Democrats/liberals: please explain to me the source of your enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton 2016. (voters, middle east)
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.
I don't think that is accurate. Read the book Blood Sport by James B. Stewart. Stewart was a financial journalist who was recruited by Clinton confidante Susan Thomases do a book in the 1990's about the Clintons. He was to be given great access. The thinking that was they wanted a book to counter what they thought was unfair coverage by the MSM at the time. The access didn't pan out, but Stewart decided to do the book anyway. But clearly this was a guy who was not a right-wing crazy spouting conspiracy theories. This was a guy who was recruited by the Clintons.
The book confirms that most of the scandals, both in Arkansas, and in Washington, had Hillary's fingerprints all over them. Bill was not interested in money. He cared about only 2 things: politics and babes. Cattlegate, whitewater, travelgate, etc were all Hilary's doing.
Hillary has more baggage than Samsonite. Read the book.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 03-10-2015 at 01:49 PM..
Reason: deleted quoted post
I'm an independent and I'd vote for just about any Democrat if it was against a far-right candidate (barring Rand Paul) except if it is Hilary. I just don't get her ideas at all. I'd go for a blue-dog or even a progressive but not Hilary. I don't trust her and she hasn't done much to earn my trust. If it's a far-right candidate for Republican vs. Hilary, I'm voting third party.
Besides Ted Cruz, isn't Rand about as far right as you can get?
Besides Ted Cruz, isn't Rand about as far right as you can get?
Perhaps but Paul isn't known as much as an obstructionist as Cruz and Lee are. Abd unlike Carson, Paul is mostly sensible when it comes to gay marriage. The only thing Paul isn't that sensible on is welfare but that is based off of Ayn Rand like editorials in college.
I'm a liberal Democrat and I'm not a big fan of Hillary. I campaigned against her (for Obama) in the 2008 primaries.
For 2016, she might be the best chance the Democrats have of winning, unless Warren runs. The Democrats will be fine in the future, with quite a few younger rising stars (many of whom are minorities).
With all of that said, if the Republicans nominate someone like Walker, I don't see how he will beat Hillary. Rand might be able to do it because people like me would actually vote for Rand over Hillary.
maybe you meant to call yourself a libertarian Democrat, because A Liberal would not vote for Rand Paul.
Rand Paul is also not his father. Ron Paul explained that the majority of what he said were talking points and talked about how he would balance the budget over the first 2 years of his administration and then hope for a Balanced budget amendment in congress, where as Rand seems to argue for the amendment first, and then arbitrarily cut till you get balanced and then worry about the consequences.
the elder Paul also explained that you have to grow the economy and add jobs before you put into practice your opinion on "the Welfare state", where as Rand argues that ending the welfare programs would jump start these people into looking for Jobs that arent there.
This e-mail scandal has just reinforced my belief that the pent-up hostilities between the mainstream-left Clinton wing and the far-left Obama/Warren wing of the Democratic Party represent a ticking time bomb waiting to happen (most likely to go off if Hillary becomes president).
Obama and Warren are not from the same wing of the Party. But you are right about the Far left vs Clinton
Anyone watched MSNBC the last 2 days, Clinton Surrogates have been in full on shouting matches with Joy Reid, Alex Witt, Tameron Hall, and Ed Schultz.
Quote:
The fact of the matter is that the far-left is simply not enthused about a Hillary presidency, no matter how hard the spin has been in the past. The "true progressives," however, realize that their party is so devoid of electable candidates that they are currently willing to hold their noses and give Hillary a coronation in their nominating contest. They probably should ask themselves if winning the 2016 election with Clinton is worth it. While they will enjoy some short-term gloating about an "Obama third-term" and the supposed permanence of the blue wall, the intra-partisan divisions that will occur once Clinton becomes president could very well lead to GOP presidential dominance for a generation. I honestly think that it would be better for the Democrats to lose in 2016, because at least their formidable blue wall will continue to hold in future elections should that happen.
This part however is untrue, Clinton has pretty much taken the wind out of the sails of any other Democrat who might want to run. Its not that we think others are unelectable, it is that we believe she has headed off her competition and that it is to late for others to make a serious run. And we dont hate her as some have claimed, we disagree with her on issues, but they are issues we can live with, not something deeply ideological.
We know for a Fact Martin O'malley has a staff sitting there waiting to go and yet he has no buzz, Joe Biden is a sitting VP who is interested in running and yet, no buzz and we have seen him debate and arguably beat both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on a stage where he was considered in 6th place behind john Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Dennis Kucinich.
Brian Schweitzer has been camped out in Iowa for 2 years ( and even taken trips to New Hampshire and Colorado), Jim Webb' candidacy is a play for the vice presidency.
The anti war left (rightfully so BTW) isn't going to show up to the polls on Election Day if Hilary is the nominee, much like the republican base that sat out the last two presidential elections. This is where Rand could make huge inroads if he could actually secured the nomination, by the GOP will do everything it can to prevent him from winning.
Hillary Clinton is as dirty as a 45 year-old crackwhore......and probably half as ethical.
I know the Dems want to put this sleazy grandmother on the 2016 ticket because, hey, she could be the "first" woman president. I think the "first" black president is all the evidence we need to see that we should be more focused on the best person for the job, not a "first".
The Clintons are the cancer that is destroying this country -- career politicians who have gotten fat eating out of the public trough. It's about time we slaughtered this hog.
Not they are not over blown. It shows the liberals hold their own to a different standard. It is as if the democrats want people to run who have all these skeletons in their closets and then point the finger at others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
Hillary's "scandals" are overblown, but I can't say I'm terribly enthusiastic about her in a vacuum. But the Republican field is made up of acknowledged war criminals and aspiring war criminals fighting over who can screw the country harder to appease the wealthy, so the general election decision is pretty easy for me.
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.
