Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 21, 2014, 05:18:43 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
81804 Posts in 2244 Topics by 1047 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] Print
Author Topic: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history  (Read 26127 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5861


« Reply #300 on: August 19, 2014, 11:06:20 AM »

As I have been hammering for several years now, the Reps are utterly divided on foreign affairs and much of the core attitude that used to underlie Rep political strength on foreign affairs is gone.  With good reason the American people do not trust the competence of either party to lead this nation in war.  Which is a real big fg problem because it sure looks like a big war is coming!

Looked at through a political lens, Hillary's strategy is very interesting, potentially quite dangerous for us. 

Riddle me this:  How will the Reps respond to it?  More hawkish?  More Dovish?  How will each of the potential Rep nominees respond to it?  The American voter?  Given the American voter's well-earned distrust and looming war, is he/she likely to go for untested neophytes like Cruz or Paul? or Rubio? or?

(Oh and by the way, how does it square with what each of us thinks is best for American and the world?  This probably would be better answered in the Foreign Policy thread where I also posted it.)

Tangent:  I wonder why no one seems to note that Hillary's recent distancing from Baraq by pointing out that she, Petraeus, and Sec Def Paneta also supported arming the FSA in the early days of Syria, is also exactly what Sen. John McCain and Lindsay Graham advocated , , ,

She chose to serve BHO and carry out his vacuous foreign policy.  Now, assuming she's running, she needs to both distance herself from him - on foreign policy - while still getting 100% support from him and his staff, loyalists and band of campaign outlaws.  So she gave an interview ripping him, then immediately called him to "clarify".  Got ripped back badly by Axelrod, and still failed to distance herself.  (And WE are the ones screwed?)

Republicans will have the same heart wrenching debate over foreign policy that Americans are having with themselves.  Marco Rubio is hawkish. Rand Paul is dovish.  Mike Pence is busy exercising his executive experience.  This will play out.  The hawks need to demonstrate they aren't warmongers and the doves need to convince people they aren't pushovers.  The key will be to keep the debates positive and substantive.  In the end, we need to strengthen America from within and they all agree on that.

It is the Dems who can't run on abstractions.  They had their chance and they blew it.

Forgotten about Hillary Clinton's empty foreign policy experience is that her victorious rival named a special envoy to all the difficult areas, 24 in all, leaving her free to take unlimited trips to nowhere.
http://www.usip.org/publications/us-special-envoys-flexible-tool
Obama administrationís 24 special envoys represent an unprecedented expansion of this mechanism
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5861


« Reply #301 on: August 19, 2014, 11:24:02 AM »

While it appears to all observers (including myself) that I am losing my bet that she won't run, won't win the nomination if she does run and won't win the Presidency if she does run, today a couple of articles today seem to show the tides may be turning:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/08/19/hillary-clinton-summer-slide/2pc6mTziecszWDGeZ34jUL/story.html
Hillary Clinton's SUmmer Slide, Hillary is inevitable no longer
By Tom Keane,  Boston Globe Columnist   August 19, 2014
Clintonís numbers have dropped by 10 or more points
(Not much new here except that someone besides us is saying it.)


Hillary Clinton Not Campaigning Much for her Party in 2014
By Michael Barone - August 19, 2014
http://washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-not-campaigning-much-for-her-party-in-2014-unlike-richard-nixon-in-1966/article/2552070

Just about everyone noticed Hillary Clinton's scathing comments on President Obama's foreign policy in her interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg.  But almost no one has noticed where Clinton hasn't been seen. That's on the campaign trail or at fundraisers for Democrats running for the Senate.
-----------------------------------

Why isn't she out campaigning for Democrats?
a)  This is going to be a lousy year for Dems.
b)  The candidates don't want her there.
c)  She isn't very good at campaigning.
d)  She doesn't like doing it.
e)  She doesn't want to face the difficult questions that come with being out there:

 Barone:  "That might force her to weigh in on Obamacare, illegal border crossings and fracking."

In other words, maybe she isn't running after all.   )








Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11930


« Reply #302 on: August 19, 2014, 11:31:31 AM »

She is making serious money from her speaking events. Whoops! I mean the Clinton Foundation is making serious money from her speaking events.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30861


« Reply #303 on: August 20, 2014, 09:37:37 AM »

She does not need to be doing the rubber chicken circuit.  The nomination is hers for the asking.  The Dems have absolutely NO ONE to run if she does not.  Biden?  cheesy cheesy cheesy  Warren is not stupid but is not presidential in the slightest.  The outcry for her to run should she hesitate is such a sure thing that it would not surprise me that should would do a bit of a Hamlet should-I-shouln't-I routine to elicit it.

To top it off, it is not like the Rep offerings are looking all that daunting politically.

You think she'd be scared of Cruz?

As for Rand Paul, I remind everyone of the recent and current discussion of her Atlantic interview on the Foreign Affairs thread.   Anyone here bet on Rand Paul to win that exchange?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5861


« Reply #304 on: August 20, 2014, 10:43:49 AM »

I believe the point of stumping for others is to create loyalties and political indetedness .  I can think of only one scenario where she won't ever need that.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30861


« Reply #305 on: August 20, 2014, 01:13:59 PM »

With no opposition, she has need for neither.

My dad, who was a conservative Democrat businessman (such things did used to exist) was quite unhappy with McGovern in 1972 and wound up being Co-Chairman of Democrats for Nixon for the state of Pennsylvania. (He was on the City Committee for the Dem Party for Philadelphia and active in local politics).  In that context he got to meet with President Nixon (I have a photo of the two shaking hands at some function) and John Connally (former Gov of and Senator for TX, Sec of Treasury under Nixon and perhaps his campaign manager).  My dad said he was shocked at how little they cared about the other Rep candidates for other positions.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5861


« Reply #306 on: Today at 12:11:59 AM »

 I love the personal story. It's hard to say what we can learn from Nixon. He was both a fool and a political genius. He won 49 states that year.

Hill doesn't just need loyalty, she is obsessed, with it. Something is amiss here IMHO.

What greater loss did O have than losing the House? And now the Senate.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5861


« Reply #307 on: Today at 07:30:56 AM »

POTH tries to explain the unexplainable:

 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/us/politics/in-midterm-elections-a-miss-for-obama-could-be-a-hit-for-clinton.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0&referrer=

But if her election is already a certainty, why lose the Senate.  Those are 6 year terms!
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!