Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:The Right has been trying to destroy the Clintons for over 20 years. I understand their frustration that they cannot get them. But anyone the Koch brothers go after, I am inclined to support.

And Brad if they can convict Hillary of something, I suppose I will have to support someone else. Good luck on that!

Well, it should work. After all...

"most Republicans wait to hear the facts"

Without proof, what are the facts?

I did not compare Hillary to Lincoln, but simply pointed to him as someone who did not have a lot of prior political accomplishments. It's not everything.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:The Right has been trying to destroy the Clintons for over 20 years. I understand their frustration that they cannot get them. But anyone the Koch brothers go after, I am inclined to support.

And Brad if they can convict Hillary of something, I suppose I will have to support someone else. Good luck on that!

Well, it should work. After all...

"most Republicans wait to hear the facts"

Without proof, what are the facts?

If you have to ask, you must read nothing.

And, I mean nothing.

She had her own email server. Why?

She destroyed (supposedly) said server AFTER being asked for emails.

She determined what emails were/were not "private."

And, if you think the Clinton Global Initiative is as pure as the driven snow, once again, you read nothing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-hillary-the-tormentor.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Is this an accurate feeling of yours, Freeman?

He nailed it pretty good.

archduke

Interestingly, there was a recent poll done, I believe, in Iowa asking who voters supported. Anybody who said Hillary because of her experience and accomplishments where asked to list her experience and accomplishment. Nobody could list anything

.

Don't you think most people would have that problem with most politicians? Not just Iowans?
The nature of the Senate is that it is a deliberative body and though Senators can become notorious for certain behaviors or certain stands.... what they can they accomplish themselves?
Some people probably can tell you policies that she supports - to a certain extent. But except for the committed political hardcore - accomplishments aren't really understood.

Here's an interesting take in the same vein. What do Republicans at CPAC think of Jeb Bush....And these are committed politicos..

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic ... t-jeb-bush

freeman3 wrote:I don't know--what Republican candidate has done something significant?

Rick Perry - Governor of Texas for 15 years and had economic expansion while the rest of the country was economically stagnate.

Scott Walker - 15 years of lower elective offices. 4 year as Governor of Wisconsin, turned a $3.6B deficit into a surplus and an economic recovery that was higher than the national average.

Those are just the two I know off the top of my head and are not necessarily indicative of which candidate I support.

freeman3 wrote:He nailed it pretty good.

Except with no Internet, Nixon's peccadilloes and proclivities were nowhere near as well known as Hillary's.

And, she seems to delight at skirting the law and whatever rules she ought not skirt.

rickyp wrote:Here's an interesting take in the same vein. What do Republicans at CPAC think of Jeb Bush....And these are committed politicos..

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic ... t-jeb-bush

Jeb Bush, whom I do not support (sans google search): 2-time governor of Florida (a rarity, I understand) who focused on education and improved Florida's lot considerably. I'll wager he lowered taxes and balanced budgets.

Hillary has nothing comparable. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

I appreciate Freeman's personal honesty, but not his acceptance of the dishonesty of others. If you truly care about the long term, the process is more important than the winning.

It may well be that Hillary's undoing is the Clinton Foundation's favorable tax status. No doubt they have lawyered up as well as anyone, but the legal scrutiny may be intense, and it may not blossom until after the Democrat's have their nominee.

archduke

Rick Perry - Governor of Texas for 15 years and had economic expansion while the rest of the country was economically stagnate.

Scott Walker - 15 years of lower elective offices. 4 year as Governor of Wisconsin, turned a $3.6B deficit into a surplus and an economic recovery that was higher than the national average.

Ah, the advantage/disadvantage of having a record as a governor.
You missed Chris Christie and Bobbie Jindall. Both who have record low approval in their own states.
Scott Walkers approval in Wisconsin is at its lowest in 3 years.

I think Hillary would love to run against Walker or Perry's governance record in their respective states. Because she will be able to point to very specific failings and they'll have to defend them or admit them. And how many Americans think of Texas, land of oil revenue, as a state to model others after?

In return they'll be going after her over tired worn out non-issues like Ben Ghazi and LIbya.

It may well be that Hillary's undoing is the Clinton Foundation's favorable tax status. No doubt they have lawyered up as well as anyone, but the legal scrutiny may be intense, and it may not blossom until after the Democrat's have their nominee

There's still a possibility that this becomes an issue. But when most Americans think that there's too much money in politics, and that Super Pacs are corrupting the country ...
defending a non-profit that has some impressive results in developmental work around the world ..
Point being that every politician in the race have super Pacs and are vulnerable on the issue of corruption. At least the Clinton Foundation has benefited more than just politicians and their families and friends. Who have Super Pacs benefited?

The poll reveals that nearly 70 percent of Americans believe Super PAC spending will lead to corruption and that three in four Americans believe limiting how much corporations, unions, and individuals can donate to Super PACs would curb corruption. Of those who expressed an opinion, more than 80 percent believe that, compared with past elections, the money being spent by political groups this year is more likely to lead to corruption. And, most alarmingly, the poll revealed that concerns about the influence Super PACs have over elected officials undermine Americans’ faith in democracy: one in four respondents — and even larger numbers of low-income people, African Americans, and Latinos — reported that they are less likely to vote because big donors to Super PACs have so much more sway than average Americans.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/ ... -democracy

You tell me RJ--what exactly has Hillary done wrong? I haven't seen any evidence that she used her position as Secretary of State to help a donor to the Clinton Foundation. What else is there--her private email account? I think that is pretty minor stuff and I am not clear that she has been dishonest about that. I am supposed to not support her because Bill is running around getting large donations to the Clinton Foundation for making speeches ? Former presidents can get a lot for making speeches and just put it in their pocket without doing so to help a charity. As Ricky pointed out at least the Foundation has done some good. There is a little smoke around Hillary ( blown furiously by Republicans) but not a lot of fire.

Do I expect Hillary to lie to get us into war? Not a chance. Dick Cheney lied about Hussein trying to get nuclear weapons (even said they had reconstituted nuclear weapons--and no I don't think that he misspoke when he said that) and lied about Hussein being involved in 9-11. I am confident that Hillary will not do anything like that.

The republican machine has been working feverishly on destroying Hillary for many years.
lately its been Libya, BenGhazi, emails and now the Foundation. And yet here's where she stands in polling versus potential opponents.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... _race.html

The point is, perceptions of Hillary are pretty baked in by now. Innuendo and suggestions aren't going to impact her..
Democrats will rally around her, whilst the republicans are beating each other up and doing all kinds of pretzels to appeal to the Republican base on issues that ruin their chances of growth with Independents in a general election.
And with so many candidates there's a chance a hard right conservative could sneak into the nomination and not be electable at the general. There are too many issues that will disqualify some of the republican field with too many independents.
I understand the frustration of those on the right at Clinton's unwillingness to engage the media right now. In six months no one will recall that reticence as a negative and the republican campaigning will give her a lot of ammunition....
And if something ever does come out of the foundation, i'm pretty sure they'll find a way for Bill to take the bullet,,,,,, so Hillary can coast in with ample sympathy as a wronged woman again.

freeman3 wrote:You tell me RJ--what exactly has Hillary done wrong? I haven't seen any evidence that she used her position as Secretary of State to help a donor to the Clinton Foundation. What else is there--her private email account? I think that is pretty minor stuff and I am not clear that she has been dishonest about that. I am supposed to not support her because Bill is running around getting large donations to the Clinton Foundation for making speeches ? Former presidents can get a lot for making speeches and just put it in their pocket without doing so to help a charity. As Ricky pointed out at least the Foundation has done some good. There is a little smoke around Hillary ( blown furiously by Republicans) but not a lot of fire.

Do I expect Hillary to lie to get us into war? Not a chance. Dick Cheney lied about Hussein trying to get nuclear weapons (even said they had reconstituted nuclear weapons--and no I don't think that he misspoke when he said that) and lied about Hussein being involved in 9-11. I am confident that Hillary will not do anything like that.

I don't know what she has exactly done wrong. We do know that she disregarded federal regulations and used incorrect e-mail servers and accounts. We do know that she hasn't been forthcoming in explaining or providing the e-mails in question. We do know that her family foundation accepted very large gifts from foreign companies and countries, contrary to her agreement with the President, while she was Secretary of State and that these companies / countries had vested interest in State Department decisions. We do know that there has been a revolving door amongst her political staffers among her campaign, the State Department, and the Foundation.

Is she guilty? Maybe not.

I do hear you that it is not as bad as lying to get us into a war; I agree with you that Cheney did that and the results have been awful. What you are really saying is that she would be better than the man you consider to be the worst president ever, and 17 months before the election you are okay with it. Why isn't there a Democratic candidate who doesn't have this baggage and can successfully present him or herself to the American people? Why don't you demand that?