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.
The dems in here are absolutely brainwashed. Hillary is a totally failure who has never accomplished anything legal of of any value, and they worship her like she is something special.
Blind faith, and totally misplaced..
The fact that she is a woman is the only reason many want her in the Oval Office. . . has nothing to do with her experience and qualifications.
The fact that she is a woman is the only reason many want her in the Oval Office. . . has nothing to do with her experience and qualifications.
Sheesh! She actually has more political experience and her resume shows more qualification than most heads of state. Certainly much more political depth than any of her republican opponents.
You DO know that Hillary Clinton is running for President, don't you and that she's answered only about 8 questions from reporters since she declared?
And you DO know that one of the problems related to the Clinton Foundation has to do with her being Secretary of State and foreign donations to the foundation?
"Mrs. Clinton has done little to address the extensive donations or grants to her Foundation made by foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State. Tens of millions of dollars in foreign government payments weren’t reported in tax filings for five years. The Foundations acting CEO said they were on the website. But it turns out that is not true either, as the Foundation has belatedly acknowledged."
And you do know that another problem has to do with the State Department "speeding through Bill Clinton's steady stream of requests for events while rarely raising concerns about potential conflicts" while she was Secretary of State?
"State Department ethics officials gave quick approval, for example, for the two Barclays appearances and events paid by other international banks under legal scrutiny. Bill Clinton's $200,000 appearance in Florida for British-based HSBC in 2011 was cleared despite an ongoing federal money-laundering investigation that led to a 2012 settlement with prosecutors...State Department officials under Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton moved quickly when aides to Bill Clinton asked them in March 2010 to approve plans for the former president to address clients of a multinational British bank, Barclays. Within four days, the department's ethics office signed off on the request... That decision remained unchanged even after the Justice Department announced just months later, in August 2010, that Barclays Bank agreed to pay nearly $300 million in penalties for violating financial sanctions against Iran, Cuba, Sudan, Libya and Burma. The long-running case had hardly been a secret: Barclays had openly acknowledged in its annual reports — as recently as the same month as Clinton's 2010 request — that it was under investigation by the Justice Department and others for sanctions violations, and it cautioned that the impact on its profits "could be substantial."
- The foundation can serve as a backdoor for governments or foreign citizens hoping to influence a future president. U.S. law bans political campaigns from accepting foreign money.
- Many big donors to the foundation also lobbied the State Department while Clinton was in charge.
- Despite pledges of transparency, names of foreign donors who contributed through a Canadian affiliate of the foundation haven't been made public.
- Some of the foreign sums are mind-boggling. Canadian mining billionaire Frank Giustra, founder of the Canadian affiliate, has given the Clinton Foundation more than $31 million. Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk and the country of Saudi Arabia each gave between $10 million and $25 million, according to the foundation.
- A new book, "Clinton Cash," by Peter Schweizer, says the timing of some foreign donations coincides with favorable decisions by U.S. officials, suggesting the possibility of influence-selling. The book points, for example, to government approval of the sale of a uranium mining company Giustra invested in, including its American mines, to the Russian atomic energy agency. Giustra says he had sold his stake by then.
- Donations from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other Mideast nations that deny women equal rights have been criticized by Republican presidential candidates. Sen. Rand Paul said promoting women's rights while taking millions from countries where "rape victims are publicly lashed" is "a grand hypocrisy."
- Many of the foundation's donors are companies and organizations that also paid Bill Clinton six-figure speaking fees while his wife was secretary of state. And several are big contributors to Hillary Clinton's political campaigns.
- Clinton's husband and daughter are still on the foundation board, leaving an opening for conflicts of interest. Bill and Chelsea Clinton just wrapped up a nine-day trip to Africa to highlight their charity's good works. The former president said he would consider stepping down if his wife wins her own term in the Oval Office.
My original post isn't about the Clinton Foundation being shady. My original post has to do with the hypocrisy of a campaign meant to showcase her as a strong woman but she's too afraid of answering reporter questions about her time as Secretary of State and the conflicts with the foundation. What's she going to do cry about this one too like she did the last time she ran?
None of it has anything to do with your original thread.
If you had come out the above right from the start, you'd have a stronger point. Now, it just seems like you're back pedaling and trying to switch the subject.
.
You DO know that Hillary Clinton is running for President, don't you and that she's answered only about 8 questions from reporters since she declared?
… etc. etc.
There are 17 months left to go before the election. Hillary has more than enough time to answer everything you ask, but have no doubt that she will answer on her time, not yours.
There is every advantage right now for her in being quiet. There are none in dancing to the tune the conservatives are whistling. Mrs. Clinton has been through a lot of campaigns, and the woman learns from every past mistake she's ever made, including joining the fray far too early.
While the GOP hopefuls will burn up precious time and money beating each other up for the next 6 months, she will be out quietly organizing for this coming November and December, when the real fight starts, and she won't come roaring out of the gate. You can be sure she has already figured out when to talk and when to not.
When it comes to all the early stuff, she is married to the best communicator yet of the 21st century, who just loves to wade in. Do not forget Bill is as teflon coated as Reagan was, and he knows his wife better than anyone else. Expect to see more of him.
Sheesh! She actually has more political experience and her resume shows more qualification than most heads of state. Certainly much more political depth than any of her republican opponents.
Sheesh back at ya
Please re-read, I wrote that "most" want her in the Oval Office because. . . .
There are 17 months left to go before the election. Hillary has more than enough time to answer everything you ask, but have no doubt that she will answer on her time, not yours.
There is every advantage right now for her in being quiet. There are none in dancing to the tune the conservatives are whistling. Mrs. Clinton has been through a lot of campaigns, and the woman learns from every past mistake she's ever made, including joining the fray far too early.
While the GOP hopefuls will burn up precious time and money beating each other up for the next 6 months, she will be out quietly organizing for this coming November and December, when the real fight starts, and she won't come roaring out of the gate. You can be sure she has already figured out when to talk and when to not.
When it comes to all the early stuff, she is married to the best communicator yet of the 21st century, who just loves to wade in. Do not forget Bill is as teflon coated as Reagan was, and he knows his wife better than anyone else. Expect to see more of him.
I can't disagree with the bolded. Why would someone not use someone of Bill's talent? I just question how many of us want to hear it? Sure, the democratic base loves Bill, and can't get enough, but I don't think he or she have much crossover appeal. And many of us feel a mild revulsion to be seeing a twice elected former president on the campaign trail for his own benefit. It seems gluttonous.
I can't disagree with the bolded. Why would someone not use someone of Bill's talent? I just question how many of us want to hear it? Sure, the democratic base loves Bill, and can't get enough, but I don't think he or she have much crossover appeal. And many of us feel a mild revulsion to be seeing a twice elected former president on the campaign trail for his own benefit. It seems gluttonous.
I can't disagree with your thoughts either. I guess we will all see what is coming up.
Since she is by far the best known candidate in the entire field, there are no advantages at all for her to become prominent just yet, and there's every advantage for her to just stay quiet and let the Republican candidates form another circular firing squad and let 'em go at it. She is not about to hand them any ammunition.
Hillary makes mistakes, but the important thing to remember is that she learns from her mistakes and doesn't repeat them. She became too prominent too early and for too long in 2008, and by the time it really counted, there was some Hillary fatigue than had begun. It's hard to say just how much that hurt her, but for sure, she won't do the same thing again.
None of it has anything to do with your original thread.
If you had come out the above right from the start, you'd have a stronger point. Now, it just seems like you're back pedaling and trying to switch the subject.
.
Is there a reading comprehension problem?
The title of the thread is:
How Come Hillary Clinton Lets "Her Man" Do All The Talking For Her When The Questions Are Tough?
The first paragraph is:
There's something wrong when a so-called feminist campaigning on a so-called "War on Women" mantra won't answer any tough reporter questions and instead sends her man to do it for her. Seriously, she's telling us she's tough enough to handle the White House and be there when the phone rings at 3:00A but she sends her man out to take care of a few tough reporter questions.
The post you quoted is a response to another poster.
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.
