You'll never guess what Hillary Clinton did today!

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
"Vote for Hillary! It's what the others deserve for their sexist and ageist remarks!"

That's as good a political slogan as any, I suppose, and more honest than most. You may be on to something. :D

Indeed. No candidate currently in the field has given me a better reason to vote for them as of yet.
In a nutshell, that's precisely the edge hillary has over the Republicans. She's not perceived as ageist, sexist[SUP]1[/SUP], or homophobic[SUP]2[/SUP], even though she's every bit the warmongering crony capitalist with no respect for individual rights and a lust for a totalitarian police state with her at the helm as the ageist, sexist, homophobic Red Ties[SUP]TM[/SUP] who seek the same helm.

These days, apparently that's enough to get the troops to line up behind somebody. Sad but true. Talk about the lesser of two evils.

[SUP]1[/SUP]Although it's perhaps worthwhile to examine the record concerning her senate staff.
[SUP]2[/SUP]And the same for gay marriage.

Then again, perception trumps reality every time.
 

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
Also, in fairness, there were a lot of doubts and criticisms about Reagan's age when he ran. I agree with robeiae - it's not a disqualifier, but it's not sexist to bring it up.
 

CassandraW

Banned
Flounced
Kind Benefactor
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
24,012
Reaction score
6,476
Location
.
And I have to admit, there is a part of me that is always bothered by the people in power never wanting to give it up because of their age, even as they continue to support having retirement ages for everyone else (and mandatory retirement for some).

Agree with that.

Aging certainly can be an issue, but people don't all age at the same rate, physically and mentally. I know runners who hover near 80, and have some relatives in their 90s who are as sharp as they ever were. And then some people are senile and decrepit in their 60s. By and large, I think it overwhelmingly likely that Hil at 73 will still be shredding her email with the same vim and vigor she always has.
 
Last edited:

Diana Hignutt

Very Tired
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
13,322
Reaction score
7,117
Location
Albany, NY
“Listen up, assholes, ’cause I’m only saying this once: I’ve worked way too goddamn hard to let you morons blow this thing for me,” said Clinton, repeatedly jabbing her index finger toward the viewers at home while adding that if they thought she was going to simply sit back and watch them dick her over like they did in 2008, they were out of their fucking minds

http://www.theonion.com/articles/hillary-clinton-to-nation-do-not-fuck-this-up-for,38416/

I know she didn't say this, but it is still how I perceive her attitude in this matter....
 

Kaiser-Kun

!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Messages
6,944
Reaction score
1,915
Age
39
Location
Mexico
I think there's a couple of mole men, living two kilometers under the Mariana trench, who didn't expect that (but kind of suspected).

watch them dick her over

tee hee.
 
Last edited:

J.S.F.

Red fish, blue fish...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
5,365
Reaction score
793
Location
Osaka
Actually, I would have enjoyed her announcement video much more if she'd done that.

---

Would her voice have been strident or no-nonsense?:D
It's all in the delivery...;)
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
---

Well, now that you mention it...

It's going to be tough for Hillary. No question. Puppy eating aside, her emails and Benghazi (among other things) will be brought up ad infinitum during the campaign.

The Republicans and Hillary's rivals (if any emerge) will certainly try to bring up the emails and Benghazi ad nauseam, but neither have seriously wounded her viability as a candidate.

As for the puppy eating, were there no babies available? :rolleyes

Having lived in the public spotlight for so many years and being accused of being everything from a closeted lesbian to a murderer, taking swings at the Hillary Punching Bag has a fun activity for her opponents since the early Nineties. That is not to say there isn't more to know about Clinton including more stuff she doesn't want us to know, but there isn't a candidate living who hasn't had her past scrutinized as closely as Hillary Rodham Clinton and the opposition research folders runneth over already.

She wouldn't bother running if she wasn't ready for all the guns that will be trained on her.

J.S.F. said:
Hillary...I honestly don't know about her. She always seems to be a little too combative, too strident in her replies. She's grown more politically savvy in certain areas, but will it be enough?

Forty-thousand quatloos she loses the primary.

To whom? :Huh:

There's a chance Jim Webb, Joe Biden, Marty O'Malley, Bernie Sanders or Lincoln Chafee steps up to the mic and throws down with Hillary in an epic rap battle. Not much of a chance, mind you.

It's to the benefit of the Republicans all the buzz is on their side with the scrum they're about to engage in. They're the ones who need to convince the American people to step on the lot and test drive all the shiny new models on display in the showroom. Their sales pitch is do you really want the 2016 Hillary that hasn't changed a thing besides swapping out the CD player for an iPod?

That is where Hillary's problems begin. It's not that's she is too old, or overly aggressive/ambitious, or entitled or too scandal-plagued, or electing her would effectively be Obama's third term. No, the best argument I can see to make against her is "What's so different about Hillary in 2016 than 2008?"

If Hillary can't win that argument she loses.
 

Myrealana

I aim to misbehave
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
5,425
Reaction score
1,911
Location
Denver, CO
Website
www.badfoodie.com
I think for fun, she should have held off announcing until about Halloween 2016, and see if she can win anyway.
 

Vince524

Are you gonna finish that bacon?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2010
Messages
15,903
Reaction score
4,652
Location
In a house
Website
vincentmorrone.com
Not going to multi quote because it'll take so long and I just don't feel like it. I personally don't care that Hillary is a woman, I care that inherently she's dishonest. And a Clinton administration will be bogged down with 1 scandal after another. Yes, the left will say 100% of them are just right wing conspiracies, but mostly they'll be things like the email scandal no matter how you spin it, she brought it on herself.

I think her time in the Senate was easier as she avoided anything controversial because she wanted to run for President.

I'm not going to say I won't vote for her, because it'll depend on who is in the running against her. I did vote for her reelection as a Senator, so I'm not against voting for her.

In terms of the age thing, she's younger than others who have sought election to the WH, but at the same time, her identity is old. Not her age. In the same way Jeb Bush is. It's probably unfair to both of them. She's not her husband, Jeb isn't his brother or father. But both will be tied to them. In her case, if she hadn't been 1st lady, she probably never would have gotten elected as a NY senator and would have no chance in the WH.

In addition, she can't really run like Obama did as a Washington outsider who will bring newness to the WH and politics. She's too much a part of the Washington Political Machine for that. Plus she was a part of Obama's team as Secretary of State. So anyone who has a beef with international affairs of Obama can bring it up with her. And if she bad mouths Obama to put distance between them, that could backfire.

I understand what Cassandra meant by wanting to donate to her when someone says something blatantly sexist. I think Sarah Palin got a raw treatment by some in the media and because of that, it garnered extra support. If she had been treated fairly, people would have dismissed her as a lightweight nobody and not taken her seriously. (And Clinton has far more gravitas than Sarah)

I don't see a new Obama right now in the party who can mount a real challenge to her winning the nomination, not do I see anyone yet on the GOP side who is a shoe in to win.
 

Gregg

Life is good
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,725
Reaction score
248
Age
77
Location
In my house on the river
That is where Hillary's problems begin. It's not that's she is too old, or overly aggressive/ambitious, or entitled or too scandal-plagued, or electing her would effectively be Obama's third term. No, the best argument I can see to make against her is "What's so different about Hillary in 2016 than 2008?"

If Hillary can't win that argument she loses.

I think she's going to be in for a dogfight, unless the GOP nominates someone too far to the right - like Cruz or Huckabee- or too inexperienced - Carson or Fiorina.

Clinton is neither as likeable nor as politically gifted as her husband, and probably some of her potential GOP opponents.

She's also never won a tough election so the chances she'll make more mistakes is fairly high (she already goofed part of the roll-out yesterday- apparently her first youtube link didn't work and a press release said that he has "fought women and children her whole life" (they forgot "for....")).

A young dynamic (Hispanic?) running mate will help her too.
 

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
She's also never won a tough election so the chances she'll make more mistakes is fairly high (she already goofed part of the roll-out yesterday- apparently her first youtube link didn't work and a press release said that he has "fought women and children her whole life" (they forgot "for....")).


Wow, a broken link and a typo. Clearly her campaign is doomed.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Ready for Hillary? Take Our Quiz and Find Out!

A sample:
3. This time around, Clinton's chief rival for the nomination is (a) Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, (b) Maryland Gov. Tommy Carcetti, (c) singer-songwriter Jimmy Webb, or (d) a powerful but inchoate sense of unease.
 

Gregg

Life is good
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,725
Reaction score
248
Age
77
Location
In my house on the river
Wow, a broken link and a typo. Clearly her campaign is doomed.

Of course not .
But after running for President for 10 years, you'd think she'd get it right.
Maybe they hired the same guy who did the Obamacare website. ;)
 

Vince524

Are you gonna finish that bacon?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2010
Messages
15,903
Reaction score
4,652
Location
In a house
Website
vincentmorrone.com
Of course not .
But after running for President for 10 years, you'd think she'd get it right.
Maybe they hired the same guy who did the Obamacare website. ;)

Give her a break. She had to redo everything because the original stuff she recorded was deleted when she wiped her email server.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
She's also never won a tough election so the chances she'll make more mistakes is fairly high . . .
She first ran for Senate in 2000 against Rudy Giuliani. It was a tough campaign, not the least because Hillary was perceived (not unfairly) as a carpetbagger, seeing as she was not from new York and had never even lived there.

But she mounted a grassroots effort in Republican upstate New York, and it worked. Giuliani eventually dropped out of the race, citing personal and health reasons, but by that time what had been a very close race was already slipping away from him.

Hillary may have some baggage, but so do her possible opponents. Scott Walker, for example, had six of his aides including his deputy chief of staff convicted of felony charges related to campaign law violations.

The GOP has been scrutinizing Hillary with a microscope for years. When a Republican challenger finally surfaces, expect the same level of scrutiny from the Dems. And they're not going to lke it.
 

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
The GOP has been scrutinizing Hillary with a microscope for years. When a Republican challenger finally surfaces, expect the same level of scrutiny from the Dems. And they're not going to lke it.

What did Eisenhower do?
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
I think she's going to be in for a dogfight, unless the GOP nominates someone too far to the right - like Cruz or Huckabee- or too inexperienced - Carson or Fiorina.

No worries. Those guys are simply the sideshow clowns. The serious contenders simply hope to keep the blood splatter off their suits.

Gregg said:
Clinton is neither as likeable nor as politically gifted as her husband, and probably some of her potential GOP opponents.

Likability is a highly overrated trait in politics. I'd rather have a president that can handle the various forest fires big and small that come across their desk every day than whether or not I'd want to tip back a beer with them. Hell, Ted Cruz looks like he'd rather devour someone's brains than knock back a brew.

The vast majority of Americans will never meet the President, never shake the President's hand, never kick back with the President and never chew the fat while pounding brewskis.

It's nice to like your candidate of choice, but it's better even if you don't they do the job they were elected to do and to do that may require doing stuff you aren't going to like.

Gregg said:
She's also never won a tough election so the chances she'll make more mistakes is fairly high (she already goofed part of the roll-out yesterday- apparently her first youtube link didn't work and a press release said that he has "fought women and children her whole life" (they forgot "for....")).

A young dynamic (Hispanic?) running mate will help her too.

There has been so much carping about the announcement and it will have no effect upon the final results. Nobody's not going to vote for Hillary because of a dead link.

Veteran political analyst Larry Sabato peers into the crystal ball and predicts as far as the Democratic presidential nomination goes, it's Hillary's to lose.

As she launches what is likely to be a frontrunning and cautious primary campaign, there is no denying that Hillary Clinton is one of the most durable political figures in American history.

Immersed in politics since the early 1970s, she has been a universally recognized national figure since 1992. Whether elected president or not, Clinton is guaranteed top billing through 2016 — her 24th consecutive year in the headlines.

Think back over the years since 1900. Few presidential-level politicians are in her category: Teddy Roosevelt, William Jennings Bryan, Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Ted Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. Should she make it to the White House, Clinton will have longevity surpassing every one of these other luminaries. (Notice that six of the nine became president, and three failed.)

There are obviously advantages and disadvantages to this status. Here’s a two-sided example. Much of her image is set in concrete. Attempts to radically redefine her are doomed; we all think we know her virtues and vices. On the other hand, attacks on Clinton that do not fit the decades-long narrative of her persona will likely fall flat.

There’s plenty of time to assess Clinton’s general election chances. For now, let’s focus on her nomination odds. Despite the secret-email controversy, she’s in good shape at the starting gate.

While the Clinton announcement surprises no one, the fact that she now is officially a candidate puts to rest the occasional whispers that she might have decided against a run for health or family reasons. It also allows us to freshen up our rankings of the Democratic presidential contenders, which included several potential candidates who appeared as though they would only run if the favored Clinton took a surprising pass on the race.

Comparisons to 2008, when Clinton lost as the frontrunner, are off-base. Not only does the current field of challengers lack a political prospect nearly of the caliber that Barack Obama was in 2007, but it is also missing even someone like John Edwards, who while disgraced now was a very credible candidate at this time eight years ago, having served as John Kerry’s VP running mate in 2004.

In other words: Clinton’s worst national poll since the start of last year is still better than her best poll during the 2008 cycle.
As far as not being tested if she doesn't receive a credible primary challenger, what's bad for Hillary is it allows the Republicans to attack, attack, attack relentlessly, and while they're bashing Clinton, she either has to react and respond to the attacks to avoid being Swift-boated or shrug it off and the Republicans get to set the parameters of the debate in the general election.

It's a trap. :sword
 

ShaunHorton

AW's resident Velociraptor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2014
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
590
Location
Washington State
Website
shaunhorton.blogspot.com
I envision something like the end of Eminem's movie 8 Mile, where he ends up taking the wind out of his opponent by already bashing himself with all the ammo they thought they had.

*Pictures Hillary going "Now go on and tell these people something they don't know about me!", dropping the mic and walking off the stage.*
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
Likability is a highly overrated trait in politics. I'd rather have a president that can handle the various forest fires big and small that come across their desk every day than whether or not I'd want to tip back a beer with them.

I don't think likability is all that overrated when it comes to winning elections. A candidate's likability has been a major issue for a while now. Romney's lack of such--as compared to Obama--was considered a factor by many in 2012.
 

CassandraW

Banned
Flounced
Kind Benefactor
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
24,012
Reaction score
6,476
Location
.
Likability was a huge factor in the success of Reagan, George W., and Clinton. Unlikability was a huge factor for Dukakis, Kerry, and Romney, all of whom may be swell guys beloved by friends and family, but too often come off as stiff and cold.

By the way, I am not talking about my own feelings about any of these candidates. I'm with nighttimer that I don't give a damn if my president is cuddly and fun. I'm talking about the general perception much of the public seemed to have about these candidates.

Unfortunately, I think it does matter.

I think for a while there as Secretary of State, Hillary improved her likability factor, but obviously a number of events have taken their toll.
 
Last edited:

Vince524

Are you gonna finish that bacon?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2010
Messages
15,903
Reaction score
4,652
Location
In a house
Website
vincentmorrone.com
Likability was a huge factor in the success of Reagan, George W., and Clinton. Unlikability was a huge factor for Dukakis, Kerry, and Romney, all of whom may be swell guys beloved by friends and family, but too often come off as stiff and cold.

By the way, I am not talking about my own feelings about any of these candidates. I'm with nighttimer that I don't give a damn if my president is cuddly and fun. I'm talking about the general perception much of the public seemed to have about these candidates.

Unfortunately, I think it does matter.

I think for a while there as Secretary of State, Hillary improved her likability factor, but obviously a number of events have taken their toll.

There are a lot of people who vote who don't really follow politics. They may tune in for part of a debate, maybe the entire debate if it's interesting, but not beyond that.

I had a friend in college who didn't like David Dinkins, but wouldn't vote for Rudy Giuliani because she was prochoice. So was Rudy and it was for NYC mayor and mayors don't really have much to do with that, but never mind. So she voted for a 3rd party candidate. One who she thought looked like a nice guy. Heard him speak about something he was funny. She hadn't bothered to find out he was on the conservative ticket and was the only one running with a pro-life stand.