Hillary's Campaign Kickoff

[Taro T]

I don't know. It started in 1993, with Hillary's health care reform (when she assumed that "First Lady" was an actual executive position.) Didn't really start to hit its stride until the Starr investigation, though.

 

How nice. Not just her own email, but she gave Abedin one as well.

 

Who else was doing government business on the Clinton server?

Is the answer: anyone who worked at the State Department under her tenure that might have had any possibility of receiving or sending an e-mail Madame Secretary would prefer to not get FOIA'd?

[IDBillzFan]

Is the answer: anyone who worked at the State Department under her tenure that might have had any possibility of receiving or sending an e-mail Madame Secretary would prefer to not get FOIA'd?

 

Sing with me now...

 

[Dante]

I was listening to a guy yesterday that believes that there is a good possibility that Hillary may not be able to run due to health reasons. Something to do with her falling on her head that time. If the timeline matched up better I would suspect that her a Reid got into some sort of brawl.

I just wandered over to Drudge and it's kind of interesting. There are a couple stories there making Hillary look sort of dopey. One from CNN (a unlikely source) and another from Yahoo(another unlikely source). Whenever I see something that doesn't make sense I think conspiracy. Is CNN and Yahoo doing Barrys will because the Obama's hate the Clintons and don't want her to win? They want the fake indian chick or the left wing kook Bernie Sanders to run? Something not adding up.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Dante

[DC Tom]

I was listening to a guy yesterday that believes that there is a good possibility that Hillary may not be able to run due to health reasons. Something to do with her falling on her head that time. If the timeline matched up better I would suspect that her a Reid got into some sort of brawl.

I just wandered over to Drudge and it's kind of interesting. There are a couple stories there making Hillary look sort of dopey. One from CNN (a unlikely source) and another from Yahoo(another unlikely source). Whenever I see something that doesn't make sense I think conspiracy. Is CNN and Yahoo doing Barrys will because the Obama's hate the Clintons and don't want her to win? They want the fake indian chick or the left wing kook Bernie Sanders to run? Something not adding up.

 

She'll run. The Presidency is her destiny.

[Chef Jim]

Can't operate a fax machine.

 

The email between her and Abedin is remarkable. Simply remarkable. Like an Abbott and Costello routine.

 

And I can't wait to find out who "Santa" was.

 

 

Someone wake up Bernie and tell him he's on in five.

 

According the article Santa was her hairdresser.

[reddogblitz]

Can't operate a fax machine.

 

The email between her and Abedin is remarkable. Simply remarkable. Like an Abbott and Costello routine.

 

And I can't wait to find out who "Santa" was.

 

 

Someone wake up Bernie and tell him he's on in five.

 

So an email about seeing Santa is government business but planning Chelsea's wedding and her Mom's funeral weren't?

 

At least now we know what her email address was. I had always thought it was ChillyHillyXXX69@BillsPlace.com.

 

According the article Santa was her hairdresser.

 

OK. I have known women named Santa before. So maybe that is legit. But again, an appt with your hairdresser is government business?

Edited July 1, 2015 by reddogblitz

[B-Man]

Press lapdogs herded like sheep

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That the press went along with this with such docility tells you everything you need to know about which party they support — they are, Democratic operatives with bylines.

 

If they were real journalists, or if this technique was employed a GOP presidential campaign, their first thought would be:

I’m cutting the rope. Even if I don’t have a knife. I’ll start sawing away with car keys — or simply duck under it, just to see what happens next.

 

Because what happens next is a headline. One that will quickly become what former AP man Joseph Campbell calls a classic media myth that feeds upon itself: HILLARY’S GOONS HARASS JOURNALIST. JOURNALIST HAULED AWAY BY CLINTON SECURITY. I BROKE HILLARY’S PRESS BLOCKADE! A real journalist would dine out on the headline for months.

 

But why go out of the way to cause bad press for one of your own?

 

 

 

 

I mean, has a candidate ever treated the press like livestock at a public event like this?

 

Yeah, she's just "one of the people."

 

 

.

 

[Keukasmallies]

She has the press roped, she has most of the Dem's "roped" as well. Her final act will be to attempt to lasso the rest of us into thinking she has a scintilla of a clue about statesmanship (Yes, I dared say "...man...").

 

She's a tired, worn, old woman repeating yesterday's mantra.

[OCinBuffalo]

Rahm Emmanuel did a terrific job putting hapless Dems in winnable elections in an effort to win the WH, House and Senate in 2008. It was masterful. Absolutely masterful.

 

It also helped Obama lead the left into the worst slaughter ever seen in local elections, and ultimately destroyed their bench. Imagine the face of the left, right now, is a desperately aged Clinton and a wild-haired socialist narrator of Tales from the Crypt.

 

Simpy astonishing.

Yeah, Obama destroyed their bench. These 1-2 term Ds have a right to be pissed. They got used as far-left agenda ass covers, and then were disposed of.

 

But, Rahm Emmanuel is a contender for "Most Pissed Off Man in America". Imagine if all the work you did, from 2005-2009...was mostly destroyed by 2010, and then utterly destroyed by 2014. On purpose, and for very little in return. What did they get? A health care law that is now a 30 year political liability?

Yet Hillary still out-polls the Repubs. I know it's way too early to put much weight on that but the astonishing thing to me is how loyal so many people can be to the party that has done nothing but fukk up the past several years and that Obama didn't get wiped out by Romney in .12. That still amazes me. .

It's not that amazing. Right now polls are 95% name recognition. That's why there's no real big differences between any of the Rs vs. Clinton.

 

The important take away here is that Hillary almost never polls above 50, against anybody, just like in 2008. (When she does, it's CNN, after somebody with Poly Sci clout writes that she's below 50). Wait.... I swear I didn't look at RCP before I typed the CNN thing: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/ Yeah. Like I said. Scroll down the page, and the only time(except CNN), when she gets above 50 is against Trump.

 

Hilarious. The conventional point is: "Hillary, based on her name recognition, should be running in the high 50s. She's not, and that's a problem for her". How nice of CNN to proivde the only polls that detract from that point.

 

Clinton is only polling at 52-33 against Sanders....which is how you know the CNN polls are garbage. Look at the last round of CNN polls on page 2 of the link: all below 50. Are we supposed to believe in a 10 pt. gain for Hillary in CNN's polls from June 2 to July 1? What exactly happened in the last 30 days to create that gain? Answer: nothing.

 

Clinton is losing support from both parties, and CNN is pissing themselves. The 10 point bump smells like potty training.

She's a tired, worn, old woman repeating yesterday's mantra.

Hey, that worked for Obama. What's changed?

 

That's the thing: I have no idea what "new" thing Hillary is gonna point to. All she has done thus far is talk about her support of 60-80 year old, failed or failing ideas(but we are supposed to call that "progressive", right progressives? ), in a vain attempt to establish her liberal credibility. I don't hear any new ideas. It's not working. The liberals don't believe her, and the rest of us don't hear anything new, or dare I say: worthwhile.

 

There's a documentary about Bill Clinton's election called "The War Room". In that link, here's literally the same old same old from James Carville, but more importantly: "[George Bush] reeks of yesterday. There's a stench of yesterday. He is so yesterday, if I think of yesterday; if I think of an old calendar I think of George Bush's face on it".

 

I think using that against Hillary would be a great campaign ad. Hey, it's on youtube. Just dub in Obama/Hillary and you have it.

Edited July 6, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[/dev/null]

That's the thing: I have no idea what "new" thing Hillary is gonna point to. All she has done thus far is talk about her support of 60-80 year old, failed or failing ideas(but we are supposed to call that "progressive", right progressives? ), in a vain attempt to establish her liberal credibility. I don't hear any new ideas

 

But but she's a woman. And it's her turn

[B-Man]

A clever suggestion for the "independent" media........................will they do it ?

 

 

 

David Burge @iowahawkblog

 

Next time Hillary sets up a rope line for reporters, send black reporters. And take lots and lots and lots of pictures.

12:22 PM - 5 Jul 2015

• 586 586 Retweets
• 587 587 favorites

 

[B-Man]

After 86 Days, Hillary Clinton To Give First National TV Interview Of Campaign

 

So, which fierce, independent, Watchdog of Democracy will it be ?

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton's 1st national TV interview: CNN - CNNPolitics.com

Hillary Clinton on Tuesday will give the first nationally televised interview of her presidential campaign to CNN senior political correspondent Brianna Keilar.

 

 

 

No word yet on whether Keilar will be forced to stand behind a rope.............................. Also no word on whether this will come up:

 

 

 

 

Here's @brikeilarcnn pictured at a Clinton aide's wedding two weeks ago

 

 

 

 

 

Why bother ?

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited July 6, 2015 by B-Man

[truth on hold]

If there's anyone out there planning on voting for her, serious question: why?

 

What does she stand for?

 

How will things change for the better with her as president?

 

Where has she shown leadership capabilities?

[keepthefaith]

If there's anyone out there planning on voting for her, serious question: why?

 

What does she stand for?

 

How will things change for the better with her as president?

 

Where has she shown leadership capabilities?

She'll have a big "D" next to her name on the ballot. That's enough for nearly half the population.

[truth on hold]

She'll have a big "D" next to her name on the ballot. That's enough for nearly half the population.

Yeah "Douche"

 

Whats the deal Biden? Is he actually running? Sanders is a fun distraction, but doesn't stand a realistic chance. Biden may be the only hope in dem primaries. I'd take him in a heartbeat over her. But then again if take B-man in a heartbeat over her too. Yes it's that bad.

[/dev/null]

If there's anyone out there planning on voting for her, serious question: why?

 

What does she stand for?

 

How will things change for the better with her as president?

 

Where has she shown leadership capabilities?

Remember this post 12 months from now

[reddogblitz]

Biden may be the only hope in dem primaries. I'd take him in a heartbeat over her. But then again if take B-man in a heartbeat over her too. Yes it's that bad.

Joe voted for the Iraq War just like Senator Clinton did.

[/dev/null]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/07/hillary-clinton-deletes-photo-of-her-shaking-hands-with-man-with-white-power-tattoos/

[truth on hold]

Joe voted for the Iraq War just like Senator Clinton did.

so did Kerry and a lot of the other bozos from both parties.

 

Sanders did make a very eloquent objection:

 

"Mr. Speaker, I do not think any Member of this body disagrees that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, a murderer, and a man who has started two wars. He is clearly someone who cannot be trusted or believed. The question, Mr. Speaker, is not whether we like Saddam Hussein or not. The question is whether he represents an imminent threat to the American people and whether a unilateral invasion of Iraq will do more harm than good.

Mr. Speaker, the front page of The Washington Post today reported that all relevant U.S. intelligence agencies now say despite what we have heard from the White House that ``Saddam Hussein is unlikely to initiate a chemical or biological attack against the United States.'' Even more importantly, our intelligence agencies say that should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he might at that point launch a chemical or biological counterattack. In other words, there is more danger of an attack on the United States if we launch a precipitous invasion.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the President feels, despite what our intelligence agencies are saying, that it is so important to pass a resolution of this magnitude this week and why it is necessary to go forward without the support of the United Nations and our major allies including those who are fighting side by side with us in the war on terrorism.

But I do feel that as a part of this process, the President is ignoring some of the most pressing economic issues affecting the well-being of ordinary Americans. There has been virtually no public discussion about the stock market's loss of trillions of dollars over the last few years and that millions of Americans have seen the retirement benefits for which they have worked their entire lives disappear. When are we going to address that issue? This country today has a $340 billion trade deficit, and we have lost 10 percent of our manufacturing jobs in the last 4 years, 2 million decent-paying jobs. The average American worker today is working longer hours for lower wages than 25 years ago. When are we going to address that issue?

Mr. Speaker, poverty in this country is increasing and median family income is declining. Throughout this country family farmers are being driven off of the land; and veterans, the people who put their lives on the line to defend us, are unable to get the health care and other benefits they were promised because of government underfunding. When are we going to tackle these issues and many other important issues that are of such deep concern to Americans?

Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give five reasons why I am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq and why I will vote against this resolution. One, I have not heard any estimates of how many young American men and women might die in such a war or how many tens of thousands of women and children in Iraq might also be killed. As a caring Nation, we should do everything we can to prevent the horrible suffering that a war will cause. War must be the last recourse in international relations, not the first. Second, I am deeply concerned about the precedent that a unilateral invasion of Iraq could establish in terms of international law and the role of the United Nations. If President Bush believes that the U.S. can go to war at any time against any nation, what moral or legal objection could our government raise if another country chose to do the same thing?

Third, the United States is now involved in a very difficult war against international terrorism as we learned tragically on September 11. We are opposed by Osama bin Laden and religious fanatics who are prepared to engage in a kind of warfare that we have never experienced before. I agree with Brent Scowcroft, Republican former National Security Advisor for President George Bush, Sr., who stated, ``An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.''

Fourth, at a time when this country has a $6 trillion national debt and a growing deficit, we should be clear that a war and a long-term American occupation ofIraq could be extremely expensive.

Fifth, I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who have large Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by extremists? Will the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority be exacerbated? And these are just a few of the questions that remain unanswered.

If a unilateral American invasion of Iraq is not the best approach, what should we do? In my view, the U.S. must work with the United Nations to make certain within clearly defined timelines that the U.N. inspectors are allowed to do their jobs. These inspectors should undertake an unfettered search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and destroy them when found, pursuant to past U.N. resolutions. If Iraq resists inspection and elimination of stockpiled weapons, we should stand ready to assist the U.N. in forcing compliance."

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/video/flashback-rep-bernie-sanders-opposes-iraq-war

But again I don't think he has a realistic chance. Do you? So I take it you're planning to vote for the Hill? Please if you can explain why. I'm genuinely curious because you're one of the more articulate and balanced posters, and I just don't see anything to support voting for her

Edited July 8, 2015 by JTSP

[B-Man]

Hillary Plays The Victim in CNN Interview.

 

“Any Clinton supporters who hoped that a New Hillary would emerge from Tuesday’s televised grilling of the Democratic presidential frontrunner had to be brutally disillusioned. . . . Advertised by her associates as warm and funny in private, she came across as guarded, quibbling, and pokerfaced under the TV lights. . . . The candidate was, by turns, self-justifying and pugnacious, and occasionally just plain inauthentic, as she complained about her and her husband’s victimization by right-wingers and scandalous book authors—the correct people to blame, in her view, for the fact that six out of 10 voters don’t consider her ‘honest and trustworthy,’ according to a recent CNN poll.”