Watch is. Hillary is always so much easier to defend whenever Judicial Watch is involved.

What about the email? Seriously, it's an official document - has nothing to do with Judicial Watch.

 

[timschochet]

A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed June 5 by the government watchdog Judicial Watch has revealed an email by Huma Abedin saying the former U.S. secretary of state is easily disoriented. The new documents were provided by the State Department Oct. 30.

The nonprofit organization secured the following copy of a Jan. 26, 2013, email exchange between Abedin and Clinton aide Monica Hanley:

Abedin: Have you been going over her calls with her? So she knows Singh is at 8? [india Prime Minister Manmohan Singh]

Hanley: She was in bed for a nap by the time I heard that she had an 8am call. Will go over with her.

Abedin:Very imp [sic] to do that. Shes often confused.

What a scumbag group Judicial Watch is. Hillary is always so much easier to defend whenever Judicial Watch is involved.

What about the email? Seriously, it's an official document - has nothing to do with Judicial Watch.

Theyre supposedly concerned with lawbreaking. What does this email have to do with that? All they're looking to do is smear the Clintons. I'm guessing it was taken out of context. You've seen Hillary giving testimony, at debates, being interviewed. Does she seem easily confused to you? Such nonsense.

 

[RCon]

Her rant about September 11 seemed like she was confused, given that it had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Gopher State]

Her rant about September 11 seemed like she was confused, given that it had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Cbs poll shows Hillary won the second debate by 51 to 28, they must of missed this

 

[The Commish]

Her rant about September 11 seemed like she was confused, given that it had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Cbs poll shows Hillary won the second debate by 51 to 28, they must of missed this

Most of America missed it. I don't think it's stepping far out on a limb to assume that most that watched were establishment types. Yes, Hillary's demo.

 

[Trey]

Her rant about September 11 seemed like she was confused, given that it had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Cbs poll shows Hillary won the second debate by 51 to 28, they must of missed this

Most of America missed it. I don't think it's stepping far out on a limb to assume that most that watched were establishment types. Yes, Hillary's demo.

She won the first debate too which was watched by 16 million...

 

[The Commish]

Her rant about September 11 seemed like she was confused, given that it had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Cbs poll shows Hillary won the second debate by 51 to 28, they must of missed this

Most of America missed it. I don't think it's stepping far out on a limb to assume that most that watched were establishment types. Yes, Hillary's demo.

She won the first debate too which was watched by 16 million...

and that has what to do with this particular exchange?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed June 5 by the government watchdog Judicial Watch has revealed an email by Huma Abedin saying the former U.S. secretary of state is easily disoriented. The new documents were provided by the State Department Oct. 30.

The nonprofit organization secured the following copy of a Jan. 26, 2013, email exchange between Abedin and Clinton aide Monica Hanley:

Abedin: Have you been going over her calls with her? So she knows Singh is at 8? [india Prime Minister Manmohan Singh]

Hanley: She was in bed for a nap by the time I heard that she had an 8am call. Will go over with her.

Abedin:Very imp [sic] to do that. Shes often confused.

What a scumbag group Judicial Watch is. Hillary is always so much easier to defend whenever Judicial Watch is involved.

They do FOIA requests. These are public records. That's a right of every citizen and one of the best tools in public transparency.

 

[timschochet]

A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed June 5 by the government watchdog Judicial Watch has revealed an email by Huma Abedin saying the former U.S. secretary of state is easily disoriented. The new documents were provided by the State Department Oct. 30.

The nonprofit organization secured the following copy of a Jan. 26, 2013, email exchange between Abedin and Clinton aide Monica Hanley:

Abedin: Have you been going over her calls with her? So she knows Singh is at 8? [india Prime Minister Manmohan Singh]

Hanley: She was in bed for a nap by the time I heard that she had an 8am call. Will go over with her.

Abedin:Very imp [sic] to do that. Shes often confused.

What a scumbag group Judicial Watch is. Hillary is always so much easier to defend whenever Judicial Watch is involved.

They do FOIA requests. These are public records. That's a right of every citizen and one of the best tools in public transparency.

They abuse that right. They flood the courts with demands. Then they release whatever they can find that will embarrass Democrats, which is their only purpose.

 

[The Commish]

A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed June 5 by the government watchdog Judicial Watch has revealed an email by Huma Abedin saying the former U.S. secretary of state is easily disoriented. The new documents were provided by the State Department Oct. 30.

The nonprofit organization secured the following copy of a Jan. 26, 2013, email exchange between Abedin and Clinton aide Monica Hanley:

Abedin: Have you been going over her calls with her? So she knows Singh is at 8? [india Prime Minister Manmohan Singh]

Hanley: She was in bed for a nap by the time I heard that she had an 8am call. Will go over with her.

Abedin:Very imp [sic] to do that. Shes often confused.

What a scumbag group Judicial Watch is. Hillary is always so much easier to defend whenever Judicial Watch is involved.

They do FOIA requests. These are public records. That's a right of every citizen and one of the best tools in public transparency.

They abuse that right. They flood the courts with demands. Then they release whatever they can find that will embarrass Democrats, which is their only purpose.

Are you angry about this because it's just democrats they go after?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed June 5 by the government watchdog Judicial Watch has revealed an email by Huma Abedin saying the former U.S. secretary of state is easily disoriented. The new documents were provided by the State Department Oct. 30.

The nonprofit organization secured the following copy of a Jan. 26, 2013, email exchange between Abedin and Clinton aide Monica Hanley:

Abedin: Have you been going over her calls with her? So she knows Singh is at 8? [india Prime Minister Manmohan Singh]

Hanley: She was in bed for a nap by the time I heard that she had an 8am call. Will go over with her.

Abedin:Very imp [sic] to do that. Shes often confused.

What a scumbag group Judicial Watch is. Hillary is always so much easier to defend whenever Judicial Watch is involved.

They do FOIA requests. These are public records. That's a right of every citizen and one of the best tools in public transparency.

They abuse that right. They flood the courts with demands. Then they release whatever they can find that will embarrass Democrats, which is their only purpose.

JW sued the Bush administration over 200 times on their secret energy industry meetings.

I think your problem is that they exercise their civil rights and Hillary is embarrassed in the wash.

That email was from Huma herself.

 

[Trey]

If she had full blown dementia she's still probably a better choice than at least half the republican field.

 

[timschochet]

A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed June 5 by the government watchdog Judicial Watch has revealed an email by Huma Abedin saying the former U.S. secretary of state is easily disoriented. The new documents were provided by the State Department Oct. 30.

The nonprofit organization secured the following copy of a Jan. 26, 2013, email exchange between Abedin and Clinton aide Monica Hanley:

Abedin: Have you been going over her calls with her? So she knows Singh is at 8? [india Prime Minister Manmohan Singh]

Hanley: She was in bed for a nap by the time I heard that she had an 8am call. Will go over with her.

Abedin:Very imp [sic] to do that. Shes often confused.

What a scumbag group Judicial Watch is. Hillary is always so much easier to defend whenever Judicial Watch is involved.

They do FOIA requests. These are public records. That's a right of every citizen and one of the best tools in public transparency.

They abuse that right. They flood the courts with demands. Then they release whatever they can find that will embarrass Democrats, which is their only purpose.

Are you angry about this because it's just democrats they go after?

If they were a partisan progressive group it would bother me just as much.

Saints is correct that they did engage in a few actions against Bush, but that was pretty much only to keep their name in the press and to get contributions. They are primarily an extreme conservative group who looks into every conspiracy no matter how absurd, and wastes millions of taxpayer money. I find them despicable and have since the mid 90s after Vince Foster died.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed June 5 by the government watchdog Judicial Watch has revealed an email by Huma Abedin saying the former U.S. secretary of state is easily disoriented. The new documents were provided by the State Department Oct. 30.

The nonprofit organization secured the following copy of a Jan. 26, 2013, email exchange between Abedin and Clinton aide Monica Hanley:

Abedin: Have you been going over her calls with her? So she knows Singh is at 8? [india Prime Minister Manmohan Singh]

Hanley: She was in bed for a nap by the time I heard that she had an 8am call. Will go over with her.

Abedin:Very imp [sic] to do that. Shes often confused.

What a scumbag group Judicial Watch is. Hillary is always so much easier to defend whenever Judicial Watch is involved.

What about the email? Seriously, it's an official document - has nothing to do with Judicial Watch.

Theyre supposedly concerned with lawbreaking. What does this email have to do with that? All they're looking to do is smear the Clintons. I'm guessing it was taken out of context. You've seen Hillary giving testimony, at debates, being interviewed. Does she seem easily confused to you? Such nonsense.

Isn't this the second email talking about Hillary's nappy time? There was also the one talking about how she overslept through a cabinet meeting.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed June 5 by the government watchdog Judicial Watch has revealed an email by Huma Abedin saying the former U.S. secretary of state is easily disoriented. The new documents were provided by the State Department Oct. 30.

The nonprofit organization secured the following copy of a Jan. 26, 2013, email exchange between Abedin and Clinton aide Monica Hanley:

Abedin: Have you been going over her calls with her? So she knows Singh is at 8? [india Prime Minister Manmohan Singh]

Hanley: She was in bed for a nap by the time I heard that she had an 8am call. Will go over with her.

Abedin:Very imp [sic] to do that. Shes often confused.

What a scumbag group Judicial Watch is. Hillary is always so much easier to defend whenever Judicial Watch is involved.

They do FOIA requests. These are public records. That's a right of every citizen and one of the best tools in public transparency.

They abuse that right. They flood the courts with demands. Then they release whatever they can find that will embarrass Democrats, which is their only purpose.

Are you angry about this because it's just democrats they go after?

If they were a partisan progressive group it would bother me just as much.

Saints is correct that they did engage in a few actions against Bush, but that was pretty much only to keep their name in the press and to get contributions. They are primarily an extreme conservative group who looks into every conspiracy no matter how absurd, and wastes millions of taxpayer money. I find them despicable and have since the mid 90s after Vince Foster died.

Judicial Watch Calls for Transparency,Openness and Honesty in Government Dealings

Challenges Abuse of Executive Privilege in Supreme Court Cheney Case

http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/67/factsheet.htm

They took Bush and Cheney to the Supreme Court.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Her rant about September 11 seemed like she was confused, given that it had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Cbs poll shows Hillary won the second debate by 51 to 28, they must of missed this

That's not very good...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Her rant about September 11 seemed like she was confused, given that it had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Uncle Leo says .

 

[The Commish]

A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed June 5 by the government watchdog Judicial Watch has revealed an email by Huma Abedin saying the former U.S. secretary of state is easily disoriented. The new documents were provided by the State Department Oct. 30.

The nonprofit organization secured the following copy of a Jan. 26, 2013, email exchange between Abedin and Clinton aide Monica Hanley:

Abedin: Have you been going over her calls with her? So she knows Singh is at 8? [india Prime Minister Manmohan Singh]

Hanley: She was in bed for a nap by the time I heard that she had an 8am call. Will go over with her.

Abedin:Very imp [sic] to do that. Shes often confused.

What a scumbag group Judicial Watch is. Hillary is always so much easier to defend whenever Judicial Watch is involved.

They do FOIA requests. These are public records. That's a right of every citizen and one of the best tools in public transparency.

They abuse that right. They flood the courts with demands. Then they release whatever they can find that will embarrass Democrats, which is their only purpose.

Are you angry about this because it's just democrats they go after?

If they were a partisan progressive group it would bother me just as much.

Saints is correct that they did engage in a few actions against Bush, but that was pretty much only to keep their name in the press and to get contributions. They are primarily an extreme conservative group who looks into every conspiracy no matter how absurd, and wastes millions of taxpayer money. I find them despicable and have since the mid 90s after Vince Foster died.

so your problem with this is they are exercising their rights under the law in a manner you see unfit so it's "wasting" millions? Look at it this way, they could be your typical politician and waste billions with a "b", so they could be worse