DescentBB

.....if what I just sat through on CNN is any indication. The piece was about how Clinton's 'potential GOP rivals' were aiming their attacks at her. Well, I've watched Hillary discuss everything from minimum wage, to healthcare and employment fairness for women in recent weeks. On this piece, I heard the following:

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush rant about Benghazi
Rand Paul go on about Bill Clinton.
That's it.

None of these dolts mentioned ANY issue that matters for American workers, the economy, the world's issues impacting the US. Nothing. So, if we have two more years of Hillary confronting real issues that matter to real Americans, while her 'rivals' beat the single stupid issue most people have put in the past(let's face it, 3 people died on her watch, 5000 died on Bush's watch from 9/11 and Katrina alone), and harp on her husband(who still polls higher with the public than any elected official in DC), this race may as well be over. Just give her a measuring tape and let her plan the decor of the White House now.

callmeslick wrote:.....if what I just sat through on CNN is any indication. The piece was about how Clinton's 'potential GOP rivals' were aiming their attacks at her. Well, I've watched Hillary discuss everything from minimum wage, to healthcare and employment fairness for women in recent weeks. On this piece, I heard the following:

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush rant about Benghazi
Rand Paul go on about Bill Clinton.
That's it.

None of these dolts mentioned ANY issue that matters for American workers, the economy, the world's issues impacting the US. Nothing. So, if we have two more years of Hillary confronting real issues that matter to real Americans, while her 'rivals' beat the single stupid issue most people have put in the past(let's face it, 3 people died on her watch, 5000 died on Bush's watch from 9/11 and Katrina alone), and harp on her husband(who still polls higher with the public than any elected official in DC), this race may as well be over. Just give her a measuring tape and let her plan the decor of the White House now.

There is talk of Michelle Obama running. If she does then Hillary might as well get the rocking chair out.

won't happen.....from what few close hand encounters I've had with her, she doesn't seem all that comfortable with political life.

Fer the love of God, is she all the Dems can offer us?

I would seem the Dems have a very weak stable.

woodchip wrote:I would seem the Dems have a very weak stable.

I think both sides have shown they own the process of electing candidates so they don't need a strong candidate so much as a weak (read:easily manipulated) constituency.

As to slicks pointing out the right sides rhetoric.
In the early stages it's all about drawing the support to you. If they are talking Benghazi etc then that is what their polling tells them the base is pissed off about.

Start at the fringe and as the election draws near you run to the middle.
Same ★■◆● different day full of weak voters.

Well Will, if a liberal-leaning third party candidate comes along that isn't a wussy nutbag and has the smarts to stand up to the status quo in Washington, I'd vote for them before I would Mrs. Clinton.

Spidey's free sage advice......




Don't hold your breath.

tunnelcat wrote:Well Will, if a liberal-leaning third party candidate comes along that isn't a wussy nutbag and has the smarts to stand up to the status quo in Washington, I'd vote for them before I would Mrs. Clinton.

Didn't Obama say he was going to take on Washington AND be the most transparent President evah? It is easy to say you are going to do so and so but if there is no press to fully vet your credentials...how will you ever know who the best is?

tunnelcat wrote:Well Will, if a liberal-leaning third party candidate comes along that isn't a wussy nutbag and has the smarts to stand up to the status quo in Washington, I'd vote for them before I would Mrs. Clinton.

Start by deciding to NOT give either of the big parties your vote. You can accomplish that much of a difference right away.

Withhold your support and tell them why. It bothers them.
And after all, they deserve to be bothered!

Most of them deserve to bothered in a seriously disturbing way but I don't advocate or engage in that sort of thing. But I certainly wont give them any more encouragement to continue doing what they do.

It may very well be that Hillary won't run due to health issues. Falling down problems, blood clots from the concussion she suffered (and this is not the first blood clot she has suffered). Her apologists will say she fell because she was tired from all the work she was doing as secretary of state. Well, not to burst the condoms you hand out to elementary students but the job of being president is much harder...much much harder. What do her doctors say?:

"“Hillary’s doctors have painted a grim picture of her health,” said a close source. “Behind the scenes, they’re telling her, ‘Running for president will kill you.’"

Yet she so lusts to be Americas first female President that she won't care. Seems to me this is reason enough not to vote for her. After all, who wants a suicidal person in the white house. If she does run she better hope she doesn't have another fainting spell in public.

where'd you get that quote, Woody.......the National Enquirer?

You probably laughed when NQ said Michael Jackson had 6 months to live.

Lets add a few more quotes:

"But, rest assured that if Clinton does eventually decide to run, her hospitalization for this clot near her brain will be a major topic of discussion. And she -- and her political team -- will have to find a way to come up with satisfactory answers."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... ns-health/

"However, if she has any health incidents while campaigning, then the entire race could be blown wide open. If this happens early enough, Hillary may be eclipsed by a Democrat who looks a lot better than Hillary giving speeches from a hospital bed."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-wei ... 34040.html

"The thick glasses Hillary Clinton has been wearing in public since returning from a concussion and blood clot last month are the result of lingering effects of her health problems, a Clinton aide confirms. "
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary- ... d=18313426

So you see, there are concerns about Hillary's health from more sources than I could link here. These concerns will carry into her primary run and into the the general election run. Mask it all you want but Hillary IS perceived as having health issues.

she's running. Take it to the bank, Woody.

Not saying she won't...just saying she will have to be in the picture of health. Also if she wins she'll be older than Reagan was when he was sworn in and we know what a big deal the left made of Reagan's age.

I'm aware she would be 69 years old, same as Reagan. Two factors, both of which I'm sure you know and just wish to avoid dealing with: First and foremost: age, in the past 33 years, has become FAR less of a factor, at least an age of less than 70. Secondly, I disagree that she, or anyone, has to be the picture of health. McCain had more medical problems than one could shake a stick at, yet was considered viable. These days, I think, the issue is around mental accuity, and I've heard no issues around that for Hillary.

At this point all this is speculation. If Hillary has one fainting spell or looks even mildly worn out during her election bid, game over. She'll be under a lot more pressure if there are any competent Dems contending her bid. Of course, if I was a Dem, I'd be a bit leery of someone who thinks they are due the top slot for no other reason than their name.

woodchip wrote:At this point all this is speculation. If Hillary has one fainting spell or looks even mildly worn out during her election bid, game over. She'll be under a lot more pressure if there are any competent Dems contending her bid. Of course, if I was a Dem, I'd be a bit leery of someone who thinks they are due the top slot for no other reason than their name.

she paid for that attitude in 2008. I'd be interested to see the field without her. Despite some loony claim above, the Dems have at least 10 people that quickly come to my mind who could easily mop the floor with any name remotely mentioned for the GOP. By 2017, I am quite confident you will see far more Democrat governors nationwide, a Senate close to filibuster-proof and a Dem House, so, should Hillary choose not to run, the opportunity would be fabulous for any Dem wishing to make a name for him or herself as President.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Well Will, if a liberal-leaning third party candidate comes along that isn't a wussy nutbag and has the smarts to stand up to the status quo in Washington, I'd vote for them before I would Mrs. Clinton.

Didn't Obama say he was going to take on Washington AND be the most transparent President evah? It is easy to say you are going to do so and so but if there is no press to fully vet your credentials...how will you ever know who the best is?

Yeah, that's why I originally voted for him, but that's not what we eventually ended up with, was it? That's also why I won't hold my breath even if some young rebel comes along promising change after he or she is elected, again. Washington infects everyone who ends up there with the same political twin diseases, greed and power. The place needs a good bleaching, and electing Hillary is just putting in more of the systemic rot that infects the place already.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:At this point all this is speculation. If Hillary has one fainting spell or looks even mildly worn out during her election bid, game over. She'll be under a lot more pressure if there are any competent Dems contending her bid. Of course, if I was a Dem, I'd be a bit leery of someone who thinks they are due the top slot for no other reason than their name.

she paid for that attitude in 2008. I'd be interested to see the field without her. Despite some loony claim above, the Dems have at least 10 people that quickly come to my mind who could easily mop the floor with any name remotely mentioned for the GOP. By 2017, I am quite confident you will see far more Democrat governors nationwide, a Senate close to filibuster-proof and a Dem House, so, should Hillary choose not to run, the opportunity would be fabulous for any Dem wishing to make a name for him or herself as President.

Dream on kiddo. The Dems are sweating bullets that 2014 will be another blood bath like 2010.

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Well Will, if a liberal-leaning third party candidate comes along that isn't a wussy nutbag and has the smarts to stand up to the status quo in Washington, I'd vote for them before I would Mrs. Clinton.

Didn't Obama say he was going to take on Washington AND be the most transparent President evah? It is easy to say you are going to do so and so but if there is no press to fully vet your credentials...how will you ever know who the best is?

Yeah, that's why I originally voted for him, but that's not what we eventually ended up with, was it? That's also why I won't hold my breath even if some young rebel comes along promising change after he or she is elected, again. Washington infects everyone who ends up there with the same political twin diseases, greed and power. The place needs a good bleaching, and electing Hillary is just putting in more of the systemic rot that infects the place already.

Good succinct reply. One has to wonder how many people also see Hillary as part of the problem and not a alleviation.

woodchip wrote: Dream on kiddo. The Dems are sweating bullets that 2014 will be another blood bath like 2010.

no, they aren't. In some circles, they are very confident. When are you going to stop guessing what the opposition is thinking?
While the retirements and incumbancies this year in the Senate favor the GOP, current polling suggests no real pickup for them(McConnell is losing in KY, for example). Governors races seem solidly poised to go in favor of the Dems. The House isn't likely to go Dem, but the GOP shows no sign of much of a pickup, if any.