sass

It's quite difficult for anybody in America to get elected when they have a record in government to defend, and this is a shame really because you're losing a lot of potentially important experience

On the other hand advisors and staffers get repeat performances all the time.

Look at Jeb Bushes advisors on foreign policy. .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... n-diagram/

In other words, Ricky, things haven't been sticking to Hillary Clinton. Do you suppose that that's because she has a lot of money behind her, and therefore a lot of means to defend herself that others do not? It's funny, I don't think you'd allow this sort of "slack" to any Republican candidates. I think you'd be just as skeptical as myself, if she was a Republican not a Democrat.

JimHackerMP wrote:In other words, Ricky, things haven't been sticking to Hillary Clinton. Do you suppose that that's because she has a lot of money behind her, and therefore a lot of means to defend herself that others do not? It's funny, I don't think you'd allow this sort of "slack" to any Republican candidates. I think you'd be just as skeptical as myself, if she was a Republican not a Democrat.

Whatever the reason, and whatever we may think about it, it is what seems to have been happening. Which makes me wonder whether GOP hopes that suddenly the mud will stick enough to sway those middle ground voters will be enough.

What is and what ought to be are not always the same thing.

hacker

Do you suppose that that's because she has a lot of money behind her, and therefore a lot of means to defend herself that others do not?

How does her wealth protect her from accusations about Ben Ghazi?
How has her wealth protected her from slurs from media types like Limbaugh, Hannity and Klein that are regularly regurgitated through either sympathetic or compliant media? If its a case of Rupert Murdoch's wealth, and the Koch brothers wealth against Hillary's ...she loses.

Wealth can hire lawyers, and advisers yes. But if there is a crime somewhere even the wealthy can be caught by a determined prosecution. (Ask Dennis Hastert) And republicans have been determined. Which makes one wonder more about the ability of republicans to identify scandal and uncover it...perhaps they are always misled by their own projections?
They certainly need to be careful about complaining about all the money in politics... since the use of money in the political process is equated with free speech by most republicans.

But as Danivon correctly points out, the main take away is that "the mud never seems to stick" and if their strategy against Hillary is "maybe this time the mud will stick " ....
A lot like voting against the ACA in the House over 200 times, knowing the outcome. A touch insane.

Well, that's a little off topic (repeatedly voting to repeal the ACA), but it probably made those members of congress popular in their districts/states. But let's not get into that.

What is and what ought to be are not always the same thing.

Fair enough, but even if something is not sticking right now, it could in the future. The general public is fickle, don't you think?

JimHackerMP wrote:
Fair enough, but even if something is not sticking right now, it could in the future. The general public is fickle, don't you think?

Fickle, but also easily bored.

rickyp wrote:From the lnk.
As Secretary of State:
Hillary Clinton was the first former First Lady to occupy a cabinet position.

So what? Occupying an office is not an accomplishment. Spiro Agnew was Vice President. A lot of bad people have served.

She conducted many diplomatic missions and visited over 100 countries, more than any previous Secretary of State. She did a great deal to repair international relations after damage caused by the unilateral approaches taken by the Bush administration.

Activity is not the same as accomplishment. The latter half of this is all opinion.

She lead the U.S. response to the Arab Spring in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, and other countries.
Hillary Clinton was the key advocate for U.S. participation in the military intervention in Libya, which led to the overthrow of Gaddafi.

Yes, some of the worst disasters of the last 30 years of foreign policy.

After the U.S. mission to kill Osama Bin Laden, she argued successfully that the United States not release photographs of the Al Queda leader.

I'll see to it that this is mentioned at her funeral some day. In other words, this is nothing.

She was vital in conducting relations with Pakistan and Afghanistan.

So, she's to blame for Dr. Afridi being imprisoned in Pakistan. Good to know who to blame. Is she also responsible for all the graft and corruption in Afghanistan?

Hillary Clinton worked to restart negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, establishing direct talks in 2010 and traveling to Jerusalem in 2012 in an effort to stop the 2012 Gaza conflict.

Useless.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton promoted women's right and human rights as vital to U.S. political interests. She advocated for gay rights at the UN Human Rights Council.

Not accomplishments, but more activities.

She oversaw damage control in response to the Wikileaks revelations of State Department cables.
Clinton testified to Congress regarding the killing of U.S. Diplomatic staff in Libya.

What difference, at this point, does it make?

Lying to the parents of those killed in Benghazi . . . is that an "accomplishment" too?

Clinton co-chaired the U.S-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in 2009.

What did she ACCOMPLISH? Sitting in a chair is NOT an accomplishment.

There is almost nothing here that is an accomplishment. Maybe that word confuses liberals because they strive to avoid it? How about "achievement?" Is that more helpful? What did she ACHIEVE?

I like Chris Matthews' assessment of the Republican field. He said are Republicans going to be serious and nominate Bush , Howard or Kasich or "are they going to take someone from the clown car."

freeman3 wrote:I like Chris Matthews' assessment of the Republican field. He said are Republicans going to be serious and nominate Bush , Howard or Kasich or "are they going to take someone from the clown car."

Who is Howard?

Chris Matthews is, with all due respect, the driver of the clown car.

It's not going to be Trump, Carson, Paul, Graham, et al.

The nominee will be Bush, Rubio, Walker, or Cruz (doubtful). The only longshot I'd put anything on would be . . . Romney. I think if he had run this time we would have only had 6-8 people running.

freeman3 wrote:I like Chris Matthews' assessment of the Republican field. He said are Republicans going to be serious and nominate Bush , Howard or Kasich or "are they going to take someone from the clown car."

Oh, and "clown car?" Have a look at Uncle Bernie's hair some time.

Sorry Walker not Howard. Sanders looks funny but he's good at prodding complacent liberals.

Well Romney wanted to run but was dissuaded...so if the field looks weak I could see him getting back in.

Fate, sorry if you already answered this, but what's your problem with Bush? What's wrong with him that he doesn't have your support?

geojanes wrote:Fate, sorry if you already answered this, but what's your problem with Bush? What's wrong with him that he doesn't have your support?

1. He's the wrong guy at the wrong time. He is probably the only (realistic) GOP candidate who will bore people into voting for Clinton.

2. His stance on immigration. While I agree there should be a path to legalization for some illegals here, I have no confidence that Jeb will do anything to stop more illegals from coming in.

3. His "I'm the new Jon Huntsman" approach. We don't need another know-better-than-you running against the Party.

4. His last name. Enough already.

5. His support for Common Core. Here's the problem: ultimately it will be used to strengthen a Department that should not exist: Education. Furthermore, the grade school math "core" is absolute clap-trap.

6. I can't think of a thing he brings to the race that isn't better presented by other candidates.

His single-best credential is his wife and his fluency in Spanish. Other than that, no thanks.

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:I like Chris Matthews' assessment of the Republican field. He said are Republicans going to be serious and nominate Bush , Howard or Kasich or "are they going to take someone from the clown car."

Oh, and "clown car?" Have a look at Uncle Bernie's hair some time.

Hell, look at Lincoln "metric system" Chafee. You want definition of clown car, I think the Democratic nomination battle is brewing up to be that. To steal/paraphrase a line from "The West Wing", the Democratic debate stage is going to look like Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.

Also, one of my predictions has already proven wrong. I said Trump would not run. Unfortunately, he announced today. What a waste of his time and money.