And so it begins...the "anti-Hillary" narrative

[OCinBuffalo]

What amazing timing, at the same time the left is starting to realize Obama is done, and looking forward to Hillary, this. Timing my ass.

 

http://www.realclear...n_dont_run.html

 

Now, obviously this is crap. Especially this part "we badly need to be inspired, rallied, and made to believe that America can once again be true to the American dream", coming from a channel, a party and a POTUS for whom being divisive is a policy.

 

I love how Bush was to blame for his 8 years, but nowhere is Obama to blame for the last 6. Liberals: it's this sort of incongruent nonsense, that you continue to deliver, that always gets you in trouble. Life would be so much easier if you'd just stop this crap.

 

But, like I've said here plenty: the far left knows that Hillary wouldn't think twice about killing Obamacare or another/all other sacred liberal cows, provided it served her political interests. And this Krystal Ball character says it succinctly:

I just don’t think that’s where Clinton’s heart is though. I think she is safe, careful, constantly evaluating her positions, drawn to the center, wherever that happens to be at the time.

You can say that again. So all you Obamacare people who are also Hillary people? Not so fast. Many on the left see HIllary straight = she's for her, just like her husband, first, and if that happens to line up with their interests, great, if not? Tough.

 

 

Now....before those of you on the right start getting all giddy about the Democratic Civil War(which, while I do believe has the potential to be 3x more damaging to the them than whatever is happening with the Rs, and will start around this time next year)? Not so fast.

 

As we go forward, remember that it's quite possible that this whole thing is a canard. They may try to create fake "trouble" on Hillary's left, to pretend that she isn't being crowned(just like last time, except Obama weasled in and made real trouble), "proving" that she's been "legitimately" tested in the nomination process. They may also try to create fake "trouble" so that the whole conversation moves to the left = Hillary gets cover for saying kooky things, and now the issue has been framed with a leftist slant.

 

Face it: they know how much trouble they are in, and they will do anything to avoid their punishment.

 

Or....they may actually be dumb enough to nominate Elizabeth Warren.

Edited February 12, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[keepthefaith]

More Liberal drivel about wealth redistribution and evil bankers and Wall Streeters. What part of " A weak economy always punishes the less ambitious,capable and less educated" don't they understand. They just don't get that companies can right-size themselves in a flat marketplace and that increased regulation, taxes and expenses almost always means a lower payroll.

 

...and the writer wants miss "corporations are not people" to be our President. She would do wonders for the economy and inspire millions!!!!!!!!!!!.

[B-Man]

Lefties desperately searching for reasons not to nominate Hillary

 

No judgment here. I remember a lot of long, bleak nights in 2010 spent trying to talk myself into believing that the GOP would never nominate a candidate whose state health-care initiative paved the way for ObamaCare. Sure, he was next in line and would outspend all his opponents and had a business resume that might prove attractive in a battered economy. But there were lots of ways to stop him. Weren’t there?

 

If Hillary wants the nomination, nothing’s going to stop her. And the worse Obama’s second term gets, the fewer Democrats there’ll be who are willing to forfeit her electoral advantages in order to roll the dice on a purer liberal like Elizabeth Warren with one-tenth the name recognition of the Clintons and one-thousandth the fundraising potential. There’s a cold calculation coming, just as there was for Romney: At the end of the day, who’s most likely to help us win power? Lay aside what he or she might do with that power. At a bare minimum, no matter how bad it gets, at least we’ll be keeping the ball away from the other team.

 

They’ll come around. Kubler-Ross is a process, after all. But for now, we’re in the early stages.

 

 

Or read this from National Journal, lamenting that Hillary’s sucking up political oxygen that rightfully belongs to the party’s up-and-comers. Question: Should the most formidable Democratic candidate in America step aside so that no-name losers like Martin O’Malley can take their rightful place at the head of the crowd?

By 2016, it will have been eight years since Democrats have had a contested primary, and if Clinton is effectively anointed the nominee and wins the presidency (still two big ifs), it will have been 16 years by the 2024 cycle. That’s a long time without the incubation chamber for national leaders that primaries provide. A run, or even the anticipation thereof, draws media attention and voters’ interest, boosting the potential candidate’s national profile.

 

Republicans have developed a farm team of up-and-coming elected officials considering presidential bids. Just look at leaders in their 40s who, if not candidates themselves, can at least serve as national surrogates for the party. In the Congress there’s Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas, along with 2012 vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan. In the statehouses, there’s Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Most have positioned themselves as part of a new generation of reformers.

 

The story is very different for Democrats. There are just two well-known potential 2016 candidates in their 40s: New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker. Ask Democratic strategists for examples of other younger up-and-comers, and you’ll hear names like Julian and Joaquin Castro, the congressman and San Antonio mayor, respectively. And California Attorney General Kamala Harris is always touted, despite her limited political experience.

 

That’s not only the fault of Clinton’s shadow. The 2010 Republican wave wiped out many Democratic officeholders, including many governors, which are traditionally the primary pool of presidential contenders.

 

 

 

Exit question: How soon will it be before lefties seize on Hillary’s ruthlessness as a new reason to block her?

Clinton wanted to keep records for ‘revenge'

 

 

Bridgegate is an easy peg for a pretext like that. E.g., “How can we criticize Chris Christie for bullying when we’re poised to re-nominate a couple who keep an enemies’ list?”

 

Needless to say, the nanosecond her nomination is assured, they’ll get over it.

 

.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

the Anti Hillary commentary started a very long time ago

 

 

 

when did end?

[Tiberius]

She murdered Vince Foster!!!

[Nanker]

[B-Man]

Its kinda funny, and sadly predictable, that two of the weaker posters here on the board have completely missed the point of the thread.

 

That many on the Establishment Left are now questioning Hillary's pre-ordained candidacy.

 

Their standard "look what the Right said about her" squirrels are not really even worth the effort.

 

 

 

 

Maybe this is a reason some Liberals are concerned

 

 

Clintons Still Hate Obama-Supporting Democrats.

 

 

Forgive and forget? Not Bill and Hillary.

 

A system of political rewards and punishments devised by the political power couple set aside “a special circle of Clinton hell . 

 

. . for people who had endorsed [President] Obama,” according to “HRC,” a new book by Politico former White House bureau chief Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes of The Hill.

 

The most helpful Clintonistas were rated “1” under the Clintons’ rating system, while turncoat former allies, such as John Kerry, received “7’s.”

 

The Clinton camp would later “joke about the fates of the folks they felt had betrayed them,” the book said.

 

“Bill Richardson: investigated;

John Edwards: disgraced by scandal;

Chris Dodd: stepped down; . . .

Ted Kennedy: dead,” ........................an aide quipped, according to the book.

 

 

Ready for Hillary?

 

 

.

[OCinBuffalo]

Its kinda funny, and sadly predictable, that two of the weaker posters here on the board have completely missed the point of the thread.

 

That many on the Establishment Left are now questioning Hillary's pre-ordained candidacy.

 

Their standard "look what the Right said about her" squirrels are not really even worth the effort.

 

 

 

 

Maybe this is a reason some Liberals are concerned

 

 

Clintons Still Hate Obama-Supporting Democrats.

 

 

Forgive and forget? Not Bill and Hillary.

 

A system of political rewards and punishments devised by the political power couple set aside “a special circle of Clinton hell . 

 

. . for people who had endorsed [President] Obama,” according to “HRC,” a new book by Politico former White House bureau chief Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes of The Hill.

 

The most helpful Clintonistas were rated “1” under the Clintons’ rating system, while turncoat former allies, such as John Kerry, received “7’s.”

 

The Clinton camp would later “joke about the fates of the folks they felt had betrayed them,” the book said.

 

“Bill Richardson: investigated;

John Edwards: disgraced by scandal;

Chris Dodd: stepped down; . . .

Ted Kennedy: dead,” ........................an aide quipped, according to the book.

 

 

Ready for Hillary?

 

 

.

IF I was a Clinton, and had dealt with way more people politically than I could possibly imagine, never mind dealing with people every day, I'd believe I'd want some way to memorialize what the hell happened 10 months ago with person X. After all, I am a power broker: I need to know who has given me power and who has taken it away, as much as I need to remember who I've given/taken power from.

 

That's a tactical approach that merely makes sense to me. It's a balance sheet approach.

 

The argument should be: Hillary is a power broker...which means she is a crony capitalist/socialist, that will attempt to circumvent the Constitution and(insert your thing here, like soap opera ambassadors), the same way Obama is doing today. A vote for Clinton is a vote for more Obama corruption and tyranny(if you want to go all hyperbolic).

The argument should not be: her tactics as a power broker.

 

The first argument is superior in every way, because it is more sinister(if that's what you're going for), but more importantly, it ties her directly, in both word and deed, to the unpopular president. The second sounds like something from middle school.

Edited February 17, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[B-Man]

Well.............since the OP has opened up the discussion.

 

 

 

Why Hillary Clinton´s past is fair game in presidential race

 

Millions of young voters need to know who Hillary really is.

 

by Byron York

 

There's a debate going on about Hillary Clinton's past. If she runs for president in 2016, should Republicans reach back to the scandals of her years as First Lady? Or should they focus on more recent times, especially her tenure as Secretary of State, to build a case against her?

 

The GOP doesn't have to choose. Of course Clinton's recent experiences are relevant to a presidential run. But so are her actions in the 90s, the 80s and even the 70s. It's not ancient history; it reveals something about who Clinton was and still is. And re-examining her past is entirely consistent with practices in recent campaigns.

 

In the 2012 presidential race, for example, many in the press were very interested in business deals Mitt Romney made in the 1980s. In the 2004 race, many journalists were even more interested in what George W. Bush did with the Texas Air National Guard in 1968, as well as what John Kerry did in Vietnam that same year. And in 2000, a lot of journalists invested a lot of time trying to find proof that Bush had used cocaine three decades earlier.

 

So by the standards set in coverage of other candidates, Clinton's past is not too far past.

 

That's especially true because there will be millions of young voters in 2016 who know little about the Clinton White House. Americans who had not even been born when Bill Clinton first took the oath of office in 1993 will be eligible to vote two years from now. They need to know that Hillary Clinton has been more than Secretary of State.

 

 

More at the link:

Original Article

[Doc]

All of Hilly's past is fair game. If people were talking about Mitt doing something to someone in high school...

[Koko78]

All of Hilly's past is fair game. If people were talking about Mitt doing something to someone in high school...

 

Romney's wife had a horse, therefore his past was fair game. He also gave some broad cancer. We don't even want to get into what he does with dogs and cars.

 

Not supporting Hillary or attacking her past in any way means you're a misogynistic bible thumping gun toting racist redneck teabagger who has declared war on women.

[B-Man]

Politico: Clinton ducking NSA, surveillance issues

 

When was the last time Hillary Clinton used her lucrative public-speaking platform to address the issues of NSA and surveillance in the context of national security — or at all? Politico has been counting the days, and Josh Gerstein cites September as the last mention from the presumed Democratic frontrunner to succeed Barack Obama on those responsibilities.

 

Since then, Gerstein says, Hillary “skirts” the issue:

Clinton aides

indicated at the time

that she largely abandoned her planned speech at the National Constitution Center because President Barack Obama decided to address the nation that same night about his decision to seek congressional approval to use force in Syria. Indeed, she mentioned Obama’s imminent White House address and called for a “strong response” to the Syrian crisis.

 

While Clinton’s decision to put aside her original speech that night was understandable, her near silence on the issue since has been more open to question. As the national debate over the National Security Agency’s broad array of data collection programs has rolled on, courts, lawmakers, blue-ribbon panels and even Obama himself have weighed on the legality, effectiveness and wisdom of the snooping

.

Clinton has not.

 

But it’s not clear how long she can keep up the silent treatment: As she mulls a bid for the White House in 2016, she’s beginning to face pressure to outline her views on the surveillance issue more clearly.

 

Other potential 2016 contenders — ranging from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) to Gov. Martin O’Malley (D-Md.) — have weighed in. Paul, who has taken a staunchly libertarian stand against the NSA programs,

f

iled a class-action lawsuit over the surveillance

last week. By contrast,

Christie

and O’Malley have warned about the dangers of retreating in the battle against terrorism.

Completely sidestepping such questions would seem odd — and probably unsustainable — if Clinton wants to remain close to the national political debate.

[Nanker]

Can we bring up Chelsea's parentage too?

[3rdnlng]

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/krauthammer-hillary-achieved-nothing-secretary-state

Hewitt: That’s very true. Let me finish up there on Hillary. With these fiascoes underway in Kiev, a massacre, and in Venezuela, the arrest of opposition leader, Leopoldo Lopez today, Hillary’s foreign policy trifecta is complete. She’s lost South America, she’s lost the Middle East, and she’s lot Eastern Europe. How does anyone recover from that and run for the presidency?

Krauthammer: By losing the Pacific Rim.Then you get a straight flush. You get a royal flush. Look, you know, when people talk about Hillary being a superb Secretary of State, I just ask one question. Name me one thing, just one, not three, give me one thing she achieved in her four years as Secretary of State. I have yet to hear an answer.