Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1st question you ask the hildebeast in 2016 when she ramps up for the election, is the questions about Benghazi.
when she lies about it and you know she will, you bust her chops on it.
then you ask more questions about Benghazi. when all is said and done, she wont get 10% of the vote.
Actually you'd ask Republican Congressman Darrell Issa, who heads up the House committee Investigation on the Benghazi incident and would love to hang the president from the nearest tree and destroy Hillary Clinton for good. He has been at the investigation for over a year and has nothing, NADA, ZIP, ZERO, Zilch. He won't even release a report on his findings because it disproves any wrong doing by the Administration and the Secretary of State.
I cannot believe the cheerleading that I read here about Hillary Clinton. She is competent, but no leader, and if you think the Tea Party wing has been bad to Obama, imagine the crazy train a Clinton presidency would unleash!
Give someone else, anyone else a try!!!!
Just a voice crying from the wilderness.....
Now you sound like the Progressives, that are scared to death of Ted Cruz & Rand Paul.
Don't stoop that low. I would love to see a Hilary v. Ted debate.
Like it or not, I think Hillary is the only democrat with enough name recognition to be elected. There are some other dynamics involved as well. I think many of us want to elect the first woman President to office and Hillary is a much better choice than any GOP name I've heard floated. Her resume' is very good and I count "first lady" among the qualifications. We also have Senator from NY for 8 years and Secretary of State for 4 years.
Like it or not, I think Hillary is the only democrat with enough name recognition to be elected.
Yes, I know it helps get people elected but woe is name recognition, ugghhh. Not just in Clinton's case, but in general, it tends to get some very mediocre candidates elected into office. Very similar to the obnoxious kid in school that everyone remembers. And then the one who discovers some great scientific breath through 20 years later barely gets a mention at the class reunion because everyone is talking about what the obnoxious kid did back in the day.
I think she is a liar, and I think slick Willy would be running amok. Way too much baggage. I wish them the best, but I am not enthused (as a democrat). It seems like dems are on autopilot mode, and that is pretty lame.
Give someone else a chance!
Cuomo, Schweitzer, Warren, whoever.
Even if I did support her on policies, I am a little tired of the same names over and over. We hear this about the Republicans, now it is the Dems. Of course then there is the repeat names: Kennedy and yes, Bush. Let's go for new faces, new names and hopefully new ideas.
banjomike: I don't think the Republicans are going to go with the last year's runner up this time: it has backed fired on them more than once and there are too many new names on the scene. If Hillary is the nominee the Dems are going with their runner up, aren't they?
Markg: Maybe some would like a female Pres, in fact many of us would, but that is absolutely no reason to elect her or anyone else. We should select our candidates based on idea, yes, experience and values, not gender.
Like it or not, I think Hillary is the only democrat with enough name recognition to be elected.
I'm not at all convinced she'll be running; if she does and is picked as a presidential candidate, I'd vote for her - she's about as qualified as one can get to be President - Senator, SoS, etc etc etc - got both national and international covered.
But, if she does NOT run, I think the Democrats can find a half dozen possible candidates that would stomp all over anyone the Insane Party of Hatred and No could come up with.
And that's the real IPoHaN problem; they can win a local election but they have no one that could pull off something nationally anymore...and a powerful branch of their party is working hard to make sure even the few dregs of nationally-approved personas get eliminated come the next primaries for local elections.
[I've never belonged to any political party nor ever will; have voted both ways many times in local elections, will continue to do so...but see absolutely no hope for the Republican Party until they can get their REAL crazies to split off and go away]
I agree, Nita. I don't think the old Republican policy of succession will be a part of the 2016 election either.
Name recognition alone isn't all it's cracked up to be. Our history is full of dark horse candidates who, win or lose, rose quickly to national prominence once nominated. The national spotlight on the candidates is especially intense these days as well. We learn more much faster about the candidates than ever before.
There is a lot of fresh blood in both parties now; lots of young Governors, Congress members, Mayors, and regional leaders. I believe a race between 2 candidates who are in their late 40s is more probable than 2 candidates approaching 60 next time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
