danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:And if they don't file charges you will let this drop?

As long as the FBI director doesn't resign in protest, yes.

How long before we can put this to the test, do you think?

When they reassign the 150 agents they have on it.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:The good thing about Ricky posting his convoluted theories is that all the moderates on these pages will realize the weakness of Hillary's position.

No, just the weakness of Ricky's.

cute, although I wouldn't say that you are particularly qualified to speak for moderates. :)

all the moderates on these pages

Ray Jay wrote:

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:The good thing about Ricky posting his convoluted theories is that all the moderates on these pages will realize the weakness of Hillary's position.

No, just the weakness of Ricky's.

cute, although I wouldn't say that you are particularly qualified to speak for moderates. :)

It's all relative.

I am NOT going to suggest or pretend that Bolton is unbiased. However, he's not rendering an opinion on her guilt or innocence. He does, however, understand what should or should not be done. In that light, this article is very helpful. http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-email ... le/2000941

It's an interesting article--and I do want to hear the perspective of someone who has worked at the State Department-- but Bolton has earned himself a reputation as being so knee-jerk anti-Obama and Hillary with regard to any foreign policy issue that anything he says I would need verified by like five other people. Such is the price of extremism.

freeman3 wrote:It's an interesting article--and I do want to hear the perspective of someone who has worked at the State Department-- but Bolton has earned himself a reputation as being so knee-jerk anti-Obama and Hillary with regard to any foreign policy issue that anything he says I would need verified by like five other people. Such is the price of extremism.

I understand.

However, some of it is just common sense. Well, let me put it this way: Hillary is self-interested in the extreme. Bolton is very partisan. Which of their explanations is more "common sense?"

I'm not saying he might have some details wrong--maybe he does. However, Hillary's story has varied in so many details that one might well say she's had several stories.

Her best story is "convenience." I'm sorry, but that is not acceptable for a position like Secretary of State.

Doctor Fate wrote:Btw, I loved how she claimed (at debate last night) to not be establishment because . . . she's a woman! So funny!

That's so crazy, right? I think once you get paid 6 figures by Goldman Sachs to give a speech, you become a card-carrying member of the establishment.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Btw, I loved how she claimed (at debate last night) to not be establishment because . . . she's a woman! So funny!

That's so crazy, right? I think once you get paid 6 figures by Goldman Sachs to give a speech, you become a card-carrying member of the establishment.

I guess she's been coached to slip the woman card out whenever possible. However, that seemed a particularly poor time to do it.

Then again, I guess she had to respond, right? What is a good response to "Hillary is part of the establishment?" If she says she is, she's dead. If she says she isn't, she's lying and everyone knows that.

What a quandary for Democratic voters. Hillary is clearly not a very strong candidate--she doesn't seem to be able to communicate why she really wants to be president and she has never been that charismatic. She has also really aged over the past 8 years (as has Bill--his voice has really gotten weak and lost the power to command a room). I think they should ditch the cheery version of Hillary and go for the stern, competent version. Meanwhile, Sanders is great for us liberals but you have to wonder if the middle of the country votes Republican when he starts talking about higher taxes. I am not sure that Sanders could beat anyone on the Republican side. I think Kasich, Christie or Bush would likely beat Hillary. I think she could beat everyone else on the Republican side , though.

Rubio could have been the conservative who could win but I don't think he comes back from the debate debacle. It showed unreadiness to be president. He already had the water incident in another important speech. It ties in with criticism of being young and inexperienced . As someone who has a good deal of public speaking experience, I find it a bit shocking that a presidential candidate would not have the confidence that he could think on his feet . You just wonder how smart he is . It's like in the Paper Chase when the guy who got all As in college can't handle law school because you can't just regurgitate memorized stuff, you have to analyze and understand the legal principles and their application to specific cases.

I don't think there is a strong candidate on either side. Should I support Sanders and just hope that voters are really willing to elect someone that liberal too be president, particularly since there is a good chance that Hillary will lose anyway? I would like to see Hillary start hammering him on taxes--at the very least it would prepare Sanders for the general election.

Hillary needs to come up with a short, concise reason/ meme for her candidacy or she is going to lose--maybe to Sanders. Continuing what Obama started doesn't cut it.

freeman3 wrote:What a quandary for Democratic voters. Hillary is clearly not a very strong candidate--she doesn't seem to be able to communicate why she really wants to be president and she has never been that charismatic. She has also really aged over the past 8 years (as has Bill--his voice has really gotten weak and lost the power to command a room). I think they should ditch the cheery version of Hillary and go for the stern, competent version. Meanwhile, Sanders is great for us liberals but you have to wonder if the middle of the country votes Republican when he starts talking about higher taxes. I am not sure that Sanders could beat anyone on the Republican side. I think Kasich, Christie or Bush would likely beat Hillary. I think she could beat everyone else on the Republican side , though.

Rubio could have been the conservative who could win but I don't think he comes back from the debate debacle. It showed unreadiness to be president. He already had the water incident in another important speech. It ties in with criticism of being young and inexperienced . As someone who has a good deal of public speaking experience, I find it a bit shocking that a presidential candidate would not have the confidence that he could think on his feet . You just wonder how smart he is . It's like in the Paper Chase when the guy who got all As in college can't handle law school because you can't just regurgitate memorized stuff, you have to analyze and understand the legal principles and their application to specific cases.

I don't think there is a strong candidate on either side. Should I support Sanders and just hope that voters are really willing to elect someone that liberal too be president, particularly since there is a good chance that Hillary will lose anyway? I would like to see Hillary start hammering him on taxes--at the very least it would prepare Sanders for the general election.

Hillary needs to come up with a short, concise reason/ meme for her candidacy or she is going to lose--maybe to Sanders. Continuing what Obama started doesn't cut it.

Excellent post. For her meme, how about, "if you don't choose me now, I'm just going to run again in 4 years and put you through this again"

freeman3

Meanwhile, Sanders is great for us liberals but you have to wonder if the middle of the country votes Republican when he starts talking about higher taxes. I am not sure that Sanders could beat anyone on the Republican side.

I don't think he will win the nomination.... though he still has a 1 in 4 chance....
But you fall into a trap when you say

when he starts talking about higher taxes.

Because what he's saying is "raise your taxes, eliminate your health insurance premiums, and most of you come out ahead..." . I think he's capable of communicating that a bucks a buck ...

Head to head polling for him isn't that bad....and that's before head to head debating and campaigning starts. He's 10 points ahead of Trump and tied with Rubio. And that's before Rubio was exposed as shallow, unprincipled and incapable.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5565.html

freeman3 wrote:What a quandary for Democratic voters. Hillary is clearly not a very strong candidate--she doesn't seem to be able to communicate why she really wants to be president and she has never been that charismatic. She has also really aged over the past 8 years (as has Bill--his voice has really gotten weak and lost the power to command a room). I think they should ditch the cheery version of Hillary and go for the stern, competent version.

Both suffer from this: if the campaign focuses on competence or experience, she's smoked. The electorate is mad--on both sides. So far, she's been campaigning as Obama's third term. That's gotten her into a national tie with Sanders. I don't know that she can be a credible anti-establishment candidate. That's going to make winning difficult.

Meanwhile, Sanders is great for us liberals but you have to wonder if the middle of the country votes Republican when he starts talking about higher taxes. I am not sure that Sanders could beat anyone on the Republican side.

If he can explain how higher taxes are "good," then sure he can win. If it's higher taxes for the sake of higher taxes and more government, then maybe not.

I think Kasich, Christie or Bush would likely beat Hillary. I think she could beat everyone else on the Republican side , though.

The scary thing is: I don't know. I think this electorate is more than a little unpredictable. Anger does that. Sanders is talking "revolution" and getting votes. Trump says all kinds of outlandish things . . . and he's getting votes.

I think Trump could win. I think Sanders has a chance (not a good one, but a chance).

Rubio could have been the conservative who could win but I don't think he comes back from the debate debacle. It showed unreadiness to be president.

I could be wrong, but I think that is a blip. If you watched the whole debate, Rubio was good--except during that exchange.

I think the candidate most seen as an "agent of change" who is also plausible as President will win. I know you don't think that's Rubio, but I say don't get too hung up on 5 minutes of a debate that occurred on a Saturday night. We shall see.

I don't think there is a strong candidate on either side. Should I support Sanders and just hope that voters are really willing to elect someone that liberal too be president, particularly since there is a good chance that Hillary will lose anyway? I would like to see Hillary start hammering him on taxes--at the very least it would prepare Sanders for the general election.

Christie would be, but I think he is too pugnacious and his record is definitely a mixed bag. Cruz has the same "likability gap" Hillary has.

Trump is a reflection of our vulgar society. He's the billionaire savage. No one should be able to act like him and be taken seriously. However, he's going to win NH easily.

Hillary needs to come up with a short, concise reason/ meme for her candidacy or she is going to lose--maybe to Sanders. Continuing what Obama started doesn't cut it.

She's the wrong candidate for this cycle. Her meme is "experience" or "competence." She's running 2008 all over again. I don't get it.

Most likely to me: Hillary stumbles early and they resurrect Joe Biden. Or, she (mysteriously) is indicted after securing the needed delegates, the nomination goes to a floor vote, and the party unites behind Biden/Warren.

rickyp wrote:And that's before Rubio was exposed as shallow, unprincipled and incapable.

Shall we talk about Uncle Bernie's foreign policy performance so far?

Head to head right now is marginally meaningful when both candidates are known (i.e. Hillary and Trump), but far less so for other match-ups.

I dare say the on-stage match-up of Rubio and Sanders would be just fine with me. It would be JFK vs. Nixon times 10.

Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like there is only one candidate acceptable to the base and the Republican establishment: Rubio. That said, he was being panned for being rehearsed before the last debate and that's makes his performance at the start of the debate so troubling. My guess? As Republican candidates drop out Rubio picks up their support while Trump doesn't get much higher than he is now. But that assumes Rubio alters his debate style to show he is not just rehearsing lines.

It would be nice if Hillary could pick up from Bill as protecting the middle class, but the crime bill that Bill signed is 1995 is resented by Black leaders because it put so many minorities into jail. Somehow, I don't think your meme would work, RJ ... it's tough, she talks about the middle-class, the Goldman-Sach speeches gets thrown at her. She talks about crime reform and the crime bill gets thrown at her. I think she still has a lot of space to operate between socialism and the right- wing vision of America. But she needs some inspiring language to bring it all together. Something like she represents the American middle that wants to provide more opportunities/protection to those--minorities, women and workers--who are not being treated fairly without being irresponsible about taxes and spending.

Are you going to trust Bernie to handle the Middle East and keep us safe? His tax plan and health care plan could bankrupt us. Who's running her campaign? Bernie is pretty vulnerable to hard-hitting attacks.